RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (7) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   
  Topic: The Gang of Four at the Gateway of Life, Proof for ID (I didn't say God!)< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
cewagner



Posts: 41
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 11 2008,18:35   

How can any intelligent person read this and still believe that evolution is the result of random processes and does not require intelligent input?

The Gang of Four at the Gateway of Life

by Nicholas Wade

"How does an egg cell divide and direct its progeny to turn into each of the many types of cell needed by the adult? Researchers led by Richard A. Young of the Whitehead Institute in Cambridge have been chipping away at this central question in biology. This graphic, from an article by Alexander Marson, Stuart S. Levine and others in the Aug. 7 issue of the journal Cell, presents the Young lab’s latest version of the genetic circuitry that controls embryonic cells.
The principal players in a cell’s governance are proteins called transcription factors, which control the activity of genes. The transcription factors bind to short stretches of DNA called promoters and set in motion the process of translating the gene’s information into protein. The promoters sit just upstream on the DNA strand of the gene they control. One transcription factor can control many genes — all that have the kind of promoter it binds to.

Four transcription factors control the embryonic cell. They are Oct4, Sox2, Nanog and Tcf3 (shown as blue circles on left). This gang of four binds to the promoters (red rectangles next to the circles) of their own genes, keep the genes constantly active, and thus perpetuate their own rule.

The four factors also bind to promoters (red rectangles to right) that control lower-level transcription factors and to promoters (purple hexagons) for another kind of control factors called micro-RNAs. The lower-level transcription factors each control major cell functions (black type at right).     (Access article to see graphic)

Embryonic cells must do two things: divide like crazy, and then direct groups of cells to morph into different cell types. The promoters in the top half of the central column control transcription factors (orange circles) that govern all functions that the cell must invoke to divide and multiply.

The promoters in the lower half govern cell fate; they tell each cell which of the major tissue types it is destined to become. But as long as the cell remains in the embryonic state, the action of all these promoters is held in arrest by a protein called a polycomb (green circle). Only when polycomb’s hold is lifted can the embryonic cells differentiate.
One of the gang of four, Tcf3, is influenced by signals from the cell’s environment. It may be a change in Tcf3 that upsets the gang of four’s rule and sends the mass of embryonic cells cascading down the cell lineages that lead to adulthood."

http://www.nytimes.com/2008....=slogin

   
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 11 2008,18:41   

Charlie, your writing's gotten better. You're no longer using 3-4 adjectives per noun.

Your biology, however, is still no good.

   
Venus Mousetrap



Posts: 201
Joined: Aug. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 11 2008,19:10   

Quote (cewagner @ Aug. 11 2008,18:35)
How can any intelligent person read this and still believe that evolution is the result of random processes and does not require intelligent input?

because some of us don't just begin worshipping invisible people the moment we can't explain stuff. We do science instead.

Also, some of us actually understand evolution, and know what to expect, which is why this doesn't surprise me. Evolution is EXPECTED to be messy. Unless there's a need for biology to tidy itself up, it won't happen (that would require intelligence, you see).

  
Wolfhound



Posts: 468
Joined: June 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 11 2008,20:24   

How can an intelligent person think that a magic man in the sky poofed everything into existence?

Oh, right, an intelligent person can't...

--------------
I've found my personality to be an effective form of birth control.

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 11 2008,20:56   

uber-reductionism is boring no matter who is doing it.

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
Henry J



Posts: 5786
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 11 2008,21:46   

Quote
How can any intelligent person read this and still believe that evolution is the result of random processes and does not require intelligent input?


Well, let's see.

In writeups about evolution, I've seen
1) descriptions of evidence, with explanations of its relevance.
2) explanations why the recurring patterns in that evidence is a consequence of the theory.
3) descriptions of how and where contradictory evidence could easily have been found already if the theory were wrong.

In the arguments against it, I've seen
1) Here's some questions that evolutionists can't answer.
2) I don't like that conclusion, so the argument is wrong.
3) Darwinists haven't answered this question.
4) if the theory were true everyone would be evil.
5) Buy my book.
6) Won't someone think of the children?
7) There's evidence for an alternative, you just have to believe or you won't see it.
8) Were you there?
9) Oh, and btw, they haven't answered this question...
10) Second law of thermo-g-dammics, or variations selected therefrom.

Henry

  
Nomad



Posts: 311
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 12 2008,00:55   

A primitive human who saw an airplane for the first time might believe that it had to utilize magic to fly because he doesn't know the first thing about Bernoulli's principle.  But that doesn't mean magic is the explanation.

If you explain Bernoulli's principle, in detail, and demonstrate it using a number of simple experiments that show the effect in operation, then go into exhaustive detail on the functioning of an internal combustion engine, and then he continues to demand that it must be magic that makes planes fly, then he's clinging to his ignorance despite having the opportunity to know better.

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 12 2008,07:28   

I think that might be attributed to "common sense" in which the person looks at all those thousands of pounds of metal on the ground and declares that the plane can't possibly fly in the face of Bernoulli's principle.  It's denial of a sort between what a person knows versus how they perceive the world.  A similar situation occurred early in the days of quantum theory in which many people, some very smart people, said the world can't possibly work that way!  In both these examples no higher power is required to succumb to the denial.  God is just an excuse or a crutch as it may very well be in the ID case.  This is not a justification just a layman's attempt at over-analysis, parlor room psychology.

  
cewagner



Posts: 41
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 12 2008,10:38   

I am not arguing for a supernatural explanation.

I am arguing that random, accidental or non-directed processes cannot do the job.

I do not deny that there may be some yet to be discovered "first principle" involved in the process that provides a perfectly natural explanation.

   
midwifetoad



Posts: 4003
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 12 2008,10:52   

Quote (cewagner @ Aug. 12 2008,10:38)
I am not arguing for a supernatural explanation.

I am arguing that random, accidental or non-directed processes cannot do the job.

I do not deny that there may be some yet to be discovered "first principle" involved in the process that provides a perfectly natural explanation.

What part of selection is not direction?

The fact that you can't predict the direction is no more mysterious than the inability to predict the weather a month in advance.

--------------
Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 12 2008,10:53   

Quote (cewagner @ Aug. 12 2008,10:38)
I am not arguing for a supernatural explanation.

I am arguing that random, accidental or non-directed processes cannot do the job.

I do not deny that there may be some yet to be discovered "first principle" involved in the process that provides a perfectly natural explanation.

Argue all you like. Provide some actual evidence and you might interest people. Pointing and saying "that level of complexity could not arise without help" is really more suited to UncommonDescent.com. It's what they do in lieu of actual science.

 
Quote

I do not deny that there may be some yet to be discovered "first principle" involved in the process that provides a perfectly natural explanation.


If such is discovered will you stop believing in whatever god it is you believe in?

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
cewagner



Posts: 41
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 12 2008,13:18   

Quote
What part of selection is not direction?


None of it.

Selection is no different from ordering a truckload of stones and culling out all the stones that have masses greater than 500 grams. It will never build a house.

   
cewagner



Posts: 41
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 12 2008,13:23   

Quote
None of it.


My bad....double negative!

I should have said "All of it."

Is there no way to delete posts?

   
Nerull



Posts: 317
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 12 2008,13:24   

Quote (cewagner @ Aug. 12 2008,14:18)
Quote
What part of selection is not direction?


None of it.

Selection is no different from ordering a truckload of stones and culling out all the stones that have masses greater than 500 grams. It will never build a house.

This reminds me of those netflix radio ads.

Quote

Q. If a rhombus has four sides, what is the inverse of blue?

A. Purple


--------------
To rebut creationism you pretty much have to be a biologist, chemist, geologist, philosopher, lawyer and historian all rolled into one. While to advocate creationism, you just have to be an idiot. -- tommorris

   
dnmlthr



Posts: 565
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 12 2008,13:27   

Quote (cewagner @ Aug. 12 2008,19:18)
Quote
What part of selection is not direction?


None of it.

Selection is no different from ordering a truckload of stones and culling out all the stones that have masses greater than 500 grams. It will never build a house.

That analogy is flawed. For one, it assumes that selection has a goal. Second, a single stone (which is what you are selecting in this analogy) is not the same as a house.

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

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 12 2008,13:59   

Quote (cewagner @ Aug. 12 2008,10:38)
I am not arguing for a supernatural explanation.

I am arguing that random, accidental or non-directed processes cannot do the job.

I do not deny that there may be some yet to be discovered "first principle" involved in the process that provides a perfectly natural explanation.

Now that I have to agree with.

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 12 2008,14:08   

Quote (cewagner @ Aug. 12 2008,13:18)
     
Quote
What part of selection is not direction?


None of it.

Selection is no different from ordering a truckload of stones and culling out all the stones that have masses greater than 500 grams. It will never build a house.

I take it that is your entire critique of "selection"?




Oddly I had a quick look inside a book on Amazon: Selection: The Mechanism of Evolution and amazingly it contained more information then "Selection is no different from ordering a truckload of stones and culling out all the stones that have masses greater than 500 grams. It will never build a house."

You would have thought they would have wanted to save the paper and all that and just written what you wrote instead.

Link

Why don't you tell them they are wasting their time and that you've in fact got it all solved already?

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
Assassinator



Posts: 479
Joined: Nov. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 12 2008,14:10   

Quote (skeptic @ Aug. 12 2008,07:28)
I think that might be attributed to "common sense" in which the person looks at all those thousands of pounds of metal on the ground and declares that the plane can't possibly fly in the face of Bernoulli's principle.  It's denial of a sort between what a person knows versus how they perceive the world.  A similar situation occurred early in the days of quantum theory in which many people, some very smart people, said the world can't possibly work that way!  In both these examples no higher power is required to succumb to the denial.  God is just an excuse or a crutch as it may very well be in the ID case.  This is not a justification just a layman's attempt at over-analysis, parlor room psychology.

Wich shows that common sense fails a lot of times ;)

  
Henry J



Posts: 5786
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 12 2008,14:22   

It's not just variation + selection, it's also the feedback between them.

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 12 2008,14:29   

when was the last time you saw recombination in rock reproduction?

i'm trying to think, can't seem to remember.

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
Henry J



Posts: 5786
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 12 2008,14:34   

Quote
when was the last time you saw recombination in rock reproduction?

i'm trying to think, can't seem to remember.


It was in that episode with the Horta ...

:p

("Dammit Jim, I'm a Doctor, not a bricklayer!!111!!eleven!!")

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 12 2008,14:34   

Good gravy are we being Wagnered? And Skeptic agrees with him.

Is this the dawning of the apocalypse. All we need now is Ray Martinez, McNameless and Jabriel.

Louis

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

  
cewagner



Posts: 41
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 12 2008,15:51   

Quote
Why don't you tell them they are wasting their time and that you've in fact got it all solved already?


They are wasting their time.

There's not a shred of empirical evidence, either observational or experimental, that establishes a plausible nexus, actual or hypothetical, between the trivial effects of random mutation and natural selection and the emergence of the highly organized structures, processes and systems found in living organisms.

Just look at molecular motors.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molecular_motors#Examples

http://www.charliewagner.com

   
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 12 2008,16:02   

Quote (cewagner @ Aug. 12 2008,15:51)
Just look at molecular motors.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molecular_motors#Examples

http://www.charliewagner.com

Why don't you tell us in your own words instead?

After all, I can provide many many more links for you to "just look at" then you can.

http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?q=natural+selection

Pointing and saying "that's complex" is it is it? Or did you actually have a point regarding that wikipedia link?

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 12 2008,16:07   

Or should I call you Bishop Pontoppodan?

 
Quote
The problem is not evolution, it is darwinism.

Only a fool would deny evolution.

Only a greater fool would embrace darwinism as the mechanism.

There is not one shred of empirical evidence, either observational or experimental, that establishes a plausible or credible nexus between random mutation and natural selection and the emergence of the highly organized structures, processes and systems that exist in bacteria and other living organisms
blogs.discovermagazine.com loom /2008/06/24/ of-bacteria-and-throw-pillows/

Don't you find posting more or less the same thing under different names is not really advancing the cause? Do you think people are going to read such blog posts and be convinced? You say it is so, and it is so?

No.

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
cewagner



Posts: 41
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 12 2008,16:16   

Quote
Don't you find posting more or less the same thing under different names is not really advancing the cause? Do you think people are going to read such blog posts and be convinced? You say it is so, and it is so?


I always post with my real name, except on Pharyngula.
PZ doesn't like me so he blocks my name and IP address (with no success, I might add.)

As a parent of 4 children and a teacher for 33 years, I don't underestimate the value of repeating the same thing over and over.
You just never know who is paying attention.

   
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 12 2008,16:20   

Quote (cewagner @ Aug. 12 2008,16:16)
I always post with my real name, except on Pharyngula.

The link above was not to Pharyngula.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com

Are you saying that was not you?
 
Quote
The problem is not evolution, it is darwinism.

Only a fool would deny evolution.

Only a greater fool would embrace darwinism as the mechanism.

There is not one shred of empirical evidence, either observational or experimental, that establishes a plausible or credible nexus between random mutation and natural selection and the emergence of the highly organized structures, processes and systems that exist in bacteria and other living organisms
 
Quote
There's not a shred of empirical evidence, either observational or experimental, that establishes a plausible nexus, actual or hypothetical, between the trivial effects of random mutation and natural selection and the emergence of the highly organized structures, processes and systems found in living organisms.


EDIT: Oh, he does go on to sign his posts Charlie Wagner at that blog. Oh well  :D

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 12 2008,16:22   

Quote
There is not one shred of empirical evidence


So, what happened then. According to you?

:p

EDIT. Charlie, as you want evidence about events involving "highly organized structures, processes and systems" could you name a few that you might be interested in specifically? One of each maybe?

Quote
No one has yet answered this challenge so I slog on….


Slog on doing what? Repeating the same over and over? Standing still....?

Carry on my good man! Carry on! We need more like you.

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
jeannot



Posts: 1201
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 12 2008,16:31   

Quote (cewagner @ Aug. 12 2008,15:51)
Quote
Why don't you tell them they are wasting their time and that you've in fact got it all solved already?


They are wasting their time.

There's not a shred of empirical evidence...

So they are wasting their time looking for empirical evidence??

What do you propose?

  
cewagner



Posts: 41
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 12 2008,16:35   

Quote
So, what happened then. According to you?


I don't have a clue...but neither do you.

Like everyone else, we just have to deal with being in the uncomfortable position of not knowing.

   
  185 replies since Aug. 11 2008,18:35 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (7) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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