[__ Science __ ] A Hill to Die On

[journeyman]

Never heard that. And I hang out with a lot of biologists.

I just typed, "human chimp dna" and these are the 1st two websites that popped up,

Humans and chimps share a surprising 98.8 percent of their DNA.

https://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/permanent/human-origins/understanding-our-past/dna-comparing-humans-and-chimps

According to The Jane Goodall Institute of Canada, chimps and humans share 99 percent of their DNA.

How Closely Related Is Human and Chimpanzee DNA?

Science found new evidence that chimpanzees may be closer relatives to humans than previously thought. We’ll dig deep into this recent discovery between humans and chimps.

knowyourdna.com

These statements are lies.

A small part of DNA codes for proteins that determine our characteristics. New genes form by gene duplication or by mutation of non-coding DNA. But then it becomes coding DNA. There's more. Some of them are regulatory in that they affect how parts of coding DNA are expressed. Some of it is truly junk. Learn here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-coding_DNA

I'm not going to learn about how some of the 98 or 99% is junk, when 40 years ago they said it was all junk.

No, it came from a Cambrian time. Later it was uplifted to form what are now the (very eroded) Arbuckle Mountains. And now we see these ancient fossils.

The Appalachians are ancient folded sea floor:
During the earliest part of the Paleozoic Era, the continent that would later become North America straddled the equator. The Appalachian region was a passive plate margin, not unlike today's Atlantic Coastal Plain Province. During this interval, the region was periodically submerged beneath shallow seas. Thick layers of sediment and carbonate rock were deposited on the shallow sea bottom when the region was submerged. When seas receded, terrestrial sedimentary deposits and erosion dominated.[4]

Geology of the Appalachians - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Now we have all of those and more. Important new fossils turn up about monthly. But we'll never find them all.

No paleontologist would tell you that. Darwin, in his book, spent an entire chapter on the spotty data from fossils. When I was just a young biologist we had little or no fossil evidence for the following predicted transitions:
Hoofed mammals to whales
Primitive amphibians to frogs
Early anapsids to turtles
Dinosaurs to birds
Reptiles to mammals
Wasps to ants
(long list)

Please post pictures of transitional fossils showing how cows originated from whales.

Barbarian:
From the Dictionary of BiologyAnimal DefinitionAn animal (plural: animals) refers to any of the eukaryotic multicellular organisms of the biological kingdom Animalia. Animals of this kingdom are generally characterized to be heterotrophic, motile, having specialized sensory organs, lacking a cell wall, and growing from a blastula during embryonic development.

That's us. Yeah, it's technical. But that's how science is.

You're saying someone decided to make a list of animals and include humans for anatomical reasons. This is nothing more than godless thinking.
[/QUOTE]

 

[Barbarian]

These statements are lies.

No. Those statements are with regard to coding DNA. The key is, no matter how you count it, DNA similarities always sort out the same lines of descent.

A small part of DNA codes for proteins that determine our characteristics. New genes form by gene duplication or by mutation of non-coding DNA. But then it becomes coding DNA. There's more. Some of them are regulatory in that they affect how parts of coding DNA are expressed. Some of it is truly junk. Learn here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-coding_DNA

I'm not going to learn about how some of the 98 or 99% is junk, when 40 years ago they said it was all junk.

Sixty years ago, I was reading papers on the functions of non-coding DNA.

Please post pictures of transitional fossils showing how cows originated from whales.

https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Ftse1.mm.bing.net%2Fth%3

Pakicetus. Note the whale-shaped skull with ear structure.

Ambulocetus

Remingtoncetus

Dorudon

Basilosaurus

You're saying someone decided to make a list of animals and include humans for anatomical reasons.

Because humans fit the definition of animal. Yes.

This is nothing more than godless thinking.

No. If it was, God would have made us something else.

 

[Barbarian]

I get you don't agree with the flagellum being irreducibly complex.

It's just a fact that it isn't. As you just learned, there are different versions of the bacterial flagellum, of varying levels of complexity. By definition it's not irreducibly complex.

Originally I pointed out scientists have yet to provide a step by step Darwinian process of getting from a skin cell to a photoreceptor cell.

As you learned, skin cells can detect light. So they are photodetectors to begin with. Just not very good ones.
A dark spot can make them more sensitive. Turns out, that adaptation exists in very primitive eukaryotes:

J Cell Sci (1991) 99 (1): 67–72.

Photoreception of Paramecium cilia: localization of photosensitivity and binding with anti-frog-rhodopsin IgG​

Paramecium bursaria is photosensitive and accumulates in a lighted area. The cells can be deciliated by a brief suspension in dilute ethanol. Both intact and deciliated cells showed depolarization in response to light stimulation by a step-increase from dark to above 0.7 mW cm−2 (550 nm). On the other hand, after a step-increase to below 0·4mWcm−1, intact cells showed hyperpolarization, while the deciliated cells showed no change in membrane potential. This difference in membrane potential response between ciliated and deciliated cells suggests that both somatic and ciliary structures are photosensitive. In our search for the photoreceptive molecules, a polyclonal antibody induced in rabbits against frog rhodopsin was found to croos-react with a 63 × 103Mτ protein of P. bursaria, by Immunoelectrophoresis. Immunocytochemical studies showed that the antibody labeling was localized on both the ciliary and the somatic membranes. These results raise the possibility that P. bursaria may contain a rhodopsin-like protein as a photoreceptor molecule.

There may even be a very simple version of rhodopsin pigment.

(Revelation that the clotting cascade is not irreducibly complex, and exists in various levels of complexity.)

That article has nothing to do with addressing irreducibly complexity

By definition, a feature that exists in various levels of complexity cannot be irreducibly complex.

So that paper doesn't answer how the blood clotting cascade is regulated.

Sorry, if your car comes in last, you don't get points if it comes in backwards with the lights on. Bottom line? The blood clotting cascade exists in various levels of complexity and cannot by definition, be irreducibly complex.

 

[Barbarian]

Orca skeleton:

Notice on these transitional forms, how the rear appendages get smaller and smaller, and the nostrils move farther and farther back on the head, while the legs become less and less suitable for walking and more fit for swimming.

 

[Uncle J]

Pointing out the difference between concepts is all I'm doing. Conflating The Wedge strategy, creationism, and ID theory is a losing proposition. As is a nominal fallacy.

Well you can say that all you like, but the evidence is what matters. And it was the evidence that led a federal court and every scientific organization that weighed in on the matter to conclude that ID is a form of creationism that was developed as a social/legal strategy to get creationism into schools.

 

[Uncle J]

Behe was talking about the plausibility of an argument of design, not ID theory itself.

LOL...what? "ID theory itself" is an argument of design! Geez.

In context, Behe is talking about the inferences that are drawn from ID theory. Whether those inference's are plausible. Here's what Behe says about the plausibility of ID theory itself:

"The conclusion of intelligent design in biochemistry rests exclusively on empirical evidence – the structures and functions of the biochemical systems – plus principles of logic. No particular tenet of faith is involved." -Behe answers his critics

In Behe's book, testimony at the Dover trial, and in the very document being quoted his position is clear. That the plausibility of ID theory rests on the empirical evidence. The quote about the plausibility of the design inference doesn't erase the majority of what Behe says. Especially considering the context shows Behe is talking about inference of design, not the scientific evidence of design.

Right, that's the charade, which was a crucial component of the legal strategy.

The federal courts had ruled against teaching creationism in public school science classes. So the creationists stripped their arguments and talking points of all the overt religious references (e.g., Noah's flood, Adam and Eve, God, the Bible) and tried to recast their beliefs as "intelligent design" and claim it was purely scientific.

But they had two main problems. First, they'd left a massive paper trail that exposed their scam. Second, their own believers couldn't keep up the charade and oftentimes when they were speaking or writing to sympathetic Christian audiences, they'd give up the game and fall right back into old habits (e.g., referring to themselves as creationists, referring to their arguments as creationist arguments, citing the Bible, etc.).

Finally, the main thing to keep in mind here is that all this is quite old. Kitzmiller v Dover was decided in 2005, 18 years ago. That killed their legal strategy and since it never was a science to begin with, it rendered ID creationism effectively dead.

But if you want to hitch your wagon to this long dead horse, go ahead I guess.

 

[Uncle J]

This was a response to "the whole point of ID is to show that nature and people are created by God."
While that implication is certainly part of it, this quote from Behe sums up the whole point of ID theory:
"I don t want the best scientific explanation for the origins of life; I want the correct explanation." -Behe

Which is yet another indication that ID creationism isn't science.

I'm pointing out that distorting a scientific theory with quotes from the Wedge Strategy isn't proper criticism. But I agree, repeatedly pointing this out has no effect.

Nobody is ignoring what the Wedge Strategy says, just that it somehow defines ID theory. For the record, I happen to agree with most of it, especially this quote:

I realize ID creationists really wish the Wedge Strategy didn't exist; it's extremely damning to the argument that ID creationism is science. But it's there and it lays out in very direct and clear terms why ID creationism was developed, what it is, etc. It isn't going away.

But since you seem to be pretty dedicated to the cause, can you tell me....

1) What, if any, new arguments have ID creationists made in the last 10 years or so?

2) What, if any, contributions to our scientific understanding of the world has ID creationism made?

 

[Uncle J]

It's just a fact that it isn't. As you just learned, there are different versions of the bacterial flagellum, of varying levels of complexity. By definition it's not irreducibly complex.

As you learned, skin cells can detect light. So they are photodetectors to begin with. Just not very good ones.
A dark spot can make them more sensitive. Turns out, that adaptation exists in very primitive eukaryotes:

J Cell Sci (1991) 99 (1): 67–72.

Photoreception of Paramecium cilia: localization of photosensitivity and binding with anti-frog-rhodopsin IgG​

Paramecium bursaria is photosensitive and accumulates in a lighted area. The cells can be deciliated by a brief suspension in dilute ethanol. Both intact and deciliated cells showed depolarization in response to light stimulation by a step-increase from dark to above 0.7 mW cm−2 (550 nm). On the other hand, after a step-increase to below 0·4mWcm−1, intact cells showed hyperpolarization, while the deciliated cells showed no change in membrane potential. This difference in membrane potential response between ciliated and deciliated cells suggests that both somatic and ciliary structures are photosensitive. In our search for the photoreceptive molecules, a polyclonal antibody induced in rabbits against frog rhodopsin was found to croos-react with a 63 × 103Mτ protein of P. bursaria, by Immunoelectrophoresis. Immunocytochemical studies showed that the antibody labeling was localized on both the ciliary and the somatic membranes. These results raise the possibility that P. bursaria may contain a rhodopsin-like protein as a photoreceptor molecule.

There may even be a very simple version of rhodopsin pigment.

(Revelation that the clotting cascade is not irreducibly complex, and exists in various levels of complexity.)

By definition, a feature that exists in various levels of complexity cannot be irreducibly complex.


Sorry, if your car comes in last, you don't get points if it comes in backwards with the lights on. Bottom line? The blood clotting cascade exists in various levels of complexity and cannot by definition, be irreducibly complex.

Or more succinctly put for Vaccine , you can't say "this flagellum is IC because it needs all its parts to function" when the T3SS functions quite well with only some of the flagellum's parts (same for the vertebrate blood clotting cascade).

That's why Behe had to change is definition for IC to where it's now all about "unselected steps" rather than "needs all its parts to function".

I pointed that out to Vaccine a while ago, but I guess it was forgotten.

 

[Barbarian]

Please post pictures of transitional fossils showing how cows originated from whales.

I didn't notice your error here. Nothing in evidence says cows evolved from whales or whales evolved from cows. So devious creationist websites have peddled that story,but it's false. Neither fossil evidence (see above) nor genetic data show anything like that:

DNA analyses of the artiodactyls.

 

[Barbarian]

1) What, if any, new arguments have ID creationists made in the last 10 years or so?

+-2) What, if any, contributions to our scientific understanding of the world has ID creationism made?

ID doesn't really make an predictions so...

That's why Behe had to change is definition for IC to where it's now all about "unselected steps" rather than "needs all its parts to function".

The problem is, "unselected steps" remains a philosophical belief, not a demonstrated phenomenon. Behe has retreated a little farther into religion to keep his claims from being refuted so easily.

 

[Uncle J]

ID doesn't really make an predictions so...

Yup, which is why it'll be interesting to see the reply.

The problem is, "unselected steps" remains a philosophical belief, not a demonstrated phenomenon. Behe has retreated a little farther into religion to keep his claims from being refuted so easily.

Rather convenient, eh?

 

[Barbarian]

What is it called it when a quote out of context is used to distort someone's position?

The funny thing is, Behe had it wrong. Michael Denton is a fellow of the Discovery Institute, and he points out (in Nature's Destiny) the more evidence there might be for design, the less evidence there would be for special creationism. The "unselected steps" would be such special creationism, involving some kind of designer intervening with nature to get around a difficulty said designer was not able to cover by the initial creation.

 

[Uncle J]

The funny thing is, Behe had it wrong. Michael Denton is a fellow of the Discovery Institute, and he points out (in Nature's Destiny) the more evidence there might be for design, the less evidence there would be for special creationism. The "unselected steps" would be such special creationism, involving some kind of designer intervening with nature to get around a difficulty said designer was not able to cover by the initial creation.

That's interesting. So it's basically.....

The reason the designer has to keep intervening is because the designer didn't get things right at the beginning.

 

[Barbarian]

That's interesting. So it's basically.....

The reason the designer has to keep intervening is because the designer didn't get things right at the beginning.

Not all IDers think the "designer" is less than perfect. Michael Denton thinks nature was designed so well that the designer doesn't need to tinker around with it to get it to work.

 

[journeyman]

No. Those statements are with regard to coding DNA. The key is, no matter how you count it, DNA similarities always sort out the same lines of descent.

Apparently not, since people and animals are very dissimilar.

A small part of DNA codes for proteins that determine our characteristics.

It sounds like biologists found a small similarity in genetic make up between humans and chimps and jumped off the cliff with it.

New genes form by gene duplication or by mutation of non-coding DNA. But then it becomes coding DNA. There's more. Some of them are regulatory in that they affect how parts of coding DNA are expressed. Some of it is truly junk. Learn here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-coding_DNA

What is the problem with understanding that we're different because we were originally created that way?

Sixty years ago, I was reading papers on the functions of non-coding DNA.

It seems as though scientists reluctant to acknowledge how different human dna is to any animal.

https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Ftse1.mm.bing.net%2Fth%3

Pakicetus. Note the whale-shaped skull with ear structure.

Ambulocetus

Remingtoncetus

Dorudon

Basilosaurus

Believing that sea creatures became land animals or vise versa instead of remaining what God created them as is insane to me.

Because humans fit the definition of animal. Yes.

According to man.

No. If it was, God would have made us something else.

No. He would have made in his image to begin with.

 

[Barbarian]

No. Those statements are with regard to coding DNA. The key is, no matter how you count it, DNA similarities always sort out the same lines of descent.

Apparently not

Always. No exceptions. Humans and chimpanzees are closer genetically than either is to any other ape.

It sounds like biologists found a small similarity in genetic make up between humans and chimps and jumped off the cliff with it.

About 99% of coding DNA match up with each species. Pretty good match.

New genes form by gene duplication or by mutation of non-coding DNA. But then it becomes coding DNA. There's more. Some of them are regulatory in that they affect how parts of coding DNA are expressed. Some of it is truly junk. Learn here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-coding_DNA

What is the problem with understanding that we're different because we were originally created that way?

We were. The issue is that creationists don't approve of the way He did it.

I'm not going to learn about how some of the 98 or 99% is junk, when 40 years ago they said it was all junk.

Sixty years ago, I was reading papers on the functions of non-coding DNA.

Because humans fit the definition of animal. Yes.

According to man.

Actually, you need to take it up with the Guy who made them like this. Man just observes what He did.

He would have made in his image to begin with.

He did. Creationists are just a bit unclear as to how a spirit with no body would be the physical image of a man.

 

[Barbarian]

Believing that sea creatures became land animals or vise versa instead of remaining what God created them as is insane to me.

Comes down to evidence. God seems to have been a lot more effective and wise then creationists gave Him credit for being.

 

[journeyman]

DNA similarities always sort out the same lines of descent.

New genes form by.........mutation of non-coding DNA. But then it becomes coding DNA.

Seems like you're saying (from a scientific standpoint), dna always replicates itself and part of that replication involves built in mutation which is unique to the parents.

We were. The issue is that creationists don't approve of the way He did it.

The Bible is plain about it.

Sixty years ago, I was reading papers on the functions of non-coding DNA.

And ten years later they called it junk, because they didn know it apparently seperates humans and monkeys genetically.

Because humans fit the definition of animal. Yes.

Well, to quote the Elephant Man.....Elephant Man in the evolution thread. I'm sorry, but that's funny.

Actually, you need to take it up with the Guy who made them like this. Man just observes what He did.

I observe oranges coming from orange seeds and animals and people being born from creatures that are exactly like them.

He did. Creationists are just a bit unclear as to how a spirit with no body would be the physical image of a man.

By comparing sin against God to actually sinning against his very Person. And if someone doesn't know why he did that, that person isn't saved.

 

[journeyman]

Comes down to evidence. God seems to have been a lot more effective and wise then creationists gave Him credit for being.

It's a funny thing how everything God created is subject to his laws. Only he isn't.

 

[Barbarian]

Seems like you're saying (from a scientific standpoint), dna always replicates itself and part of that replication involves built in mutation which is unique to the parents.

Actually, mutations tend to persist unless they are harmful. So we can identify descendants of a given individual or population by the DNA of a specific individual.

The issue is that creationists don't approve of the way He did it.

The Bible is plain about it.

No. The Bible doesn't discuss mechanisms of such things. Creationists don't approve of that, either.

Sixty years ago, I was reading papers on the functions of non-coding DNA.

And ten years later they called it junk

Nope. In fact, since the 1960s, biologists have learned more and more about the functions of non-coding DNA, which creationists call "junk."

Because humans fit the definition of animal. Yes.

Well, to quote the Elephant Man.....

Turns out, we are all animals.

According to man.

Actually, you need to take it up with the Guy who made them like this. Man just observes what He did.

I observe oranges coming from orange seeds and animals and people being born from creatures that exactly like them.

No human is exactly like their parents. You have dozens of mutations that weren't present in either of your parents. That is what evolution is.

By comparing sin against God to actually sinning against his very Person. And if someone doesn't know why he did that, that person isn't saved.

Let's ask Jesus...
Matthew 25:34 Then shall the king say to them that shall be on his right hand: Come, ye blessed of my Father, possess you the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. 35 For I was hungry, and you gave me to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave me to drink; I was a stranger, and you took me in: 36 Naked, and you covered me: sick, and you visited me: I was in prison, and you came to me. 37 Then shall the just answer him, saying: Lord, when did we see thee hungry, and fed thee; thirsty, and gave thee drink? 38 And when did we see thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and covered thee? 39 Or when did we see thee sick or in prison, and came to thee? 40 And the king answering, shall say to them: Amen I say to you, as long as you did it to one of these my least brethren, you did it to me.

He disagrees with you.