Intelligent Design: Coming To A State Legislature Near You

shinningelectr0n wrote:

<quoted text>
I keep? I mentioned it once before. Now, in #5209,
you speak of a prop and a confession. I replied with "non sequitur". Out of the entire TheGavin gibberish, I could not find any confession. Obviously, you did. Actually, the first paragraph contains nothing but ASCII code. Is 'prop' a Straw Man? A facade? A proposition? An airplane propeller? Am I getting through to you or do you need a signer? Sorry, you don't qualify.
Try smiling for 3 minutes. They say this relaxes the frontal lobes.

Um, no, I didn't say that I saw a confession in his message. You said that his message, what, "revealed"? a lot of negative things about him. I used the word "confession" as if to say that you’re saying his post confesses negative things about him.

And "prop" in this context means the "device" he was using (was it a simile or metaphor, I forget) to try to explain it in the vernacular.

Just because you didn't follow my language sufficiently to even understand if you agreed with me or not, that doesn't mean I committed a non-sequitur.

Maybe if a few others would chime in here and tell me I'm being a bit too obtuse with my loose references, I would be motivated to tighten it up a bit. At least that might make it so you could take shots at my positions instead of my character.

Didja see the Mystery Science Theatre episode where the car in the movie is going off the cliff and one of the bots yells "NO mister Camus, NO!"

Am I being that obtuse? Worse than Dennis Miller?

PoKay1kaDuB wrote:

<quoted text>Yep, that's what I mean, "what appears random, could simply be the mechanism of God", and if it is unaccessible, then it is still a possibility, and it wouldn't hurt to try to research death or something like that for starters. Even though the only answer for me to this universe is an external higher power (possibly just our consciousness) I have to admit that I am not sure there would be any real advantage (or disadvantage) if science would admit as a whole that the universe was designed. Like I said, these are just opinions that really don't change the science.

I really don't think we're that far apart in our general perspectives. I think it's up to the individual to decide for themselves if they believe in a designer. But even if true, science as an endeavor doesn't gain from this perspective as we are still left to elucidate the natural mechanisms, be they designed or otherwise. Belief in a designer addresses spiritual questions, not mechanistic ones or in other words, what is the practical benefit to science in asserting ID? In my understanding, this would only serve to categorize certain phenomena as beyond the scope of possible investigation, e.g. there's no utility in investigating an irreducibly complex biological structure given its inception was supernatural and beyond any ability to study within the natural realm.

The personal belief or disbelief doesn't change the requirement for providing physical evidence and mechanism for assertions founded in the natural world. But again, I think we probably agree more than we disagree...

Well, I'm off to sleep too.
Cheers!

PoKay1kaDuB wrote:

<quoted text>If only all of us could admit we could be 100% wrong.

All learning requires us to wrong in our own minds, first.

I've determined that the time may be right to start my own religion. Sure, I could use the tax breaks, but I just don't see a religion out there that encompasses my belief system. Has anybody else out there started a religion? I want to avoid the "cult" moniker that might get me in trouble with the government.

Easter Bunny wrote:

<quoted text>
Okay dude, what ya sayin'?

It's a joke, spanky.

oh

PoKay1kaDuB wrote:

What do you do when your ball doesn't roll? The whatever you call it, the ball, gets jammed and I can't find anything wrong with the ball, but something internal is causing it to jam up. Do I have to get another one ...

If you do replace it, be sure to get an optical mouse (no ball) and you won't have this problem again.

Easter Bunny wrote:

Didja see the Mystery Science Theatre episode where the car in the movie is going off the cliff and one of the bots yells "NO mister Camus, NO!"
Am I being that obtuse? Worse than Dennis Miller?

I'd rather have obtuse comments then obvious ones.

Oops

PoKay1kaDuB wrote:

ID is not any more religious than abiogenesis, when you mention abiogenesis you mention ID, simple as that. That's all that is asked. ID is not telling anyone about commandments, it is just a specific way of admitting we don't have a physical explanation for the universe.

Does ID contain a Designer? Yes it does. Are you capable of doing what the Designer did? No you are not. No natural entity can.(I already asked around.) That means the Designer is a supernatural entity of some form.

That point, and that alone, makes ID a religion. Supernatural == Religion. Period.

www.spyson.co n al sana cia:)

danger bush :)) lernen engilish whit hugo chavez:) your the last :)) mister push :))
www.spysonar.com

PoKay1kaDuB wrote:

<quoted text>When you come back from your hot date maybe you can answer me the following :
You very specifically stated some very inspiring cancer research. Now I would ask you to very specifically explain to me how evolutionary theory made this possible. Don't forget, very specifically. Without prior discovery of DNA and biochemical structures and mechanisms, evolutionary theory would not be possible, not the other way around. There might be value to observable microevolution, but what direct value to practical science is the theory of evolution of the first lifeform into more complex?(which is not observable) This is the part of evolution along with abiogenesis that should either be taught along WITH ID, or not at all.

Jumping genes," or transposons or retrotransposons ,(transposons that must be
transcribed into RNA before they can "jump") are sequences of DNA that are easily and naturally copied ( copied and pasted or cut and pasted) from one location in the genome and inserted elsewhere, particularly in developing eggs and sperm. There are more than 500,000 copies in the human genome of the retrotransposon, having accumulated over the millions of years of human evolution that have spread the KEY GENETIC INNOVATIONS INVOLVED IN THE CONTROL OF GENE EXPRESSION ACROSS THE GENOME.

Transposons have been found to remodel host genomes more than previously realized, with deletions, insertions and inversions. Sometimes the remodeling was disastrous, but occasionally they might have benignly increased genetic variation or even improved survivability or adaptability. Such remodeling probably happened thousands of times during human evolution. The disruption of the gene is what has contributed to gradual and occasionally major genetic shifts that have driven evolution and explain the diversity of life on earth. More and more scientists are FINDING THAT EVOLUTION WORKED BY SIMPLY CHANGING THE INSTRUCTIONS RATHER THAN CHANGING THE PROTEIN-CODING GENES THEMSELVES.

Retrotransposons in humans have certain characteristics, but if you look deeply into the human genome sequence, you find elements common to our primate ancestors. If you keep looking, you find even older elements (ARE’s or ancient repetitive elements). TOGETHER, THESE ELEMENTS PROVIDE A MOLECULAR FOSSIL RECORD OF OUR EVOLUTIONARY HISTORY.

From Dr. Boeke at Johns Hopkins:

Quote:

Roughly 70 percent of human genes contain some bit of the natural jumping gene's DNA, and big genes have multiple scraps or even complete retrotransposons," says Boeke. "These bits quite likely reduce the amount of RNA made from these genes, and in some cases even change the gene's message and alter the gene's protein-encoding regions."

"The presence of jumping gene DNA in genes represents little experiments in the genome -- IF THE CHANGES BENEFIT OR DON'T HARM THE CELL OR THE PERSON, THEY CONTINUE TO BE PASSED ON FROM CELL TO CELL OR GENERATION TO GENERATION," ADDS BOEKE. "IF NOT, THEY WOULD GRADUALLY FADE FROM THE GENOME."

Unquote

http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/Press_releases ...

I have given you specifics, I could post volumes of info on RNA evolving into the first molecule of heredity and the role of siRNA in evolution but I will not, I am not going to post what would be tantamount to a college course in genetics, do some of your own research and learn, or take a few college courses in evolutionary biology and genetics.

So before I present any more info to you, you need to post by what mechanism ID led to diversity. The core of ID “theory” as outlined by Johnson provides no mechanism whatsoever by which the postulated supernatural interventions would give rise to complexity.

I have provide volumes of information re: mutation, how the insertions, substitutions and deletions work.

Now, provide a mechanism.

PoKay1kaDuB wrote:

<quoted text>When you come back from your hot date maybe you can answer me the following :
You very specifically stated some very inspiring cancer research. Now I would ask you to very specifically explain to me how evolutionary theory made this possible. Don't forget, very specifically. Without prior discovery of DNA and biochemical structures and mechanisms, evolutionary theory would not be possible, not the other way around. There might be value to observable microevolution, but what direct value to practical science is the theory of evolution of the first lifeform into more complex?(which is not observable) This is the part of evolution along with abiogenesis that should either be taught along WITH ID, or not at all.

Jumping genes," or transposons or retrotransposons ,(transposons that must be
transcribed into RNA before they can "jump") are sequences of DNA that are easily and naturally copied ( copied and pasted or cut and pasted) from one location in the genome and inserted elsewhere, particularly in developing eggs and sperm. There are more than 500,000 copies in the human genome of the retrotransposon, having accumulated over the millions of years of human evolution that have spread the KEY GENETIC INNOVATIONS INVOLVED IN THE CONTROL OF GENE EXPRESSION ACROSS THE GENOME.

Transposons have been found to remodel host genomes more than previously realized, with deletions, insertions and inversions. Sometimes the remodeling was disastrous, but occasionally they might have benignly increased genetic variation or even improved survivability or adaptability. Such remodeling probably happened thousands of times during human evolution. The disruption of the gene is what has contributed to gradual and occasionally major genetic shifts that have driven evolution and explain the diversity of life on earth. More and more scientists are FINDING THAT EVOLUTION WORKED BY SIMPLY CHANGING THE INSTRUCTIONS RATHER THAN CHANGING THE PROTEIN-CODING GENES THEMSELVES.

Retrotransposons in humans have certain characteristics, but if you look deeply into the human genome sequence, you find elements common to our primate ancestors. If you keep looking, you find even older elements (ARE’s or ancient repetitive elements). TOGETHER, THESE ELEMENTS PROVIDE A MOLECULAR FOSSIL RECORD OF OUR EVOLUTIONARY HISTORY.

From Dr. Boeke at Johns Hopkins:

Quote:

Roughly 70 percent of human genes contain some bit of the natural jumping gene's DNA, and big genes have multiple scraps or even complete retrotransposons," says Boeke. "These bits quite likely reduce the amount of RNA made from these genes, and in some cases even change the gene's message and alter the gene's protein-encoding regions."

"The presence of jumping gene DNA in genes represents little experiments in the genome -- IF THE CHANGES BENEFIT OR DON'T HARM THE CELL OR THE PERSON, THEY CONTINUE TO BE PASSED ON FROM CELL TO CELL OR GENERATION TO GENERATION," ADDS BOEKE. "IF NOT, THEY WOULD GRADUALLY FADE FROM THE GENOME."

Unquote

http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/Press_releases ...

I have given you specifics, I could post volumes of info on RNA evolving into the first molecule of heredity and the role of siRNA in evolution but I will not, I am not going to post what would be tantamount to a college course in genetics, do some of your own research and learn, or take a few college courses in evolutionary biology and genetics.

So before I present any more info to you, you need to post by what mechanism ID led to diversity. The core of ID “theory” as outlined by Johnson provides no mechanism whatsoever by which the postulated supernatural interventions would give rise to complexity.

I have provide volumes of information re: mutation, how the insertions, substitutions and deletions work.

Now, provide a mechanism.

OOPS, sorry about the double post, Gremlins in my machine, Dick Cheney at the controls.

EADGBE wrote:

<quoted text>
Well, first I'm certainly not trying to answer for Katydid, but I believe Darwin's hypothesis of common ancestry and natural selection acting upon variation to produce biodiversity was around long before any real understanding of modern molecular biology. Additionally, Darwin, as were most 19th century biologists, was also unaware of Mendel's work demonstrating the basics of heredity. What Mendel's work and all the other big molecular and population genetics discoveries of the early 20th century did was provide the mechanisms that produced variation in natural populations and how this heritable variation manifested under various forms of selection.
All of these components are critical to our understanding of cancer and infectious pathogens. When dealing with the treatment of therapeutically resistant diseases, all of the components of the ToE are applied. From the molecular mechanisms which produce the variation, to how this variation manifests in populations of cancer cells and infectious microbes, to the selection and adaptation within these populations all leading to a rationale model for treating the disease and identifying the best targets for novel drug development.
The only difference between the application of these ToE tenets to medicine and biodiversity alive today and in the fossil record are the temporal scales (hrs to yrs for medicine, thousands to billions of years for fossil record and extant biodiversity). The mechanisms are essentially the same.
An additional application of the ToE to medicine is the tracking of emerging infectious diseases. The phylogenetic approaches which allow us to predict rates of evolution and trace infectious outbreaks back to their geographic sources is the same methodology used to reconstruct and make predictions concerning common ancestry in multicellular organisms.
Again, as ID invokes a supernatural causation, it is outside the bounds of science. It's fine for philosophy class or a comparative religions class, but as science restricts itself to methodological naturalism given the validation of this approach, ID doesn't belong in a science class. ID could be the actual "truth", but without a testable mechanism or positive supporting evidence, for now it's philosophy and not science.
Cheers!

Aaahh EADGBE, excellent, excellent answer!!! Much more succinct than mine.

Hoist n' Huzza to you (with my coffee cup, too early in these woods for a stein).

LWsciencejunkie wrote:

<quoted text>
And to think I was developing a crush on you!

Well, I do tend to go for you scientifically oriented types. ;)

LWsciencejunkie wrote:

<quoted text>
I love judging the science fairs! I do about 3 to 5 every year. I don't even mind being social for once. The problem is that I think all the projects are either cool or the kids are so adorable and earnest that I fail to be very judgmental.

Wow, three to five a year? Here, the high school projects are judged by the science faculty members. After the projects win a first place at their local high school fairs, they go on to the regionals, then the first place winners go on to the states.

Which of the criteria protocols do you use out that way in the judging?

Katydid wrote:

OOPS, sorry about the double post, Gremlins in my machine, Dick Cheney at the controls.

Oh no. That's worse than having Cthulhu take over your computer.