Who IS this guy?

Interesting...

------------------
Gonzalo: Here is everything advantageous to life.
Antonio: True, save means to live!

cool. and im seeing here that he says the fall of man affected us spiritually and physically, the physical being the change from neanderthal man to modern man.

interesting.

you're right, who IS this guy?

------------------
that post was really cool ^ <IMG SRC="http://s49.photobucket.com/albums/f272/mitchelldude/swordbanner.png[/IMG]
[IMG]http://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f272/mitchelldude/liberalismjoke.jpg">
|
[|=D) <---|| me

[This message has been edited by buddboy (edited November 21, 2006).]

quote:

---

Originally posted by buddboy:
hmm... interesting. so he's saying neanderthals were more advanced than us?

---

------------------
that post was really cool ^
|
[|=D) <---|| me

quote:

---

Originally posted by buddboy:
actually he's a christian from what i can tell.

---

Theories without evidence/experiments can also have faith, but they cannot be disproven, like Islam, Christianity, Flying Spaghetti Monster, etc. Mostly depends on where you were raised and by whom.

[Edit] That sort of sounded like I was saying scientific theories can be proven. They cannot, but they can be disproven, unlike purely faith-based theories.

[This message has been edited by CheeseStorm (edited November 22, 2006).]

quote:

---

That sort of sounded like I was saying scientific theories can be proven. They cannot, but they can be disproven, unlike purely faith-based theories.

---

the best is when I say I'm skeptical of evolution, and suddenly people are accusing me of believing the 6-day theory and subsequently not being a critical thinker.

frankly, for this entire subject, I still hold the card of skeptic. Evolutionists haven't convinced me. Creationists haven't convinced me (other than I believe that God created the earth, at least loosely defined by Genesis; I still think Genesis can be allegorical/symbolic).
this issue has become more of a war between the two sides than an actual search for truth.

------------------
Yes, I'm still better than you
Soterion Studios

quote:

---

Q: "Do the "engines of variation" (EvoDevo, etc) provide sufficient variation to move beyond microevolution to macroevolution."

A: This is indeed the central question. One of the central tenets of the "modern synthesis of evolutionary biology" as celebrated in 1959 was the idea that macroevolution and microevolution were essentially the same process. That is, macroevolution was simply microevolution extrapolated over deep evolutionary time, using the same mechanisms and with essentially the same effects.

A half century of research into macroevolution has shown that this is probably not the case. In particular, macroevolutionary events (such as the splitting of a single species into two or more, a process known as cladogenesis) do not necessarily take a long time at all. Indeed, in plants it can take as little as a single generation. We have observed the origin of new species of rose, primroses, trees, and all sorts of plants by genetic processes, such as allopolyploidy and autopolyploidy. Indeed, most of the cultivated roses so beloved of gardeners are new species of roses that originated spontaneously as the result of chromosomal rearrangements, which rose fanciers then exploited.

The real problem, therefore, is explaining cladogenesis in animals. As Lynn Margulis has repeatedly pointed out, animals have a unique mechanism of sexual reproduction and development, one that apparently makes the kinds of chromosomal events that are common in plants very difficult in animals.

However, she has proposed an alternative mechanism for cladogenesis in animals, based on the acquisition and fusion of genomes. Research into such mechanisms has only just begun, but has already been shown to explain the origin of eukaryotes via the fusion of disparate lines of prokaryotes, plus the origin of several species of animals and plants as the result of genome acquisition. As Lynn has been extraordinarily successful in the past in proposing testable mechanisms for macroevolutionary changes, I look forward to many more discoveries in this field.

---

It's still claimed by many that macroevolution is simply a series of microevolution events over time. It's nice to see a Darwinist admit this isn't true nor is it supported by the evidence (of course, he believes that a new theory of evolution is currently being formulated to replace the old concept of the modern synthesis). When Allen discusses plants that isn't much of an issue (try grafting a plant and see how its design allows this easily) and it also depends on how he's defining species (which can be very vague sometimes; dolphins and false killer whales are considered to be separate species yet they can reproduce together to create a "wholphin"). What Lynn Margulis is advocating is an extension of her Endosymbiotic Theory. She first proposed this as a "solution" to the origins of certain cell types. The basic idea is that information from various organisms with similar features was shared (fusion events) in order to produce these cells (this has never been observed in nature). So she extrapolates this basic idea--which has yet to be confirmed and has some large issues with even the origin of eukaryotes--to fill in the holes for the "engines of variation" for higher animals.

Allen continues:

quote:

---

As John Endler, Will Provine, and myself have repeatedly pointed out, natural selection can't "bring about" anything. Natural selection isn't a mechanism, it's an outcome. The mechanisms that bring about natural selection are variation, inheritance, fecundity, and differential survival and reproduction.

In other words, the rearrangement of the genetic program of a particular organism is not the result of natural selection, it is the result of one of the "engines of variation" to which I referred in one of my earlier comments. The ID strawman of "RM" (i.e. random mutation) is a pale shadow of these "engines," about which we know surprisingly little, but about which we are learning an immense amount at present.

And yes, it nows seems that something like what Richard Goldschmidt proposed as the basis for cladogenesis might not be so far-fetched at all. The idea of a single-step "hopeful monster" was not rejected by the founders of the "modern evolutionary synthesis" on empirical grounds, it was rejected because it could not be explained using the "one gene: one trait" model of genetics that was in vogue at the time.

With the rise of evolutionary developmental biology (i.e. "evo-devo"), we are beginning to realize that large-scale, relatively rapid changes in overall phenotype are possible, and that they can be explained by changes in the regulation of "master control genes" (i.e. homeotic genes). Furthermore, these insights are now beginning to be applied to the patterns of cladistic change visible in the fossil record, as first forcefully pointed out by Eldredge and Gould in 1972.

What is now happening, in other words, is that a new "evolutionary synthesis" is being formulated, based on a flood of new information from genetics, developmental biology, paleontology, and historical geology/planetology. This new synthesis takes into account new information that has been obtained since the heyday of the "modern synthesis" and provides a much more powerful and comprehensive explanation of Darwin's "descent with modification." No, it doesn't rely completely on Darwin's proposed "mechanism" of natural selection, at least not as formulated by Fisher/Haldane/Wright/Dobzhansky/Mayr, but yes it does conform to the overall outlines of Darwin's original theory.

So, as I said before, "the modern synthesis is dead; long live evolutionary biology!"

---

In short his hopes lie in the unknown. Allen is not only a Darwinist but an atheist (though sometimes he calls himself an agnostic). This new line of research may or may not support his beliefs, but he's hopeful. The level of faith he shows is far greater than many Christians.

Has the old paradigm really been superseded as effectively as he claims? He declares that a focus on RM+NS (Random Mutations + Natural Selection) is a ID-conceived strawman. I wish that were the case. He may talk about "ID strawmen" and then discuss the ideas of himself, Will Provine, Lynn Margulis, etc. as if they have become the majority but both Lynn and Will seemed to have received a lukewarm response at the fairly recent World Summit on Evolution held in Dec 2005. I believe this to be due to the fact that Allen's position is very uncertain. If you reject the modern synthesis based upon the evidence yet still support Darwinism there isn't much left to work with. Especially if your belief system relies on it.

I think it interesting his hopes rely on Homeotic gene regulatory mechanisms. Let me review at a high level the basics of how Homeobox genes work. Homeobox genes determine which genes are expressed and which are not during genetic development. They basically give instructions to build certain components in specific coordinates. If I were to make a comparison to programming instead of explicitly defining every aspect of the body plan in code there is a series of foundational classes following a series of rules that allow for emergent complexity so that code can reused in various ways to produce different types of structures. Thus, mutations in Homeobox genes can be cause large scale changes. They are also very similar throughout all life. The Pax-6 regulatory group–which is about 130 amino acids long–shares a 94 % similarity between humans and insects. Zebra fish and humans are even closer at 97 percent.

To give a more common example, Homeobox genes resemble a construction site foreman who orders groups of workers to build various building structures in a particular location. However, it's important to note that this particular foreman doesn't know how to build walls or windows himself. He just knows how to give orders and couldn't wield a hammer to save his life. Despite this, the different workers know exactly how to construct the particulars of the items that they are instructed to build. Some workers know how to build concrete walls and others brick walls, windows, archways, etc. In layman's terms, without these specialty workers, our foreman is out of a job.

Similarly, Homeobox regulatory genes work at a high level and don't get too involved in the details of what they regulate. Even so, Homeobox genes are still extraordinary powerful which is why Allen relies on them. They can "decide" what goes where and how many components get built. But what Homeobox genes cannot is what is truly relevant to this discussion. Homeobox genes do not create *new* genetic information in the traditional sense. Mutations in these regulatory gene sets can cause biological components to not be built (an animal losing their hind legs). They can result in more than the correct number of elements being built (as in the case of Hox-4.6 in chickens which create an extra "thumb"). They can even result in the construction of components in the wrong places. Ultimately, manipulations to these genes can only result in the rearrangement of elements already present in the biological development plan for a given organism.

Homeobox genes reveal complexity, structure and a hierarchical approach to biological development. All of which speak of designer re-use. Any engineer worth his degree realizes the importance and benefit of well organized subsystems. Indeed, these genes represent a level of biological abstraction that Darwinism did not predict. Not to mention, how do you gradually evolve a regulatory gene in the first place? What value does a regulatory gene serve without the genes that know how to "build" components? And if the genes that "build" components existed prior to the appearance of regulatory genes then what selective short term advantage by itself would the ability to regulate other genes have?

Critic of ID commonly pose the case of humans born with "tails"-a couple extra vertebrae in the spine. I wouldn't be surprised if these incidents could be traced back to mutations in homeobox genes. But instances of finite macro-level changes do little to advance their case against ID.

[This message has been edited by Gump (edited November 22, 2006).]

http://147.52.72.117/IJMM/2002/volume9/number3/221-227.pdf

quote:

---

Glycoprotein WNTs play key roles in carcinogenesis and embryogenesis. Human WNT14 and WNT3A genes are clustered in human chromosome 1q42 region with an interval of about 58 kb. Here, mouse Wnt14 was isolated to compare the structure of human WNT14-WNT3A gene cluster with that of mouse Wnt14-Wnt3a gene cluster. Mouse Wnt14 showed 98.1% total-amino-acid identity with human WNT14, and 61.9% total-amino-acid identity with human WNT14B/WNT15. Mouse Wnt14 mRNA was expressed in adult brain, lung, skeletal muscle, heart, and 17-day embryo. Mouse Wnt14 and Wnt3a genes were clustered in head-to-head manner with an interval of about 16 kb. Exon-intron structures were well conserved between human WNT14-WNT3A gene cluster and mouse Wnt14-Wnt3a gene cluster. Capicua-related sequence and AK024248-related sequence were identified in the intergenic region of human Wnt14-Wnt3a gene cluster as well as in other human chromosomal loci, but not in that of mouse Wnt14-Wnt3a gene cluster. Capicua-related sequences were pseudogenes derived from Capicua gene on human chromosome 19q13. Capicua pseudogene and AK024248-related sequence were clustered in tail-to-tail manner with interval ranging from 2.2 to 11.0 kb. AK024248-related sequences in several human genome draft sequences were truncated in the 3'-portion compared with that in the intergenic region of human WNT14-WNT3A gene cluster. This is the first report on structural comparison of WNT gene clusters in human genome and in mouse genome.

---

The interaction between the gene and the phenotypic effect is far more complicated and subtle. There are homologous features but human regulatory genes do not contain the information necessary to create a full functional tail. News of this type is force-fitted into a Darwinist framework. See here for an example:

[URL=http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2002/12/05/MN153329.DTL&type=science]http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2002/12/05/MN153329.DTL&type=science[/UR L]

You can tell that article is old precisely due to its reference to "junk dna" as "essentially meaningless". That idea is quickly growing unpopular... As such, this human gene that's somewhat similar in structure may be found to have a purpose unrelated to tail development (or that's already happened and the media didn't bother to report it).

There is also hefty logical leap here that I don't think can be supported by the evidence cited. It's a fact that mutations in the mouse Wnt3a gene result in tail loss. BUT this does not mean that a human gene with some similarities must control anything related to tails. There are many, many genes that regulate tail development, even in the mouse. There is no evidence provided for macro-evolution in or near the human Wnt3a gene that influence its expression in the developing caudal region. There are also no actual reports of tail retention in a human being due to an identified mutation in the Wnt3a gene in humans.

Now in related arguments, the coccyx is only a vestigial organ if one assumes a tail in the past (on a side note, by the definition of vestigial organ the component in question doesn't have to be completely useless...it can lose its original function and gain new ones). Several muscles converge from the ring-like arrangement of the pelvic bones to anchor on the coccyx, forming a bowl-shaped muscular floor of the pelvis called the pelvic diaphragm. The in-curved coccyx with its attached pelvic diaphragm keeps the many organs in our abdominal cavity from literally falling through between our legs. Some of the pelvic diaphragm muscles are also important in controlling the elimination of waste from our body through the rectum.

Human "tails" are disarrangements that occurred during embryological development. Most of them are just flaps of skin but some do have useless disconnected bones in them that would appear to be shaped along the same lines as the bones in the coccyx. I don't believe the precise genetic basis for these examples of "tail" growth in humans is known, but as I said before the the best bet is Hox (homeobox) genes. Mutations in these genes cause alterations in the development of the axial skeleton (vertebral column and ribs) and limbs, among other things.

But if you doubt my explanation and still believe the tail is an ancient form reasserting itself let's ask some questions. Some human females are born with mammary glands under the armpits; does this mean they're regressing to an earlier mammalian stage? After all, some mammals have mammary glands in their armpits. Does a second nipple on my right breast mean I've generated Complex Specified Information? Of course not. Besides, if the bony tail is evidence that we evolved from tailed creatures, why also bother to insist that we evolved from a common ancestor with pan troglodytes, which doesn't have tails?

But let's say you argue that it doesn't have to be a fairly "recent" common ancestor that had a tail. In effect, you might claim that this reversion to conserved tail information comes from an ancestor from before Ardipithecus ramidus–over 4.5 million years ago. Unfortunately Sahelanthropus tchadensis, dated at around 7 million years, is just a skull so we cannot tell if it had a tail. Or we can go back 20 million years ago to Proconsul heseloni, which lived in the trees of dense forests in eastern Africa. Proconsul is claimed to have had features that closely link it to the common ancestor of humans—for example, the lack of a tail. But you go ahead and persist to claim that this useless information for tails has somehow survived elimination by Darwinian processes for millions of years instead of accepting that a simple genetic mistake is the cause. Just exactly who would be stretching logic here?

Why common designer instead of common descent? There are many examples of what is termed "convergent evolution". This means that different creatures are supposedly evolving the same morphological features even though they're not supposed to be related to each other. Problem is, we find the same sort of genes in these supposedly unrelated creatures. You do the math.

Although I will state the caveat that we're still trying to figure out the language of DNA. Our understanding is very limited right now. So it's hard to make positive statements...all we can do is look for the best explanations.

[This message has been edited by Gump (edited November 24, 2006).]

There are simpler organisms than us with many times the amount of DNA that we have, because junk DNA is very real. I agree that we'll likely find uses for some of it, but there are also a lot of pointless photocopies.

quote:

---

Why common designer instead of common descent? There are many examples of what is termed "convergent evolution". This means that different creatures are supposedly evolving the same morphological features even though they're not supposed to be related to each other. Problem is, we find the same sort of genes in these supposedly unrelated creatures. You do the math.

---

Good debate! Me likey. Gump smart.

quote:

---

Yes, there are multiple genes for growing a tail, and we have them (but don't use, at least not for tail-making, IF they affect anything else).

---

Check your facts. There are multiple genes in MICE related to tail development. I'm not aware of any others in humans that are even somewhat similar when it comes to caudal development. Now if you could point out these other genes you're talking about (preferably with references to the original research like I did earlier)?

quote:

---

As for our early-on-in-the-womb tail, it actually has its own extra vertebrae which are destroyed (along with the rest of the tail) long before we are born. So it is not just a clump of tissue to be used later in development or whatever the creationist argument is. "Oh, it just looks like a tail."

---

That is what is called an extra-embryonic feature. As in, it is a structure which acts as "temporary scaffolding" that is "normally" removed as the creature grows. The idea that the embryo of a complex animal goes through stages resembling the embryos of its ancestors is called the Biogenetic Law. This "Law" known as recapitulation theory (ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny) was formulated in 1866 by Haeckel, an early convert to Darwinism who also famously fake evidence in attempts to persuade doubters. It's popularity has severely waned among Darwinists nowadays due to modern evidence but some still support it. I'm sure there are some people who will use the "Oh, it just looks like a tail" argument but even I think that's a dumb argument considering it's much easier to just point out what it actually is.

quote:

---

There are simpler organisms than us with many times the amount of DNA that we have, because junk DNA is very real. I agree that we'll likely find uses for some of it, but there are also a lot of pointless photocopies.

---

Now that's a very raw assumption entirely based upon a Darwinist framework and not the evidence. I agree there will be some junk dna. After all we have to deal with entropy and the inevitable loss of information due to mutations over the years. Personally I wouldn't be surprised if it's as high as 30-50% but that's me. But I'll let you argue with Dr. Pellionisz on that one:

http://www.junkdna.com/new_citations.html

(I debated some issues with him a while ago and I just realized that the latest entries have some very ID friendly comments! Perhaps he became an ID proponent in the meantime.)

One of things that's always struck me as unlikely is that a human being can be blueprinted (including instinct and autonomic behaviors) in a gigabyte of data (a gigabyte is the approximate data storage capacity of 3.2 billion DNA base pairs). Adding ridiculousness to unlikelihood is that 97% of that gigabyte is so-called "junk" which, if taken literally, means a human being and all his innate programming is defined in 30 megabytes of data. In my opinion a lone gigabyte isn't enough even if every last bit is utilized. If there's so much DNA that truly isn't used for anything that immeasurably strengthens the supposition that there must be some other large repository of malleable, heritable information. I've posited before that the 3 dimensional structure of the DNA molecule somehow encodes information or that the information self-decompresses during development. There is also the structure of the cell itself where information can be encoded and passed along generation to generation. Ostensibly there is an unbroken cell line stretching back practically forever in time so it isn't just DNA that is inherited but the structure of the cell itself is also inherited. Not long ago a gigabyte was so much information it was mind boggling but nowadays with our personal computers utilizing many gigabytes of local storage we know that a gigabyte isn't really all that much and 30 megabytes is barely enough to hold the digital equivalent of a 36 exposure roll of film (uncompressed).

In fact, it's even worse...the information content is actually significantly less than a gigabyte. I round up to make it any easy number to write and make it familiar to people who use computers. Each nucleotide in DNA is one of four possible (A)denine, (C)ytosine, (G)uanine, (T)hymine. These can be represented by all four possible two-bit binary numbers (00...01...10...11). Thus exactly two binary bits of information are required to represent each nucleotide base. A full byte is 8 bits or 4 nucleotides. To get an exact number of bytes we can just divide the 3.2 billion bases in the human genome by 4 which is 800 million or 80% of a gigabyte.

The other problem is that knockout tests do not take into account backup routines, error correction on multiple levels, and instinctual behavior (ancestor memories?) that may have been lost. Only whether or not the resulting animal is apparently healthy. As a programmer I often times write code that will sometimes only be used under certain situations (or preferably, in the case of certain scenarios, is never reached at all). I wouldn't be surprise if there was code like that.

On a semi-related note, the Japanese MDGRAPE-3 is capable of performing approximately 1 petaflop...which is slowly closing in on the human brain's 100 petaflops (estimate made by Nick Bostrom of Yale).

quote:

---

We find the same sorts of genes because they share a common ancestor long down the line, after which they evolved separately. A good example is the flying squirrel vs. the sugar glider - they seem almost identical and share many genes, but the sugar glider is actually more closely related to the kangaroo (both are marsupials).

---

Is there a reason you bring up the flying squirrel and the sugar glider? Seriously, I just think it odd since I saw another Darwinist attempt to make that same point just recently. Is there some sort of talking point sheet I'm not aware of?

This is how the argument goes. The Australian sugar glider and North American flying squirrel are adapted to the same mode of life and look somewhat similar. However, since the sugar glider's geographic location was Australia it was presumed that based upon shared external characteristics with other Australian marsupials that they must share a common ancestor. Considering that the squirrel is native to North America it was also presumed that the resemblance between the two animals is an example of convergent evolution.

Problem is this argument is entirely based upon old narratives (a story which takes data points and attempts to connect the dots), not a genetic analysis of the two creatures offering a comparison (if you know of one let me know). In essence you're basically making an argument for common descent by referring to a narrative that assumed common descent in the first place...not the genetic evidence! I'm open to alternative frameworks that include front-loading and other ID concepts so I'm open to considering common descent...but the arguments for it such as this, using pseudogenes as markers, a proposed human chromosome fusion event, and the usual talking points are pretty weak.

On top of that one of the major predictions of Darwinism, the “tree of life,” a branching pattern of evolutionary diversification, has effectively been falsified by fossil and genetic evidence:

http://biology.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.0040352

Of course, they believe if they keep on searching it'll eventually resemble Darwin's and Dawkin's predictions...conveniently we'll all be dead by then. A series of bushes does not look like what we should expect from common descent via an undirected process. The universality of the genetic code ensures that the phyla did not evolve independently. Since they cannot connect the dots from a universal common ancestor to the plethora of organisms alive today, the dots are imaginary.

I just did a check and the Human Genome Project authorized the sequencing of the squirrel genome last year:

http://www.genome.gov/19516773

I searched the site and couldn't find out whether they'd finished it or not. This site lists the project status as incomplete:

http://genamics.com/cgi-bin/genamics/genomes/genomesearch.cgi?field=ID&query=1649

Although this "might" be a complete report:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/viewer.fcgi?db=nucleotide&val=117168315

Here is the sugar glider:

http://drake.mcmaster.ca/cgi-bin/ogre/featurelist.pl?genome=PETBR2MIT

Both those reports are very recent (October and November).

I'm on private email lists with a bunch of other scientists...I'll see if they know of a plain list of genomes that have already been sequenced completely (which seems like a "no duh" search feature...) and whether anyone is comparing the sugar glider and squirrel.

[This message has been edited by Gump (edited November 25, 2006).]

I personally believe that evolution *could* have happened. The Bible doesn't say it DIDN'T happen... and it doesn't say it didn't. Either way. Like how Jesus probly laughed at some point, or filled his diaper when he was a baby, just cus it isn't said doesn't mean it didn't happen.

That's what I believe.

------------------
To err is human--and to blame it on a computer is even more so. - Robert Orben

Blind belief is dangerous. - Kenyan Proverb

Computers are useless. They can only give you answers. - Pablo Picasso

Embryonic tail as scaffolding...
Can't be very useful scaffolding, seeing as it breaks down without doing anything, and is eaten by the workers.

About junk DNA and the size of our genome and whatnot...
Amoeba dubia has 200 times as much DNA as we do, yet it is a single-celled organism, compared to the trillions of cells that make up a human. The amount of space we'd take up on a hard drive doesn't really matter, as "this sounds too small" is just an opinion.

quote:

---

Is there a reason you bring up the flying squirrel and the sugar glider? Seriously, I just think it odd since I saw another Darwinist attempt to make that same point just recently. Is there some sort of talking point sheet I'm not aware of?

---

quote:

---

Embryonic tail as scaffolding...
Can't be very useful scaffolding, seeing as it breaks down without doing anything, and is eaten by the workers.

---

Do you even know what extra-embryonic features are? They're features that are temporary; as in they do not have any final morphological significance but they have a use only during development. Another example is the egg sac membrane. If that doesn't make it clear then you can think of building a cathedral. When the arches are being put up there are temporary structures to hold them in place but once they're completed they're torn down. Got it?

quote:

---

Amoeba dubia has 200 times as much DNA as we do

---

Completely expected considering the small amount of time between generations. If you think that somehow supports Darwinism, think again.

DNA uses modular design, genetic algorithms, compression, encryption, multiple secure backups, exception handling, self-compiling, gradients and switches that allow its operations to be context-sensitive, feedback loops, and self-generated ‘test patterns’ that allow the system to tune itself. While the system is designed for preventing uncontrolled mutations (and allowing many other mutations) and maintaining stasis within certain boundaries, errors can occur. During replication, there is roughly one mistake for every 10 billion base pairs after proofreading and error correction. Random mutations are virtually always deleterious.

Degeneration over time is expected...what is not explained is the mechanisms required for Darwinism. There's also the case for front-loading and many ID proponents want more research done on the Amoeba dubia.

quote:

---

"this sounds too small" is just an opinion.

---

Actually, it's an opinion shared by scientists with engineering knowledge, even Darwinists. IBM and Microsoft did some recent research and they'd agree with me. There IS a reason why the non-coding regions of DNA are now becoming the focus of so much research. What IS "just an opinion" was the raw assertion that these sections must be remnants of RM+NS since this had no factual basis and unfortunately this led to many scientists ignoring these large sections of information for years due to an assumption. On the other hand ID proponents were predicting that we'd find all sorts of functionality in introns in the 90's. Which is exactly what is happening.

quote:

---

Do you even know what extra-embryonic features are? They're features that are temporary; as in they do not have any final morphological significance but they have a use only during development.

---

quote:

---

"Amoeba dubia has 200 times as much DNA as we do"
Completely expected considering the small amount of time between generations. If you think that somehow supports Darwinism, think again.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by CheeseStorm:

[QUOTE]"Amoeba dubia has 200 times as much DNA as we do"
Completely expected considering the small amount of time between generations. If you think that somehow supports Darwinism, think again.

---

That's not what he's saying. The shear amount of DNA is due to it being simplistic and not having the incubation time needed for complexity. Imagine it in coding terms:
Here's the old hello program written in C:

#include <stdio.h>

int main(void) {
printf("Hello World");
return 0;
}

And here is Hello world written in COBOL

000100 IDENTIFICATION DIVISION.
000200 PROGRAM-ID. HELLOWORLD.
000300
000400*
000500 ENVIRONMENT DIVISION.
000600 CONFIGURATION SECTION.
000700 SOURCE-COMPUTER. RM-COBOL.
000800 OBJECT-COMPUTER. RM-COBOL.
000900
001000 DATA DIVISION.
001100 FILE SECTION.
001200
100000 PROCEDURE DIVISION.
100100
100200 MAIN-LOGIC SECTION.
100300 BEGIN.
100400 DISPLAY " " LINE 1 POSITION 1 ERASE EOS.
100500 DISPLAY "Hello world!" LINE 15 POSITION 10.
100600 STOP RUN.
100700 MAIN-LOGIC-EXIT.
100800 EXIT.

Can you see how a more complex language would be simpler to code?
I'm just wondering Amoeba are still doing around anyway. Shouldn't they have evolved a few billion years ago? or at least become the dominant species by now?

now, with all this said, I still think it's a stretch to compare the life cycles of germs to all living things and how they went from amino acids to Willem Defoe.

as with your coding argument, I see your header. now, that needs to be included in your "DNA" pile... how many lines now?
also, this all gets translated down into a lower language, down to the 1's and 0's, the dna of it all. I'm actually curious on how many lines are passed for that.

------------------
Yes, I'm still better than you
Soterion Studios

quote:

---

"So you agree that junk DNA accumulates over generations?"
That's not what he's saying. The shear amount of DNA is due to it being simplistic and not having the incubation time needed for complexity.

---

[This message has been edited by CheeseStorm (edited November 25, 2006).]

quote:

---

Everything I say is a "raw assertion"... even when I give you the exact quotes of the scientists who actually did the work.

---

Yes, I read the BBC article earlier: an unqualified PR statement from a scientist who should know better made within a Darwinist framework. Interesting that I quote the original research and you quote a simplified statement from the mass media from 2002!

quote:

---

As I said, the scaffolding starts falling over as it is being built. Luckily, the things nearest the tail (anus etc.) do not depend on having that tail there as a scaffold. It dies early on and is taken apart by the same cells who destroy invading viruses and other foreigners.

---

What exactly are you arguing related to extra-embryonic features? That they're somehow useless or irrelevant leftovers? There's nothing wrong with admitting ignorance. This argument you're making is worse than the "Oh, it just looks like a tail." argument.

quote:

---

So you agree that junk DNA accumulates over generations?

---

Neutral evolution, if you even know what that is, allows for a certain level of genetic drift that will not harm or help an organism. If you're trying to assert that any knowledgeable scientist would agree with your original position today (not in 2002) then you're wrong.

At the same time I must qualify this with the understanding that there are also simple organisms with far less base pairs. The problem is that we don't know what the vast majority of DNA is for, although there is definitely going to be sections that have fallen into disrepair. It's posited that some organisms were originally designed to interact with a large variety of higher creatures and thus that is why their genome is so large. An example of this would be the retrovirus that sheep require for reproduction.

Anyway, enough lecturing you. I think you should understand this subject matter by now.

[This message has been edited by Gump (edited November 25, 2006).]

------------------

The embryonic tail has no purpose. It does nothing, dies useless, and is destroyed.

Yes, I was talking about a build-up of junk that doesn't help or harm. We agree!

(Off-topic for a moment)
I'm noticing parts of your posts taken word-for-word from members of other forums that I happened to have visited recently. I recall similar incidents with you in past discussions. If you have the time to speak in a condescending tone, at least write your own material.

[This message has been edited by CheeseStorm (edited November 25, 2006).]

so, I looked into it.

now, much of what Gump says, appears almost word for word on other sites, such as www.overwhelmingevidence.com, www.uncommondescent.com and even a forum or two, but, he also happens to have written them. I do know for a fact that Gump copies over much of his own text back and forth over the web.

but not everything I found was straight from the mouth of gump:

Gump:"The Australian sugar glider and North American flying squirrel are adapted to the same mode of life and look somewhat similar."

Dr. Huang: "For example, the Australian sugar glider and North American flying squirrel are adapted to the same mode of life and look somewhat similar."
http://www.lavc.edu/huang/Biology7%20unit1/7Chapter%2022%20Descent%20with%20Modification.htm

Gump "the in-curved coccyx with its attached pelvic diaphragm keeps the many organs in our abdominal cavity from literally falling through between our legs"

Dr. David N. Menton: "The incurved coccyx with its attached pelvic diaphragm keeps the many organs in our abdominal cavity from literally falling through between our legs."
http://www.gennet.org/facts/metro07.html

Gump: "the “tree of life,” a branching pattern of evolutionary diversification..."

author unknown: "The “tree of life,” a branching pattern of evolutionary diversification..."
http://creationsafaris.com/crev200611.htm#20061115a

sadly, most searches(over 75%) of text turned up positive for other areas on the internet.
to test the validity of my results, I did the same tests on other member's texts, mainly cheesestorm. Again, looking for non-personalized text that seems well-written and intelligent. I could not find one instance on the copy of cheesestorm, nor anyone else. I did more tests on others than Gump.

needless to say, I'm rather disappointed. I did look up to you Gump. now, I don't know.

------------------
Yes, I'm still better than you
Soterion Studios

It's okay if you want to cling to an unsubstantiated statement made in 2002 over the actual evidence (read the research and you'll see exactly how tentative scientists really consider that interpretation repeated in the BBC article). You do realize how they found the use for the set of mouse genes? Knock out tests, which often result in seriously distorted results. As such I expect that human research will take much longer. But your other assertion has no factual basis. Do you even know what "having no ultimate morphological significance" means? Needless to say I was expecting this of you.

Arch,

With Cheesestorm it's not worth my time to write entirely new material since he'll continue to repeat claims even when refuted. He's done this in the past and I was expecting it to happen here. The main point is to provide information for other readers of these posts (aka don't let Darwinists appear to seem as if they know anything). Otherwise I wouldn't bother. Also, I've never made claim to writing these entire forum posts. When others have asked via PM I have always made this clear.

On a side note, I suppose I'll explain my views on plagiarism. In most cases nowadays the charges are overblown. Somehow plagiarism has come to be viewed as the reuse of ANY information, no matter how little. Which is very odd considering there is no financial loss for any party in a forum post. My primary concern is accuracy of the information. Precision in the use of terminology is important. And for forum posts there isn't a reason to paraphrase.

I keep a large number of notes categorized into different subjects just for use on the net. Now if you made the point that I should keep better track of my sources then you'd be correct. But, seriously, do you know anyone who cites sources for forums? I don't remember Dr. Huang and Dr. Menton at all but I wouldn't doubt they're sources from years ago. When it comes to the tree of life I actually ran into that after I first finished formulating a post and edited it to include that interesting aside. Otherwise my original post on Allen was mostly new except for the section on homeobox genes (whether that was my own or from a source I honestly don't remember). After that Cheesestorm came in so I didn't bother with new material except to stitch together the various points (over on UD and OE the quality of the questions usually require a new and thorough response). If you were to compare all my CCN posts on these types of subjects then you'd likely find the exact same points reiterated. Ditto for CCGR. If I actually take the time to write a new response it means I respect the other person.

[This message has been edited by Gump (edited November 26, 2006).]

Thanks for the info, Gump.

quote:

---

On a side note, I suppose I'll explain my views on plagiarism. In most cases nowadays the charges are overblown. Somehow plagiarism has come to be viewed as the reuse of ANY information, no matter how little. Which is very odd considering there is no financial loss for any party in a forum post. My primary concern is accuracy of the information. Precision in the use of terminology is important. And for forum posts there isn't a reason to paraphrase.

---

I'm not going to convince to stop the copy and pasting or why it's wrong; all I can state is my disappointment and my reasons. I went into my little "investigation" wanting to defend you. Once I thought you were very intelligent, but turns out that I was just reading stuff from a bunch of other people.

In defense of cheesestorm, he is rather one of the better debaters I came across on forums. I might not be an expert, but this is just one lowly, post-inflated CCNer's opinion.

------------------
Yes, I'm still better than you
Soterion Studios

It's a courtesy to give a source for evidence quoted or points made specifically from another source in a forum debate anyways...

Besides, I never understood why people would want to repeat something someone else said as their own in a debate...one of the most common, effective, and even valid (on occasion) responses to "evidence" is to examine the author of said "evidence". If you aren't the guy who originally said it, give reference, otherwise you could be "attacked" and your expertise called into question thus potentially invalidating the stated "evidence". Same goes if you are summarizing. Obviously, providing a source trail for every comment is a bit much to expect....but copy and paste....if you c&p you might as well c&p or type the link or book/author.
-- Even if the source is lacking, stating "I read this" keeps you intellectually honest.

btw - this is a very interesting thread, I haven't read it all the way through because my 15.5 inch widescreen laptop is still not wide enough for the horizontal scrolling on this thread. I've bookmarked it for later review though.

*thumbs up*

p.s. I, for one, do keep source references. PDFs and Bookmarks for many, the rest of my sources are either books on my shelf or results of searches done at the time of posting.
PrimoPDF or CutePDF are wonderful tools.

[This message has been edited by netcog (edited November 26, 2006).]

Plagarism is a massive issue now-a-days, and rightfully so. A lot of work today depends on the work of those before them. Credit is deserved by everyone. When you create a post on a forum it is your name being put beside the text and it is read to be your work, unless quoted or otherwise. Simply saying that you did not say this was your own writing is not good enough. Example: I copy an entire paper for university and hand it in. I am caught for stealing the work and simply say, "Well I didn't say it was NOT my work now did I?" Is that good enough?

On a slightly funnier note, a while ago the singer from CCR was sued by his record label for copying himself. Yes it does happen.

You do have a strong reputation here Gump and usually are the only person with formatable debate to Cheese's rants and postings. I suggest you start writing your own responces and such or at least quoting entire posts and citing the information.

I outright admit that I enjoy discussing these topics but Cheese's rants outdo anything that I could conjure up so I am more of a supporter and dip in for an addition from time to time.

------------------
"The only people on Earth who do not see Christ and His teachings as nonviolent are Christians". - Mahatma Gandhi

Now if I was writing a published article or quoting from private correspondence I obviously would seek approval of the authors. For example, I communicate privately with a large group of ID scientists. I would never use their material unless I first asked permission. My last article on genetic algorithms used some content from other UD mods. They had no problem with me using some of their writings (although that only amounted to perhaps 2-3 paragraphs).

I'm also surprised that people actually think Cheese's arguments are strong or even passable (CCGR contains far better debaters). Though I run into these types of arguments all the time as a moderator for UD and UE so perhaps I'm jaded. On UD my fellow mod DaveScot would probably ban Cheese if he posted this type of stuff...

quote:

---

Once I thought you were very intelligent, but turns out that I was just reading stuff from a bunch of other people.

---

I'm sorry you feel that way. I use this writing method primarily to save time, which I have little of lately, and because I have carpal tunnel (writing long posts isn't exactly fun). Perhaps I should start overhauling my notes; do a rewrite.

Given that people are upset about this I'll now spend the time to write a post completely off the top of my head:

Cheese's primary argument can be summarized as Argumentum ad Verecundiam (a common logical fallacy). Unfortunately he's failed to substantiate the claim made originally by Dr. Rogers who also cannot substantiate it. Read the actual research and it's easy to see the logical leaps in the interpretation of the evidence. Unfortunately, we just don't know all the functionality that is related to the human WNT14-WNT3A gene cluster or whether it's even possible to get a human tail if we were to modify the information regulating the expression of this gene cluster. Here is what we do know:

1. We know what a similar sequence is used for in the mouse. The structural similarities were listed earlier.

2. We also know that due to pleiotropy this mouse information is expressed for not only caudal development but for multiple phenotypic effects (on a side note, some genes can produce 50 different proteins). Again, this was listed earlier in an earlier post.

3. Finally, humans obviously do not have tails.

The logical leap comes in the claim that this somehow means the unidentified information regulating the expression of human WNT14-WNT3A must have previously contained the ability to produce a tail but this has since been lost. This is making a claim based upon historical knowledge that is unknown.

This is certainly an example of deductive reasoning but it relies on many unknowns and it assumes an unproven historical narrative from the outset (for example, if it was claimed that humans did not share a common ancestor with mice then this whole argument would never have been made in the first place). Sometimes, yes, these logical leaps can sometimes later be substantiated by further evidence. The problem is that people are making far-reaching claims based upon a limited data set. The evidence only allows tentative claims at this point. Besides the information related to regulating expression, the information contained within WNT14-WNT3A is also different from that of the mouse, which makes interpreting the evidence even more difficult. But in the media this claim is made to sound very certain when it obviously is not.

The reason this is a logical leap is due to the methods used to discover functionality. A common technique is the knockout test. It's pretty much like a novice programmer who doesn't understand a section of code and is commenting out lines, compiling the code, and observing the results in order to figure out what that line of code does. Modify mouse Wnt14-Wnt3a gene cluster and we quickly realize that one of its phenotypic effects is tail related (and we have one very messed up mouse, likely soon to be dead). Now we can compare DNA from humans with certain conditions to normal human DNA. The other way is to compare animals to humans. But obviously human experimentation like that done with mice is a giant no-no. Now one easy way to substantiate this claim would be to take a DNA sample from a person affected with a caudal mutation. But no one's bothered to do this. Of course, such a test could also substantiate the counter-claim that such oddities are being caused by Homeotic gene regulatory mechanisms (but I can think of multiple ways a Darwinist could twist that new evidence).

Did I explain that well enough?

EDIT:

Oh, and Cheese's last post with the pic also indicates he misunderstood the issues once again. There isn't any ultimate morphological significance to extra-embryonic features but I'm not going to continue that argument since it's gotten silly.

I'm assuming (his posts are often unclear or imprecise) he was applying that phrase to the primary argument over the mouse tail. If that's the case what he doesn't understand is that the primary issue is not whether human WNT14-WNT3A has any current function at all. It's whether it and the information regulating expression of it used to contain information for tail development.

EDIT2-x: Error fixes, clarifications, etc. There is a reason I like reusing stuff...no editing required usually.

On a further note, I obviously did a quick check around the net to see what the state of the debate was on this topic (last time I remember discussing this was years ago). If there were any additional data points I didn't notice anyone using them. The DarwinTalk discussion was quite sad...the Creationist obviously didn't know how to interpret the data and the Darwinists were running amuck as usual. Too bad they couldn't be bothered to critically analyze the claim they were supporting. So I enjoyed the irony of being able to reuse some of their statements against their own position.

[This message has been edited by Gump (edited November 27, 2006).]

Yes, I have written some novels. No, I haven't published them. Unfortunately the commitment required by publishers would take too much time away from XrucifiX.

quote:

---

Pigmaei gigantum humeris impositi plusquam ipsi gigantes vident
"Bernard of Chartres used to say that we are like dwarfs on the shoulders of giants, so that we can see more than they, and things at a greater distance, not by virtue of any sharpness on sight on our part, or any physical distinction, but because we are carried high and raised up by their giant size." --John of Salisbury, Metalogicon

"If I have seen a little further it is by standing on the shoulders of Giants."
--Isaac Newton, in a letter to Robert Hooke

Recently there was this poor college girl whose writing career was crucified simply because several minor scenes in her popular chick lit novel highly resembled a previous work. The reaction of the publishing industry disgusted me. It didn't matter that 99.9% of the material in the novel was the girl's own ideas. In an older case, Charles Darwin apparently borrowed liberally from Edward Blyth’s own writings when writing Origins of Species, mimicking Blyth’s writing style and usage of certain obscure terminology. Did Darwin truly plagiarize Blyth? Plagiarizing was far easier in the 19th century compared to today’s information age so no one can really say for certain. Yet even if Darwin did plagiarize Blyth’s work few would impugn his character for doing so, since he also introduced an inverse of the consensus held by that era’s scientific community: the new concept now held in today’s Darwinism.

Basically I have great disdain for the practice of making an outcry over minor instances of the reuse of information. The important point is whether the information is accurate and the truth is known. Not where the information came from. That is why I quote Isaac Newton. No one truly “starts from scratch”, there is always an informational foundation to one’s own ideas—a giant whose shoulders we stand on. As a wise man once said, there is nothing new under the sun.

Typically I only deal with proper accreditation if it's a properly published non-fiction article. In practice this means in an internet-based conversation via emails, private messages, or public forums I liberally borrow from the writings of others in order to save time and also to ensure the quality of information content. And if I plan on publishing fiction I don't copy and paste in the first place just to avoid the rantings of the idea police. If the video game industry went by the "rules" of the publishing industry developing a game mod would be plagiarism....
Personally I find many outcries of "plagiarism" to be overrated...so much so that I'll let anyone use huge chunks of my own writings without any modification or credit—within certain limitations, of course. I wouldn't mind if someone took the first third to half of one of my own novels and then with that starting premise wrote a different story. Or perhaps they take certain action scenes or descriptive paragraphs they enjoy and incorporate them into their own work. Or they take the mere concept and rewrite it in their own writing style using their own understanding of the characters.

At the same time I do realize there are valid reasons for the charge of plagiarism. I personally define plagiarism as “the reuse of information to the extent that it harms a previous source in a tangible manner”. Then there is the special case involved with education. How can a student learn anything if the student doesn’t formulate the entire work themselves using their own wording? If a student borrows information contact to the extent of copying and pasting then the student will not engage his or her brain required for attaining a proper education. The mind must be stressed in order to produce good fruit...and “Ctrl c + Ctrl v” doesn’t do this.
In a free market society the importance of preventing plagiarism is easily understood. An inventor should be rewarded for his or her hard work. Without this basis information/idea theft would rule the day, economies would suffer, and thus the reuse of information should be regulated to a certain extent. At the same time there is certain information that should belong to the public domain. An example would be genetic databases...does the world really want corporations laying claim to the information that defines our physical bodies?

I wouldn't want someone to wholesale copy and paste my work, merely changing the names of the characters or some such minor modifications. The key point is whether they then sell it, thus negating the original author’s possible profit. Of course, I wouldn't want a wholesale copy to be done and then given away for free either, since that'd also affect sales. I also realize how sensitive this issue can be for many people and so I purposely choose to work within the boundaries set by current standards in order to avoid problems. Yet I also feel that perhaps society is going too far, constraining the development of information in a manner that is restricting, and I will not hesitate to support my position verbally if not by action.

Ascertaining the accuracy of information is sometimes difficult since information will be repeatedly cited as accurate by many sources even when this is not the case. This is often called the echo chamber of the internet. One could even make a case that Wikipedia is one giant instance of plagiarism! Usually I would have to trace the information back to the original source and compare it against other sources. The other problem is that many people will often cite a source out of context in order to further their own arguments. This can lead to the distortion of information over time.

A personal example would be an argument I had with a person over the development of extra-embryonic features in whales and whether this data represented undeniable evidence of a vestigial organ. The other person presented a certain source—which I will not name—as authoritative. And indeed the presentation by this source did appear impressive to the casual observer. In order to discover the truth for myself I had to find scanned copies of the original documents from the 1930s being kept by the American Museum of Natural History. The supposedly accurate source had cited the information completely out of context and neglected to mention key information in order to support their position!

When it comes to purposefully avoiding plagiarism, the first step is obvious: avoid copying and pasting! No matter how much a section is edited it’ll still likely retain marked similarities to the prior information. The second strategy is to give a time of separation between researching and writing. If I were to sit down and immediately write about a particular subject after researching it I might unconsciously incorporate information that is very similar to the original source. The third strategy is to review the finished draft and make certain all cited information is properly accredited to its source.

---

Could add another quote in there:

"The field of knowledge is the common property of mankind." -- Thomas Jefferson

[This message has been edited by Gump (edited November 27, 2006).]

Here's my summary of the argument (both sides presented):

1. All vertebrates have a tail at some point in their life.
2. We share 99% of our genes with mice.
3. The Wnt-3a and Cdx1 genes control the tail's development in mice and other vertebrates. Link
4. From point 3, repressing Wnt-3a results in mice without tails. Confirmed by experiment.
Assumption: A mutation repressed this gene in ape evolution, so our tails die in the womb and we are born without them (usually).
Counter: Maybe our genes (however similar) work differently by unknown methods.
Experiment: We'll play with Wnt-3a's expression in a human embryo to see if we can get tails like those mutant tailed kids we sometimes get.

But, like you said, we aren't allowed to play God, at least not with humans. So, whoever makes the longest post with the biggest words is the winner! On your mark, get set...

1. All vertebrates share the usage of extra-embryonic features at some point in their life. If you don't understand that distinction at this point, oh well.

Instead of launching into an explanation of the hourglass development model I'll just let Johnathan Wells do the summarization:

quote:

---

The issue here is not all that complicated. Darwin thought that “community in embryonic structure reveals community of descent” and concluded that early vertebrate embryos “show us, more or less completely, the condition of the progenitor of the whole group in its adult state.” Darwin considered this “by far the strongest single class of facts in favor of” his theory. (Origin of Species, Chapter XIV; September 10, 1860 letter to Asa Gray)

But early vertebrate embryos do not look alike. They become somewhat similar (though not as similar as Haeckel made them out to be) midway through development, then they diverge again. This is illustrated by the “developmental hourglass” drawing on page 31 of my Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design. Developmental biologists (including P.Z. Myers, to judge from his Panda’s Thumb review of my chapter) are well aware of this pattern, which has been described repeatedly in the developmental biology literature.

But an hourglass pattern does not provide the evidence Darwin needed for his theory. If “community in embryonic structure reveals community of descent,” then a pattern of early differences followed by convergence followed by divergence makes no sense. Some modern Darwinists, instead of acknowledging the problem, simply attribute the early differences to evolution. In other words, they assume their theory is true and then use it to explain away anomalies in the very evidence that was supposed to provide the strongest support for it. Meanwhile, other Darwinists provide a smokescreen for this circular argument by calling their critics names…

Is that how science should be done?

---

Of course Darwinists in response do a song and dance that it doesn't really matter: "While neither the phylotypic stage nor the hourglass model form any basis of Darwin's description of the theory of natural selection, these are fundamental beliefs of Behe, Wells, and their students in their ongoing Intelligent Design Creationism attack on Darwinian biology." Really? Funny considering many US students are still being taught this. It's very true that Darwinism has a whole doesn't hinge on these claims. The bearded buddha can be shot down here without refuting the whole. Funny how some still rise up in defense. What's wrong with agreeing that science has moved on and that it's shame what is being taught in the public education system? Oh, that's right, I forgot. This type of stuff is easier to swallow than the complicated overall picture. These people have a vested interest in making certain students do not realize how shaky Darwinism really is. Although Professor Allen is nice enough to agree that currently Darwinism is a framework without a clearly identified mechanism (although he posits possibilities).

2. "We share 99% of our genes with mice." Interesting that you bring this up. Technically that's not precise; there are homologous features and some are claimed to be orthologs but the genes are not exactly the same. Also, a corollary to that statement would be that "the difference between humans and mice is roughly 300 kilobytes of information." Have fun supporting that notion.

Oh wait, you already did.

Also, that 99% similarity is based upon classification. Apparently you missed that part in the BBC article.

quote:

---

3. The Wnt-3a and Cdx1 genes control the tail's development in mice and other vertebrates. link

---

Just like I figured. You're relying on TO. Explains the "quality" of your arguments. They have pretty pictures, don't they?

quote:

---

Assumption: A mutation repressed this gene in ape evolution, so our tails die in the womb and we are born without them (usually).

---

First of all, look up "pleiotropy".

"Pleiotropy is the condition in which a gene influences the phenotype of more than one part of the body."

I don't know why I have to keep reiterating this. Even TO gets this right although their terminology is similarly squishy with certain sentences. The information would be located within that regulating the expression of said gene cluster.

But now I know why you kept harping on this issue. TO said "apoptosis (programmed cell death) plays a significant role in removing the tail of a human embryo after it has formed."

Gee, thanks TO. Your imprecision wasted my time by leading yet another person astray.

If you, cheese, don't understand what "extra-embryonic" means at this point then you similarly won't know why they goofed (very minor, though, I missed it in the last couple times I've reread that article). Of course, they're also trying to provide indirect support for recapitulation theory with their usage of terminology so that's why they don't provide a further explanation: it's a temporary structure used at a certain stage as a basis for differentiating into the final form. Go read a biology book.

On a side note, you do realize that said repression of information would have to have occurred millions of years before even the first primate? Interesting that TO claims this information is being "reactivated" even though by their own claims since it wouldn't offer any selection benefit it should have long been scrambled out of existence.

quote:

---

Counter: Maybe our genes (however similar) work differently by unknown methods.

---

That's not my argument but I'll let my previous posts stand. I think I made it clear just how tentative this claim is based upon evidence.

The level of similarity was also predicted by ID proponents expecting designer reuse.

quote:

---

Experiment: We'll play with Wnt-3a's expression in a human embryo to see if we can get tails like those mutant tailed kids we sometimes get.

---

Err, no. Comparison between existing humans with supposed atavistic tails and a normally developed human is enough.

If I'm essentially arguing with a poorly worded regurgitation of the TO article then the discussion is already over. Try reading the actual scientific research sometime. And unless you actually know of new relevant research don't bother responding...I'm quite familiar with everything from TO and related sites. In fact, if I had known that was where your argument stemmed from I probably wouldn't have bothered responding. Those who cite TO confidently usually are emotionally embedded into a belief system requiring them to believe it and evidence to the contrary (or even pointing out how flimsy their storytelling is) won't persuade those types.

Everyone else:

Now you can see why Darwinism perpetuates itself. Make a bunch of raw assumptions. Restrict the information used to indoctrinate. Boom! Instant Darwinist. Serve fresh with a stack of lies.

[This message has been edited by Gump (edited November 27, 2006).]

quote:

---

Originally posted by buddboy:
hmm... interesting. so he's saying neanderthals were more advanced than us?

---

Back onto the main subject. No, he is saying that Neanderthals are humans that lived to about 500 years old.

------------------
Gonzalo: Here is everything advantageous to life.
Antonio: True, save means to live!

and I thought this was interesting....

http://www.jackcuozzo.com/engis.html

quote:

---

Discovery channel puts brow ridges on a Neanderthal child

To furthur stress the point that Neanderthal children are not always portrayed honestly, the recent Discovery program (2001) on Neanderthals showed the Neanderthal children with large brow ridges - yet none of the Neanderthal childrens skulls exhibit this feature.

---

Of course, the Discovery Channel's original source doesn't agree:

Chaka is mad!

I don't think it was here:
http://cracker.com.au/viewthread.aspx?threadid=150295&categoryid=11121
but it's the only place I could find it.

In finding that link I came across that 96% number expressed from Sept or Nov of '05...so how "recent" that information really is I don't know.

coolj - *scratches head* I thought there would have only been 2 people that might be considered "pre-fall".

quote:

---

Originally posted by netcog:
coolj - *scratches head* I thought there would have only been 2 people that might be considered "pre-fall".

---

oops, I mean pre-flood. Pre-fall peeps is a different thoery.

quote:

---

Originally posted by coolj:
oops, I mean pre-flood. Pre-fall peeps is a different thoery.

---

Considering the half-man half-angel results along with half-man half-beast results, thus the greek mythos, I would not be surprised if we have strange bones in geological record.

What would be interesting would be if these "transitionary" beasts were actually results of cross-breeding. I don't remember enough about scriptural reference atm whether cross-species breeding in general (all creatures could) was allowed pre-flood or whether I'm thinking just on the restrictions of angelic-human (or beast-human?) interactions after the flood (meaning pre-flood only human crosses were allowed while animal species were still limited to like kind).

In googling along that last paragraph's lines I found this:
http://www.echoesofenoch.com/museum5%20UH_Gen3G6.htm

I don't know how many of the theories, evidences, or conclusions might be correct, but it does make for some interesting reading.

[This message has been edited by netcog (edited November 27, 2006).]

We agreed that the genes aren't exactly the same. And I didn't miss anything from the article I posted... that same article explains why they gauged the difference by gene classes. Back to the issue:

What neither of us know is if Wnt-3a indeed has a pleiotropic effect in humans. What we do know is that it effects the growth of tails in other vertebrates and that ours is nearly identical. I don't see how the embryonic tail could have any job as a temporary scaffold... is it growing off the thing that it is supposedly supporting?

Are there some memorable debates over from UD that I could see? I think I have only been there once but it was cool to see the two sides duke it out. Gradual change vs. Noodly Appendage.

quote:

---

We agreed that the genes aren't exactly the same.

---

No "agreement" involved; I lectured you on this point already by referencing the actual research.

quote:

---

And I didn't miss anything from the article I posted... that same article explains why they gauged the difference by gene classes.

---

I've spent most of this thread correcting you on things not even directly related to the point of disagreement. So I assumed you'd similarly misunderstood the BBC article.

So, fine, I'll be generous and afford the BBC article's 80% (that number is a very rough estimate which changes). That still means you'd be claiming that the information content between humans and mice amounts to 6 megabytes.

quote:

---

What neither of us know is if Wnt-3a indeed has a pleiotropic effect in humans.

---

Single function genes are are a myth. They have never been observed. Although Darwinists posit the prior existence of single-data genes termed "generalists" in order to get their historical narratives to work at all. Also, if the gene is expressed out of order the result can be the death of the organism or an impairment of critical systems.

Some research trying to estimate the degree of pleiotropy:

http://www.nature.com/msb/journal/v1/n1/synopsis/msb4100004.html

I wouldn't be surprised if the human gene cluster is also related to caudal development. Does that help Darwinism? Nope. Darwinism needs a mechanism first.

quote:

---

What we do know is that it effects the growth of tails in other vertebrates and that ours is nearly identical.

---

And? I'll not quibble over "nearly identical" and I already illustrated how the logic flows for making the Darwinist claim and where the logical leaps are contained. The more relevant issue is why you consider that the better explanation. Because you thought it through or because TO told you to think so?

quote:

---

I don't see how the embryonic tail could have any job as a temporary scaffold... is it growing off the thing that it is supposedly supporting?

---

Read a biology book that discusses the stages of embryological development. You're confusing it as a scaffold for other parts of the embryo. It's a starting point for the further development of the caudal region itself. It provides a support framework; internal scaffolding you might say. It's like building a mound and starting to build on top of the mound while taking away from it.

Or are you trying to say that it's a useless section that is developed with no use at all, is then cast off, and the caudal region develops from a separate basis? Good luck on supporting that notion.

quote:

---

Are there some memorable debates over from UD that I could see? I think I have only been there once but it was cool to see the two sides duke it out. Gradual change vs. Noodly Appendage.

---

Read and find out.

Like most of those who don't comprehend ID you seem to be thinking that ID conflicts with "gradual change". Not so. It's completely compatible with intelligent evolution including common descent. Now whether the old historical narratives are correct is another matter.

The Flying Spaghetti Monster was first invented to mock. It distorts a very serious point. ID is an attempt to go beyond mere intuition or gut feeling when making a design inference. ID formalizes the process of making a design inference. The tools available for doing this are limited at this time (more may be articulated in the future). For example, even in the case of Mt. Rushmore ID would take that object, declare a positive design inference, but could not itself discover who/what designed it. This is an inherent limitation. Now ID can be combined with other methods to overcome this limitation but ID itself can be used to form a logical chain between a designed object and the designer(s). ID proponents "should" never claim that science is limited to making a design inference and after that we might as well pack up and go home.

[This message has been edited by Gump (edited November 28, 2006).]

We do agree on the similarity, I already saw that info on my tail-searching. But you did post that info for my benefit, so thank you. I think we also agree that the similarities seem reasonable whether we consider common descent or designer reuse to be the reason.

And we agree that this was a waste, but thanks for the disussion anyway. My only other option is pointless homework; I guess you have actual stuff to do.

Meyers could start by taking Talk Origins to task for saying "There are numerous other examples in which an organism's evolutionary history is represented temporarily in its development." Fortunately they clarify that later but such imprecision could lead even more people to support recapitulation theory or von Baer.

He then puts words in Well's mouth in the section on Darwin...it's all about defending the honor of the bearded buddha apparently. The odd part is that Meyer's agrees with the overall message of Wells: "Recapitulation had its brief flurry of popularity, but it's dead now, and has been for over a century."

He then rants a bit at the end. Odd thing is what he demands has already been offered but he has defined those testable hypotheses as "non-scientific" out of hand. Typical.

Anyway, read this:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/archives/1762

Especially note comment #3 by Jehu.

Actually, yes I have stuff to do...and I'm getting way behind. Likely I'll be staying up late tonight to finish up.

[This message has been edited by Gump (edited November 29, 2006).]