Posted on 02/09/2005 7:55:00 PM PST by bondserv
Comparative functional genomics revealed conservation and diversification of three enhancers of the isl1 gene for motor and sensory neuron-specific expression.Abstract: Islet-1 (Isl1) is a member of the Isl1 family of LIM-homeodomain transcription factors (LIM-HD) that is expressed in a defined subset of motor and sensory neurons during vertebrate embryogenesis. To investigate how this specific expression of isl1 is regulated, we designed a lab experiment. Since we had to design the experiment, we conclude that in fact goddidit.Kinematic and EMG Determinants in Quadrupedal Locomotion of a Non-Human Primate (Rhesus).
Abstract: We hypothesized that the activation patterns of flexor and extensor muscles and the resulting kinematics of the forelimbs and hindlimbs during locomotion in the Rhesus would have unique characteristics relative to other quadrupedal mammals. Adaptations of limb movements and in motor pool recruitment patterns in accommodating a range of treadmill speeds similar to other terrestrial animals in both the hindlimb and forelimb were observed. Since we had to design the experiment, we conclude that in fact goddidit.Abstract: Pax2 is the earliest known gene to be expressed throughout the mid-hindbrain region in late gastrula embryos of the mouse and is essential for the formation of an organizing center at the midbrain-hindbrain boundary (MHB), which controls midbrain and cerebellum development. We have used transgenic analysis to identify three MHB-specific enhancers in the upstream region of the mouse Pax2 gene. Since we had to design the experiment, we conclude that in fact goddidit.Abstract: Inductive signaling leads to the coactivation of regulatory pathways for specifying general neuronal traits in parallel with instructions for neuronal subtype specification. Nevertheless, the mechanisms that ensure that these pathways are synchronized have not been defined. To address this, we examined how bHLH proteins Ngn2 and NeuroM controlling neurogenesis functionally converge with LIM-homeodomain (LIM-HD) factors Isl1 and Lhx3 involved in motor neuron subtype specification. Since we had to design the experiment, we conclude that in fact goddidit.Abstract: We have isolated a neurotrophin from the lamprey that permitted us to perform a phylogenetic analysis of the neurotrophin gene family that dates back more than 460 million years to the early vertebrate ancestors. Since we had to design the experiment, we conclude that in fact goddidit.Early evolutionary origin of the neurotrophin receptor family
Abstract: Neurotrophins and their Trk receptors play a crucial role in the development and maintenance of the vertebrate nervous system, but to date no component of this signalling system has been found in invertebrates. We describe a molluscan Trk receptor, designated Ltrk, from the snail Lymnaea stagnalis. Since we had to design the experiment that identified this receptor, we conclude that in fact goddidit.FoxP2 Expression in Avian Vocal Learners and Non-Learners
Abstract: Most vertebrates communicate acoustically, but few, among them humans, dolphins and whales, bats, and three orders of birds, learn this trait. FOXP2 is the first gene linked to human speech and has been the target of positive selection during recent primate evolution. To test whether the expression pattern of FOXP2 is consistent with a role in learned vocal communication, we cloned zebra finch FoxP2 and its close relative FoxP1 and compared mRNA and protein distribution in developing and adult brains of a variety of avian vocal learners and non-learners, and a crocodile. We found that since we had to design the experiment, goddidit.Abstract: A comparative analysis of LIM-homeodomain (LIM-hd) expression patterns in the developing stage 32 Xenopus brain is presented. Since we had to design the experiment, we conclude that in fact goddidit.Abstract: The dynamic expression patterns of the single amphioxus Distal-less homolog (AmphiDll) during development are consistent with successive roles of this gene in global regionalization of the ectoderm, establishment of the dorsoventral axis, specification of migratory epidermal cells early in neurulation and the specification of forebrain. Since we had to design the experiment that revealed this, we conclude that in fact goddidit.Evolution of neural precursor selection: functional divergence of proneural proteins
Abstract: How conserved pathways are differentially regulated to produce diverse outcomes is a fundamental question of developmental and evolutionary biology. The conserved process of neural precursor cell (NPC) selection by basic helix-loop-helix (bHLH) proneural transcription factors in the peripheral nervous system (PNS) by atonal related proteins (ARPs) presents an excellent model in which to address this issue. Since we had to design the experiment, we conclude that in fact goddidit.Abstract: Excess all-trans retinoic acid (RA) causes severe craniofacial malformations in vertebrate embryos: pharyngeal arches are fused or absent, and a rostrad expansion of Hoxb-1 expression in the hindbrain shows that anterior rhombomeres are homeotically respecified to a more posterior identity. As a corollary, neural crest migration into the pharyngeal arches is abnormal. We administered excess RA to developing amphioxus, the closest invertebrate relative of the vertebrates and thus a key organism for understanding evolution of the vertebrate body plan. Since we had to design the experiment, we conclude that in fact goddidit.
"'If you have to create it, the fact remains, life must be created. '
No need, it has already arisen on its own."
And so my point is proven. All that mocking and baiting, and all you have to offer. All your proof relies on this.
MD: Why can't we see life come from non-life if ID is wrong?
Ichn: Life is already here, why should we look for proof of it popping into existance of its own accord?
I have not said at all that further proof of evolution would warrant my denouncing God or anything of the sort. I assert that if you can provide a naturally occuring instance where life comes from non-life by a non-contrived means, I would be willing to.
Abio-genesis is not evolution, but your support of both as the same valid principle simply drives me further from whatever source you would call "scientific"
Wrong again... It indicates I like wordplay. It also indicates you don't have much of a sense of humor, nor are you able to take a bit of ribbing even after you've taken a few shots yourself.
Good day.
Does this mean you're not actually going to read the papers and consider the evidence I've provided on this subject, nor attempt any sort of cogent response to them and consider how those discoveries might (or might not) fit into your current beliefs?
What a surprise.
Don't trip and hurt yourself making a run for the door.
Why? Why place limits on God or the means he used to create the universe and life?
[Ich:] No need, it has already arisen on its own."
And so my point is proven.
Wow, you have a really low standard of "proof"...
And you obviously missed my point, but at least you're consistent.
All that mocking and baiting, and all you have to offer. All your proof relies on this.
Where did you hallucinate *that* into what I wrote? No, it most certainly does *not* "rely on that". It relies on the mountains of available evidence, which you seem to want to keep pretending isn't there and pretending that I haven't mentioned...
[MD: ]Why can't we see life come from non-life if ID is wrong?
Ichn: Life is already here, why should we look for proof of it popping into existance of its own accord?
Do not attempt to put words in my mouth which did not originate there. I did not write that sentence you attribute to me above, nor is it an accurate paraphrase of what I actually did write.
Furthermore, anyone with even a grade-school level of reading comprehension will be able to see that you have exactly *REVERSED* my actual meaning, since I've spent several posts now discussing and stressing the importance of the CONTINUING STUDIES on this issue, so your attempt to dishonestly accuse me of saying anything remotely like "why should we look for proof" is transparently clumsy and false.
Sheesh.
I have not said at all that further proof of evolution would warrant my denouncing God or anything of the sort. I assert that if you can provide a naturally occuring instance where life comes from non-life by a non-contrived means, I would be willing to.
Ooooookay... Nice hairsplitting there.
Abio-genesis is not evolution, but your support of both as the same valid principle simply drives me further from whatever source you would call "scientific"
Complete this sentence: "There are none so blind..."
Why? Why place limits on God or the means he used to create the universe and life?
I know full well He created it all. They could never even come close to showing what it would require to disprove Him. His evidence is everywhere. These godless are the ones who have the burden of proof, and they fail miserably.
It was probably sinful of me to tempt God (I know I shouldn't) but my human arrogance drives me to want these people see how wrong they are.
I'll take it up with God tonight. I really shouldn't tempt Him.
"Ooooookay... Nice hairsplitting there. "
You refuse to acknowledge that abio-genesis is completely seperate from evolution, and say I'm "splitting hairs."
Evolution needs more irrefutable proof in my opinion, but that's just mine.
Abio-genesis does not happen in nature. This is what is called a "fact"
This is where I "put words in your mouth"
You are hallucinating *again*. Have made no such refusal.
and say I'm "splitting hairs."
Yes.
Abio-genesis does not happen in nature. This is what is called a "fact"
Really? Provide support for your assertion. Document where you've examined every nook and cranny of the planet and examined it with a microscope to conclusively determine the absence of any such activity. Because that's what it would take to actually "prove the negative" of your claim and establish it as an *actual* fact, instead of just your presumption which you want to "call" a fact.
Are you sure you understand how this "evidence" thing actually works?
This is where I "put words in your mouth"
Thanks for the warning.
Top notch article by Dr. Missler! Thanks.
Your argument is with Jesus Christ. He speaks in no uncertain terms.
Mar 10:6 But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.
Take up your ideas with Him.
Blockheads.
I wasn't going to do a general ping for this thread, but your posts make it worth while. So I'm cranking up the ping machine ...
|
No evolutionist said that. So who did?
This is No Man's Land..
You will find no reason here..
I have noted constantly (and consistently) that a God that could create a Universe, has no problem creating evolution..
I see no problem with Darwin's "Origin of Species" as part of God's plan..
And it is the placing of Limits on the Power of God by those that profess to believe in Him that amazes me..
It is continually frustrating to encounter those that refuse to accept God's work unless it conforms to their beleifs..
That's the ticket...reduce science to public consensus. We could have a nationwide referendum every 10 years on the major scientific issues, dispense with data collection and all that hard stuff, and issue a public declaration of whatever we voted the truth to be.
That way ID would have a fighting chance to be officially regarded as "science."
Of course you do if you're an evolutionist.
You believe nothing exploded without a cause and made the universe.
You believe spontaneous generation.
You believe that infinites must be subsets of finites.
Those magic wands are hard to hide.
FWIW, he just refuted 90% of his own arguments.
You've just driven a stake into atheism. Nice work. Your posts should turn pink from embarrassment.
Chuck Missler makes at several outright blunders here.
The replacement of phlogiston theory by atomic theory, the lack of evidence for Earth's movement throught the aether, and the measurement of the speed of light, all demonstrate the superiority of empirical studies to speculation.
He also gets the nebular hypothesis mixed up. Kant's hypotheses used a nebula (or gas cloud) condensing into the Sun and planets. Swedenborg's suggestion of emanations was quite different. Apparently, Missler doesn't understand the difference.
So Missler's title claims the opposite of what his examples demonstrate. One must assume that Missler is ignorant of science and its history.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.