Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Surprises in sea anemone genome (More Vindication for Intelligent Design/Creation Science)
The Scientist ^ | July 5, 2007 | Melissa Lee Phillips

Posted on 07/06/2007 11:20:54 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180181-190 next last
To: editor-surveyor

Thanks for the ping!


141 posted on 07/08/2007 9:07:54 PM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
What in your opinion would definitively falsify Darwinian evolution?

To add to js1138's (unanswered) response:

Finding an animal whose offspring differ from it in a way unattributable to genetic variance. (i.e. Lamarckian Evo) Let's see the creator tinker with something. Let's see a dog give birth to a canary.

Find an animal which has no genetic or morphological relationship to any other animal. Let's see chimeras. Dragons. Pegasus. Mermaids. Centaurs. We have fish-like amphibians, amphibian-like reptiles, and reptile-like birds, but no fish-like birds. C'mon, it shouldn't be tough to make something novel. Instead, we have a well-ordered, interconnected tree of life.

Finally, since almost all creationism is nothing more than (unsubstantiated) claims that evolution has been falsified - this argument is rather odd coming from you.

ID is ridiculous. We have plenty of examples of unintelligent designs. Really stupid designs. If there is a creator, it's a fool.
142 posted on 07/09/2007 7:39:23 PM PDT by UndauntedR
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: UndauntedR; js1138; AndyTheBear; metmom; betty boop; editor-surveyor; DaveLoneRanger; ...

On the topic of what would definitively falsify Darwinian evolution, UndauntedR wrote:

==To add to js1138’s (unanswered) response...Finding an animal whose offspring differ from it in a way unattributable to genetic variance. (i.e. Lamarckian Evo)

What do you make of this, UndauntedR?

LAMARCKISM REVISITED Normally, the fur of agouti mice is yellow, brown, or a calico-like mixture of the two, depending on the number of attached methyl groups. But when Duke University researchers Jirtle and Waterland fed folic acid and other methyl-rich supplements to pregnant mothers, despite the fact that all offspring inherited exactly the same agouti gene (i.e., with no nucleotide differences), mice who received supplements had offspring with mostly brown fur, whereas mice without supplements gave birth to mostly yellow pups with a higher susceptibility to obesity, diabetes, and cancer. The methyl groups bound to a transposon at the 5’ end of the agouti locus, thereby shutting off expression of the agouti gene, not just in the murine recipient but in its offspring as well.

https://notes.utk.edu/bio/greenberg.nsf/0/b360905554fdb7d985256ec5006a7755?OpenDocument


143 posted on 07/10/2007 9:47:23 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 142 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Thanks for the ping!


144 posted on 07/10/2007 10:07:43 AM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
What do you make of this, UndauntedR?

It's very interesting stuff, but it has nothing to say about whether evolution happened, or whether natural selection is the dominant cause of change in populations.

Darwin was not opposed to the concept of inheritance of acquired characteristics.

Epigenetic inheritance, however, is a far cry from the inheritance of learned behavior, or the inheritance of characteristics achieved through striving (as with the example of the giraffe).

145 posted on 07/10/2007 10:37:19 AM PDT by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | View Replies]

To: js1138
Undaunted laid down the gauntlet: He/she said “Finding an animal whose offspring differ from it in a way unattributable to genetic variance (i.e. Lamarckian Evo)” would definitively falsify Darwinism. Therefore, by Undaunted’s own criteria, the research results of epigenetics falsifies Darwinian evolution. But I’m sure you guys will find a Darwinian elastic clause that will allow you to further stretch and contort Darwinian evolution to fit every inconvenient fact, to include those generated by the field of epigenetics.
146 posted on 07/10/2007 10:49:03 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 145 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
Undaunted laid down the gauntlet: He/she said “Finding an animal whose offspring differ from it in a way unattributable to genetic variance (i.e. Lamarckian Evo)” would definitively falsify Darwinism.

Fortunately, science isn't judged by the care with which people write on chat forums. Lamarckian inheritance co-existed with evolution for eighty years or so. It was dropped not because it disagreed with Darwinism, but because the evidence was against it.

Epigenetic inheritance is quite unlike "lamarckian" inheritance as originally formulated.

147 posted on 07/10/2007 11:09:20 AM PDT by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 146 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
Evolutionists aren't worried. The theory will just be tweaked a bit, a plausible scenario covering the evidence will be described, and presto! Evolution v6.2.0307 will be released!

It's the magical, flexible, unfalsifiable Super Theory!

148 posted on 07/10/2007 11:12:06 AM PDT by TChris (The Republican Party is merely the Democrat Party's "away" jersey - Vox Day)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TChris
And unlike UndauntedR, the Church of Darwin will not lay down the criteria by which Darwinian evolution (RM+NS) can be falsified. I don’t call it the Church of Darwin for nothing!
149 posted on 07/10/2007 11:15:38 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 148 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
By the way, how are you coming along with my original post on the subject of what would falsify evolution:

Finding fossils sorted in the strata according to density rather than in a pattern that supports descent with modification. That would be good evidence against evolution.

150 posted on 07/10/2007 11:26:35 AM PDT by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 146 | View Replies]

To: js1138

==Finding fossils sorted in the strata according to density rather than in a pattern that supports descent with modification. That would be good evidence against evolution.

I’ll do you one better. How about a fossile record that:

The history of most fossil species include two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism:

1) Stasis - most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless;

2) Sudden appearance - in any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and ‘fully formed’.

Gould, S.J. (1977)
“Evolution’s Erratic Pace”
Natural History, vol. 86, May


151 posted on 07/10/2007 11:30:06 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
More Gould quotes on the subject:

Faced with these facts of evolution and the philosophical bankruptcy of their own position, creationists rely upon distortion and innuendo to buttress their rhetorical claim. If I sound sharp or bitter, indeed I am -- for I have become a major target of these practices.

I count myself among the evolutionists who argue for a jerky, or episodic, rather than a smoothly gradual, pace of change. In 1972 my colleague Niles Eldredge and I developed the theory of punctuated equilibrium. We argued that two outstanding facts of the fossil record -- geologically "sudden" origin of new species and failure to change thereafter (stasis) -- reflect the predictions of evolutionary theory, not the imperfections of the fossil record. In most theories, small isolated populations are the source of new species, and the process of speciation takes thousands or tens of thousands of years. This amount of time, so long when measured against our lives, is a geological microsecond . . .


152 posted on 07/10/2007 11:37:50 AM PDT by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 151 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
From “Predictions of Intelligent Design” ... Informational structures beyond the inherent abilities of blind natural forces and random chance will be found.

I'm willing to be convinced. Please show me how this statement is a prediction of ID. IOW, please reply with the logical argument from the axioms of ID whose conclusion is that statement and also show that its negation is inconsistent with the theory.

153 posted on 07/10/2007 11:45:33 AM PDT by edsheppa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
More detailed article here.

Good luck getting to 1000 posts!

154 posted on 07/10/2007 11:45:47 AM PDT by <1/1,000,000th%
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: js1138
Just another Church of Darwin devotee desperately tugging at the unfalsifiable Darwinian elastic clause in an effort to give a thoroughly discredited “theory” CPR. But to Gould’s credit (unlike his co-religionists) he was a pioneer in at least admitting the facts in evidence re: the fossil record.
155 posted on 07/10/2007 11:45:54 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 152 | View Replies]

To: edsheppa

You might want to start by reading the OP. Here are some links for further commentary:

From the ID perspective:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/surprises-in-sea-anemone-genome/

http://www.uncommondescent.com/darwinism/frontloading-confirmed/

And now for my favorite, from a Creation Science perspective:

http://creationsafaris.com/crev200707.htm#20070708a


156 posted on 07/10/2007 11:58:11 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 153 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
But to Gould’s credit (unlike his co-religionists) he was a pioneer in at least admitting the facts in evidence re: the fossil record.

Unlike some evolution critics, Gould was not a liar. He did not pull quotations out of context, attempting to make them say the opposite of what they intend.

157 posted on 07/10/2007 12:00:26 PM PDT by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 155 | View Replies]

To: js1138
I didn’t make him say the opposite of what he intended. I merely quoted his assessment of the fossil record. Everyone knows Gould clung to his Darwinist faith in spite of the massive evidence against it. What?...did you get the impression that I was trying to paint him as some sort of Creation Scientist? Perish the thought! I would never intentionally try to give the impression that a known Darwinist deserves such a privileged status.
158 posted on 07/10/2007 12:08:10 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 157 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
This of course comes as no surprise for those of us who hold that evolution was front-loaded (anatomical complexity in later animals was present but not expressed in the ancestral animals) by an intelligent designer. Nothing in macro-evolution makes sense except in the light of front loading!

From the article linked by Dembski:

"What's exciting about this paper is that you're seeing the footprints of that ancient organization, reaching back perhaps 700 million years, which is an enormous expanse of evolution," said David Haussler of the University of California, Santa Cruz, who was not involved in the work.

When Dembski talks about "front-loading" is he unaware that 700 million years is just one-fifth of the history of life? He is a mathematician, isn't he?

By the way, what happened to the Cambrian "explosion"? I thought the designer zapped all this complexity into the Genome one day 500 million years ago. What is it doing showing up 200 million years prior?

And what is a creationist doing admitting to 700 million years of evolution, anyway? Do the troops in the trenches know about this?

159 posted on 07/10/2007 12:17:30 PM PDT by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 156 | View Replies]

To: Stultis
we would expect the Creator to use common elements in His designs (if only so his creatures could eat each other, for for many other reasons as well).

I don't see it. Why would a Creator make His creatures so they eat each other? Even supposing that were true, it doesn't follow they need be made of common elements, at least as I understand the term.

160 posted on 07/10/2007 12:18:35 PM PDT by edsheppa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180181-190 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson