Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Daggah · 02-07-2002, 11:46 AM

Hey, theyeti, I posted first, not after jkb.

I posted at 12:36 AM, he posted at 5:51 AM.

theyeti · 02-07-2002, 12:09 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Daggah:
Hey, theyeti, I posted first, not after jkb.

I posted at 12:36 AM, he posted at 5:51 AM.

And both of you posted after <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=58&t=000198" target="_blank">Coragyps</a> (4:03 PM Feb 06). His was the thread I was referring to.

theyeti

KeithHarwood · 02-07-2002, 01:10 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Daggah:
<a href="http://ucsdnews.ucsd.edu/newsrel/science/mchox.htm" target="_blank">First Genetic Evidence of how major changes in body shapes occurred during early animal evolution</a>

I found it very depressing that a university would feel it had to mention the creation/evolution debate here. It is, after all, a political debate, not a scientific one. I find it even more depressing that it should spend so much space on the matter.

Over Christmas I watched the last episode of Evolution. I thought that if the students I saw there are in any way representative of US students as a whole then the US is in deep, deep trouble as a scientific and technological nation.
This press release suugests that they are representative and the US really is in trouble.

rafe gutman · 02-07-2002, 01:28 PM

just remember that wells was at UCSD last week ripping on evolution, and those who study it. as long as the evo/cre controversy is not mentioned in the paper itself, i think it's fine to say something in a news release. the good guys get constantly hammered by the creationists, i think it's healthy to retort now and then.

the funny thing is that wells got nailed at his talk for not knowing anything about hox genes, then he tries to rip on a UCSD study of hox genes, but totally botches it. if you read the DI news release, you'd think the researchers had made mutant shrimp. after all, the DI release says "mutant shrimp" about 4 or 5 times. unfortunately for wells, the research was conducted in fruit flies.

doh!

this would be sad if it wasn't so pathetic.

Kevin Dorner · 02-07-2002, 01:29 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by KeithHarwood:
Over Christmas I watched the last episode of Evolution. I thought that if the students I saw there are in any way representative of US students as a whole then the US is in deep, deep trouble as a scientific and technological nation.
This press release suugests that they are representative and the US really is in trouble.

I'm not much of a prophet... but I do envision a horde of very talented, very educated, and very angry biologists leaving the United States. (Come to Canada!)

Can you understand what it must be like to be a biologist in the U.S. right now? I'd be so frustrated... to put the time and effort over years and years of work into learning your science, understanding it... some very complex stuff, and then get told you are wrong about everything by the followers of some three thousand year old book written on goatskin by people who had multiple wives, burned dung as fuel, thought the earth was flat, and killed absolutely everyone whose land they wanted because they thought an invisible man in the sky had told them to?

This is like a snotty schoolkid telling his math teacher he can't even do long division. This is like a faith-healer telling a doctor that he knows more about the disease killing his son than the doctor does, the doctor who has seen a hundred cases of it and cured them all.

This is anti-intellectual arrogance on a scale unspeakably large, larger than I have ever seen in my lifetime or hope to.

[ February 07, 2002: Message edited by: Kevin Dorner ]

S2Focus · 02-07-2002, 05:39 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by rafe gutman:
....

....the funny thing is that wells got nailed at his talk for not knowing anything about hox genes, then he tries to rip on a UCSD study of hox genes, but totally botches it. if you read the DI news release, you'd think the researchers had made mutant shrimp. after all, the DI release says "mutant shrimp" about 4 or 5 times. unfortunately for wells, the research was conducted in fruit flies.

doh!

this would be sad if it wasn't so pathetic.

I attended Wells' lecture at UCSD last week, and saw the whole exchange -- Wells definitely did get "corrected" regarding the function of Hox genes, but most of people in the audience were so clueless that they didn't realize how Wells had erred. All he did was reply to his challenger, "the evidence isn't there to convince me", and the audience swallowed his response hook, line, sinker, fishing pole, tackle box, and boat!

Wells could have been caught trying to claim that 2+2=5 and it wouldn't have made any difference to most of his audience.

Wells (and other anti-evolution propagandists) know full well that as long as their audiences are packed with "true believers", they can get away with almost anything. And believe me, Wells got away with plenty last week!

[ February 07, 2002: Message edited by: S2Focus ]

theyeti · 02-07-2002, 06:37 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by rafe gutman:

doh!

this would be sad if it wasn't so pathetic.

My favorite saying about cre/ID: This would be hilarious if it wasn't so irritating.

theyeti

Dr.GH · 02-07-2002, 08:10 PM

S2Focus,

I was at the talk as well. I didn't think that even a simple majority of the audience was pro-creationist. But, I am an opptimist.

tgamble · 02-08-2002, 03:14 PM

Another creationist response:

Quote:

Thank you for the excellent article, which is a point I have endeavored to make time and time again on the board, with regards to my disbelief of junk DNA being non-functioning at all times. (re: discussions on Dr. Max�s article) <a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/molgen/" target="_blank">http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/molgen/</a>

I am really pleased with the article because it demonstrates very well the taking of evidence and spin doctoring given a chosen philosophy and thus using it to promote an ideology or support such a philosophy. Of the most obvious is the key statement :

>>McGinnis, showed in its experiments that this could be accomplished with relatively simple mutations in a class of regulatory genes, known as Hox, that act as master switches by turning on and off other genes during embryonic development.>>

Relatively simple mutations? Now we have seen this done with fruitflies already six legged, four legged etc. It is not new. The relatively simple mutations were affected without any mention of how or why or if this could occur naturally and had viable offspring, which as ever is crucial to claiming any form of evolution in the bigger theory sense.

Adaptation of many organisms is as I have always stated much to be admired, though it must be said to have limits. This catalyst of Ubx proteins suppression of limb formation is very interesting but there is nothing to suppose this creature was not designed this way, as it is stated the various genes turned on and off are already present, any more than an increase of sulfuric conditions increase the pigmentation of English Peppered Moths.

There is always the point of whether such a change is beneficial to survival once activated. The types of catalysts, for turning on and off present genetic material is worth recording, but so to the catalyst that activates such a procedure which should never be a scientist.

We have seen drugs of various kinds with the same effect in humans regarding limb suppression. Since we, humans have so much junk DNA it is worthwhile to pursue this area. This article is welcome regardless of its rash interpretation.

I'm lost here. Dr. max doesn't mention hox genes. What do they have to do with junk DNA?

[ February 08, 2002: Message edited by: tgamble ]

rafe gutman · 02-08-2002, 04:03 PM

tgamble, that response does not make any sense whatsoever. it is as though someone randomly pieced together a series of words and phrases.

i think it would be better to discuss the actual claims of the article, as opposed to the claims made by a summary of that article. here's the last paragraph of the original nature article:

Quote:

To our knowledge, this is the first experimental evidence that links naturally selected alterations of a specific protein sequence to a major morphological transition in evolution. There are at least two major reasons why the mutation of mutiple Ser/Thr residues that inhibit a repression function might be advantageous from an evolutionary aspect. First, mutating the residues would give dominant phenotypes, eliminating the need to fix two recessive mutations in a morphologically evolving lineage. Second, the successive removal of Ser/Thr residues might quantitatively influence repression function and morphology, allowing viable microevolutionary steps toward "hopeful monsters" with macroevolutionary alterations in body shape.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

02-07-2002, 11:46 AM	#11
Daggah Banned Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: Deployed to Kosovo Posts: 4,314	Hey, theyeti, I posted first, not after jkb. I posted at 12:36 AM, he posted at 5:51 AM.

02-07-2002, 01:28 PM	#14
rafe gutman Junior Member Join Date: May 2001 Location: La Jolla, CA Posts: 72	just remember that wells was at UCSD last week ripping on evolution, and those who study it. as long as the evo/cre controversy is not mentioned in the paper itself, i think it's fine to say something in a news release. the good guys get constantly hammered by the creationists, i think it's healthy to retort now and then. the funny thing is that wells got nailed at his talk for not knowing anything about hox genes, then he tries to rip on a UCSD study of hox genes, but totally botches it. if you read the DI news release, you'd think the researchers had made mutant shrimp. after all, the DI release says "mutant shrimp" about 4 or 5 times. unfortunately for wells, the research was conducted in fruit flies. doh! this would be sad if it wasn't so pathetic.

02-07-2002, 08:10 PM	#18
Dr.GH Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Dana Point, Ca, USA Posts: 2,115	S2Focus, I was at the talk as well. I didn't think that even a simple majority of the audience was pro-creationist. But, I am an opptimist.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.