Freethought & Rationalism Archive

pangloss · 06-03-2002, 05:50 AM

Hirsch - at one time a legitimate scientist - is rapidly joining the ranks of the Gishes, Hovinds, and Wells of the world. See his latest flailing:

<a href="http://www.arn.org/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=13;t=000076" target="_blank">http://www.arn.org/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=13;t=000076</a>

What a sad sack...

hezekiah jones · 06-03-2002, 06:36 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by pangloss:
<a href="http://www.arn.org/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=13;t=000076" target="_blank">Darwinists wrong about DNA big time-again</a>

What's the big deal. Ernst Mayr talks about this in What Evolution Is. It doesn't seem to bother him at all.

Duvenoy · 06-03-2002, 06:55 AM

I especally liked these two replies:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Perhaps they encoded some function for the human appendix or male nipples!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here is another aspect of Darwinism that has been a huge failure: the case of the �vestigal organs�. Back about 100 years ago this was a very popular application of Darwinism, arguing that all sorts of �non-functional� organs and anatomical features were vestiges of once useful features. Essentially all of the items in these catalogs have since be found to have function. I do not know about the male nipple, but the appendix most certainly has a function in the immune system. It is a huge embarrassment for the Darwinists that these anatomical conclusions made on the specific basis of their theory have been so wrong.

Indeed here we have the best reason for jumping off the sinking Darwinian ship: the predictions made by the Darwinian theories are wrong across the board. No only in molecular biology and genomics, some rather new developments in science, but also in anatomy, a science that was already well developed a century ago.

We have some life boats ready for those of you who are hearing the rush of water through the holes in your ship.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 203 | From: Germantown, Maryland | Registered: May 2001 | IP: Logged

Myrmecos
Member
Member # 239

posted 06-02-2002 10:30 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RFH,

I am a life scientist. As a life scientist, I know lots of other life scientists. I attend meetings, and read lots of life science journals. And quite frankly, I've not seen a single indication of life scientists abandoning Darwinian concepts as you claim.

Rather, the trend I've seen is that Darwinian concepts are making inroads into more biological disciplines than ever. Biochemists are beginning to use phylogenetic methods as a research tool- the number of papers published in the discipline using common descent has skyrocketed in the past decade. Agronomists and epidemiologists are using Neo-Darwinian models of population genetics more now than ever.

I've asked you this before, and you did not reply. Where do you get this information about "life scientists" leaving Darwinian theory? Do you have any statistics? Or are you just making it up?

You wrote:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Many left the fold when pervasive lateral gene transfer was proven, eradicating the �Tree of Life� concept.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Name some, and maybe I'll believe you.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The mouse-human comparisons were supposed to bring about order, and instead have caused more confusion.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Have they? This quote from Science lists some of the questions that this sort of research can help answer:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What is the nature of and the selective pressure responsible for the high incidence of conserved syntenic anchors outside coding gene limits, estimated here as 44%? What are the evolutionary forces that drive and maintain the chromosomal exchanges, translocations, and internal inversions that punctuate the genomes of modern mammals? In lineages with highly reshuffled chromosomes (rodents, bears, chimps, owl monkeys, squirrel monkeys muntjaks, and others) (6, 8), which events favor the burst of these rare genomic reorganizations? How do new genes arise and others disappear in species genomes? Do these events actually matter in species adaptation and survival? As whole genome sequences become interpreted against the mammalian evolutionary background and dynamic genome tinkering is revealed, we shall be able to view what has happened in our evolutionary past, what matters to our future, how modern genomes and developmental adaptations were sculpted.

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

The above quote is profoundly Darwinian, both in terms of common descent, and of selection. I see no sign at all of what you claim, of scientists abandoning Darwinian theories. Instead, the author seems to be chomping at the bit to use this data to evaluate evolutionary hypotheses in a framework of common descent. Where is the problem for Darwinian theory?

----------------------\\

I really need to learn more about genetics.

d

hezekiah jones · 06-03-2002, 07:13 AM

Also noteworthy:

Quote:

The Darwinian theories of evolution were wrong, wrong, wrong. [...] [T]he real world sequencing data simply falsify the Darwinian ideas time and again. The rest of the article gives more evidence of the failure.

Then:

Quote:

Indeed. As you say, Darwinian evolutionary theories have very little to do with it. Real scientific data seem always to be more complicated and less intelligible to the Darwinists.

And later:

Quote:

The entire article is a refutation of Darwinian concepts.

So ... the article refutes "Darwinian concepts," despite the fact the article has very little to do with "Darwinian evolutionary theories." He seems a bit confused, or maybe I am.

But the best has to be:

Quote:

creationist: You seem to have understood clearly the conclusions and implications of the article.

Maybe creationist should, from his "non science standpoint" (rather than the several working scientists on that thread), explain it to RFH? After all, it's "always less intelligible" to the "Darwinists."

lpetrich · 06-03-2002, 07:19 AM

What Roland Hirsch had been complaining about was the discovery that numerous stretches of noncoding DNA were highly conserved. This suggests that they have some function, though what their function is remains to be seen. These genome parts could code for directly-functional RNA, such as transfer and ribosomal RNA, or these parts could be involved in gene regulation.

randman · 06-03-2002, 08:04 AM

But Ip, that couldn't possibly be a legitimate complaint since he is critical of evolution, and we know we can't listen to anyone that criticizes evolution.
Heresy!

hezekiah jones · 06-03-2002, 08:13 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by randman:
... we know we can't listen to anyone that criticizes evolution.

We listen to them all the time. Do you have a point?

Hastur · 06-03-2002, 12:18 PM

Science does listen.

Anybody who could legitimately disprove descent with modification would win the Nobel hands-down.

RufusAtticus · 06-03-2002, 02:41 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by randman:
<strong>But Ip, that couldn't possibly be a legitimate complaint since he is critical of evolution, and we know we can't listen to anyone that criticizes evolution.
Heresy!</strong>

Randman, you are in serious need of some scientific education.

We listen to critiques of evolution if they are accurate. Not every critique of something is based in reality or science.

Creationist critiques are based on ignorance and emotion and thus are not compelling. They tend to be stuff like "I know nothing about evolution, except that it is wrong."

~~RvFvS~~

pangloss · 06-04-2002, 11:40 AM

Here's a keeper... Doubt Hirsch will get it, though...

<a href="http://www.arn.org/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=13;t=000083" target="_blank">http://www.arn.org/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=13;t=000083</a>

06-03-2002, 05:50 AM	#1
pangloss Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2000 Posts: 1,302	Roland Hirsch - creationist zealot Hirsch - at one time a legitimate scientist - is rapidly joining the ranks of the Gishes, Hovinds, and Wells of the world. See his latest flailing: <a href="http://www.arn.org/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=13;t=000076" target="_blank">http://www.arn.org/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=13;t=000076</a> What a sad sack...

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

06-03-2002, 06:55 AM	#3
Duvenoy Veteran Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: Just another hick from the sticks. Posts: 1,108	I especally liked these two replies: quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Perhaps they encoded some function for the human appendix or male nipples! -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Here is another aspect of Darwinism that has been a huge failure: the case of the �vestigal organs�. Back about 100 years ago this was a very popular application of Darwinism, arguing that all sorts of �non-functional� organs and anatomical features were vestiges of once useful features. Essentially all of the items in these catalogs have since be found to have function. I do not know about the male nipple, but the appendix most certainly has a function in the immune system. It is a huge embarrassment for the Darwinists that these anatomical conclusions made on the specific basis of their theory have been so wrong. Indeed here we have the best reason for jumping off the sinking Darwinian ship: the predictions made by the Darwinian theories are wrong across the board. No only in molecular biology and genomics, some rather new developments in science, but also in anatomy, a science that was already well developed a century ago. We have some life boats ready for those of you who are hearing the rush of water through the holes in your ship. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Posts: 203 \| From: Germantown, Maryland \| Registered: May 2001 \| IP: Logged Myrmecos Member Member # 239 posted 06-02-2002 10:30 AM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- RFH, I am a life scientist. As a life scientist, I know lots of other life scientists. I attend meetings, and read lots of life science journals. And quite frankly, I've not seen a single indication of life scientists abandoning Darwinian concepts as you claim. Rather, the trend I've seen is that Darwinian concepts are making inroads into more biological disciplines than ever. Biochemists are beginning to use phylogenetic methods as a research tool- the number of papers published in the discipline using common descent has skyrocketed in the past decade. Agronomists and epidemiologists are using Neo-Darwinian models of population genetics more now than ever. I've asked you this before, and you did not reply. Where do you get this information about "life scientists" leaving Darwinian theory? Do you have any statistics? Or are you just making it up? You wrote: quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Many left the fold when pervasive lateral gene transfer was proven, eradicating the �Tree of Life� concept. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Name some, and maybe I'll believe you. quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The mouse-human comparisons were supposed to bring about order, and instead have caused more confusion. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Have they? This quote from Science lists some of the questions that this sort of research can help answer: quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- What is the nature of and the selective pressure responsible for the high incidence of conserved syntenic anchors outside coding gene limits, estimated here as 44%? What are the evolutionary forces that drive and maintain the chromosomal exchanges, translocations, and internal inversions that punctuate the genomes of modern mammals? In lineages with highly reshuffled chromosomes (rodents, bears, chimps, owl monkeys, squirrel monkeys muntjaks, and others) (6, 8), which events favor the burst of these rare genomic reorganizations? How do new genes arise and others disappear in species genomes? Do these events actually matter in species adaptation and survival? As whole genome sequences become interpreted against the mammalian evolutionary background and dynamic genome tinkering is revealed, we shall be able to view what has happened in our evolutionary past, what matters to our future, how modern genomes and developmental adaptations were sculpted. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The above quote is profoundly Darwinian, both in terms of common descent, and of selection. I see no sign at all of what you claim, of scientists abandoning Darwinian theories. Instead, the author seems to be chomping at the bit to use this data to evaluate evolutionary hypotheses in a framework of common descent. Where is the problem for Darwinian theory? ----------------------\\ I really need to learn more about genetics. d

06-03-2002, 07:19 AM	#5
lpetrich Contributor Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: Lebanon, OR, USA Posts: 16,829	What Roland Hirsch had been complaining about was the discovery that numerous stretches of noncoding DNA were highly conserved. This suggests that they have some function, though what their function is remains to be seen. These genome parts could code for directly-functional RNA, such as transfer and ribosomal RNA, or these parts could be involved in gene regulation.

06-03-2002, 08:04 AM	#6
randman Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Posts: 333	But Ip, that couldn't possibly be a legitimate complaint since he is critical of evolution, and we know we can't listen to anyone that criticizes evolution. Heresy!

06-03-2002, 12:18 PM	#8
Hastur Regular Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Carcosa Posts: 238	Science does listen. Anybody who could legitimately disprove descent with modification would win the Nobel hands-down.

06-04-2002, 11:40 AM	#10
pangloss Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2000 Posts: 1,302	Here's a keeper... Doubt Hirsch will get it, though... <a href="http://www.arn.org/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=13;t=000083" target="_blank">http://www.arn.org/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=13;t=000083</a>

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.