Creationists and molecular biology

OK, well that is one "evidence" that doesn't stand up to scientific investigation at all. In fact it's been known to be wrong for oh, say, 200 years (although some people recognised the fact earlier).For a start we wouldn't expect to see a clear ordering in the fossil record. And we wouldn't exepct to see a lot of extinct species. But we would expect to see modern species all the way down, mixed in with those few extinct species we did find. And we would expect to be able to tell the "flood" strata from those deposited by slow gradual processes. Not one of these is the case, and all this was known before Darwin published his findings.

It's funny you should mention Darwin. Because he is the one who said the fossils were the biggest problem. If I am so wrong about my example of evidence, I assume you have found the millions of transitional missing links?
Ofcourse yours is a typical line of evolution reasoning.'But we would expect to see modern species all the way down'And I have indeed seen modern species in the fossils. What I havent seen is transitionals. But I will understand if we are straying from the point, which is that evidence CAN support creation. Extinction certainly fits.Forgive me if a favour the geologists, and paelaentologists opinion.-or creation scientists.[This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 10-15-2003][This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 10-15-2003]

THe fact is that the fossil record totally blew a hole in the idea that species didn't change. It was clear that the earth was very old - at least compared to the ideas of YECs and that there were different species in different time periods.Let's make it quite clear - the fossil record looks like the result of a flood only in some respects and to judge it as the result of a flood means ignoring basic facts. (Jusr to point out one more example, some fossils were buried by sandstorms in a desert environment - not the sort of thing that happens in a flood).Darwin's problem was far more limited and he had an explantion which was at least partially correct - that the fossil record did not have sufficient detail to preserve finely grained transitional links.And I bet that you have seen very few modern species as anything other than relatively recent fossils. Can you find any mammals from the Cambrian, the Devonian or the Carboniferous ?And there are plenty of transitionals. Archaeopteryx, Acanthostega, Seymouria to name three that are very well-known - or at a more fine grained level the so-called "archaic" homo sapiens specimens.Why would extinction support creation ?

Isn't this a bit off this topic? Couldn't we take it back to the flood threads?

Welcome Oooooooook...er..Oooooo..er nmI'm going to move this thread to the Evolution board and maybe as Ned suggested, the flood topic can be addressed in the many Flood threads already in existance------------------
AdminAsgara
Queen of the Universe

Thread moved here from the Welcome Visitors forum.[This message has been edited by AdminAsgara, 10-15-2003]

quote:

---

I am not trying to (insert plum into mouth) "Lord it over the uneducated oiks who probably can't tell their drosophila from their zebrafish" (you might have a PhD in developmental biology for all Iknow), or to make everyone else see what is "plainly right in front of their eyes". I am genuinely interested in where you see a problem with the Evo-Devo view of things. As far as I'm aware, the more we find out about the molecular mechanisms which control development, the more they support evolution.

---

If this paragraph after this sentence is not at issue the place still is the phllotactic like pattern of calcium in the caecilian scale sandwhiched between posion and mucus glands in a controversial accounting seemingly developing from the anterior to the posterior in terms of "conserved" molecular evolution. A creationist could argue away this anatomy to point should the issue retain the whole discussion between how these"species" are to be understood in terms of changes in biological theory realative to DESCRIBING species differences and maintaining species natural history by differnce in life-cycle (in herpetology see Regel on salamander toungue types). An evolutionist who pulls out "topobiology" could respond to such a creationist by design but instead the lights of elite biology were only able to read Scottish ecomomics here which is for me simply Einstein's reference to a Galelian metric.Paragraph from The Journal of Experimental Zoology Vol. 46, No.3 November, 1926 by E Driver ( a friend of my Grandfather) titled "The Temperature-Effective Period - The Key to Eye Facet Number in Drosophila". The first paragraph was "The early work on the determination of the period in development during which temperature may modify structure has been carried out largely on Lepidoptera. It had been definitely demonstrated by the end of the last century that certain butterflies and moths which had long been regarded as rare genera and species were actually produced by some of the more common speices under unusual climatic conditions. This once definitely established, some effort was made to determine the period in the life-cycle at which this effect was produced. F. Merriield, in 1891, demonstrated that in the moths Selenis illustraria and Ennomos autumnaria, the markings are chiefly affected by the temperature experienced during the early part of the pupal period, while the coloring is cheifly affected by the temperature experienced during the penultimate pupal stage."

quote:

---

You may feel differently, and think that it is all about making the wrong interpretation (as your posts to Crashfrog have indicated). If that was the case then I would have thought that seeing as the facts are becoming clearer then someone could just take a look at them in a different way and come up with an alternative theory. I don't think this has been done (again you may know different).

---

I have been consitently indicating otherwise for well over 3 years now and have been able to maintain this inclination in response to all comers so no matter their preference...Try to look as some of my longer posts on this board if you want.

quote:

---

Finally, I am consistantly frustrated by what I see as (deliberate?) misunderstanding of molecular biology in the creationist camp. Things like the belief that all mutations are deleterious, or the misuse of the term 'protein family' to describe 'bone genes' or 'brain genes'. These simply do not fit the facts, and possibly reveal a fundamental lack of knowledge or cynical misdirection.

---

My guess is that your frustration comes less from being first frustrated with why simple physical issues remain left behind and more with the actual "faith" that is "attached" to the singularity in the correspondence you may have attempted to coordinate for yourself. For instance, I did not respond to Crashfrog's last above, 1) it as a general writing more or less explains how it was that I was denied the field of herpetology which was not the issue that molecular evolution and clockings etc were when this happened for me 2) His citation of the Kinetic Theory of Gases could actually become a part of strict Biblical Creationism should Crooke's and others' rather mystical interpretation of the physicality underlying some of the experiments find a rigours creation science following scientific creationally... 3)I have located this theory as part of the reason that my KNOWLEDGE of herpetology never showed up in the psychological rejection (not hepetolgical morph views) of my use of the acutal law that binds student and faculty while I have subsequently wondered if Wright's physiological genetics of coat color (which for Provine was ONLY the color "yellow") could not be updated by a proper infusion of the kinetic theory of gases applied to melanin dynamics??I do not reject Quantum Mechanics but there are many other kinematic layers that seem to me need to be tried out so that one does not simply show up in the Mathematical Biology Dept at Oxford UK only to find Murray showing off the faculty and facility and saying "now you can SEE what developemental biology you would be doing here"(as if beore the fact). Developemental biology is to be developed and not simply recognized along traditional lines. I have an old memo from Zeleny calling for an "inbreeding" of embryologists and geneticists (this has never occurred in the modern sense indicated in the recent evo-devo anti Mayr position of post modern Gouldites). Mendel knew this. Evo-Devo is making a mistake of simply lumping for homology plants and animals and to a lesser degree different kinds of animals where the issue of the "axis" still needs first a population genetics symbology (certainly there are many possibilites with respect to the lack of uncoupling of Needham's notions relative to cell death being a unit of some Bauplan to mitosis etc). Sure molecular biology can proceed but it ought not take terms from other areas of biology even if some of the people using them do not confuse univocity with the popular plurivocal default reading because in the name of science this usually results in rejecting valid but not much supported older ideas for the rate of "progress" in the present than dedicating money to database and software the information to see if the simple correlations uncovering cause because of truth are really strongest correlations than the words critical of the same evidence are still. I can relate back to the 30s on this as soon as the red flag is raised .The devo-evo needs to incorporate location (biogeographic) so that rotation and revolution can be segregated out in the data and not left the details of the specific experimental setup and/or proprietary nature of the facility that undertasks the take in the job. If by "deliberate" you mean "on purpose" then I can say that IS how I NOW after YEARS of rejection proceed. The Creation Movement if read in terms of history back to 1800s or earlier is really feeling the the same "after the fact" tension that I for one was able to see was NOT something that seperated public education and college but the generation next after me may not even be able to sense this just as I find it hard to sense what actually went on at the Scopes Trial except in a historical sense.If one is going to get too earlier frustrated over the different uses of the words such as "afffected" and "effected" it will be neigh impossible to come to c/e terms etc. This is why Derrida's understanding of Logos IS called for here. But people are even less taught where to look historically than what they may have to cut and paste in the near future. In my Grandfather's work on this period he referred to "straglers" which were actual flies but by the time I got to Cornell the same was called an "unknown". Twenty years later...I guess today we say this is a invisible service transparency???? can you tell me how "conservation" is going to predict specific heats of the colors rather than only indicate a common descent?????????? EVO-DEVO seems no closer to finding the plenum and there ARE plenty of tools available to direct research too but becuase of the conservative nature of the current leading authorites little is expended and even students who would want to PAY to do it are committed to mental hosptials instead. Creationists clearly do not want to PAY TO GET FRUSTRATED. As Crashfrog indicated the anuran sees this not as gibbon but instead is reactionary- that like a bad program on network TV can be avoided by turning the channel or not coming on-line in this case.[This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 10-15-2003]

""faith" that is "attached" to the singularity in the correspondence you may have attempted to coordinate for yourself."Do I take it from this rather cryptic sentence that you thought that I was rudely pestering you for a response? I'm sorry if you feel this way, but I was just enthusiastic to get the topic going with someone who seemed to be able and keen to have a decent discussion."the anuran sees this not as gibbon but instead is reactionary- that like a bad program on network TV can be avoided by turning the channel or not coming on-line in this case"If this is saying that you are going to ignore me from now on, then so be it. I just didn't think you would run away like that. If you are still happy to continue then so am I .I would say that you didn't actually say anything much in your last post. It *was* fairly long, you mentioned everyone from Mendel to Einstein, and you even managed to throw in a few impressive sounding latin names but you didn't attempt to tackle the topic itself.Can you give me specific examples of where results from genomic and molecular developmental studies that:A) are in violation of ToEorB)were, in your view misinterpretedIf this covers anything that you may have posted in the past, then could you please point me to the posts in question (as you will know your posts better than me and it would be considerably quicker than me searching through your 900 odd contributions).[This message has been edited by Ooook!, 10-16-2003]

If you re-read Brad McFalls post again all will become clear

Care to summarise.

According to some metaphysics out of any catalyst for Derrida's unique thinking, to say nothing of my own generations still refusal to try either to be as transparent as I breach the fractal pad mystically or simply demur, that is purely verbal and in Matchette's force that I try not to conspire Derrida as Jacque told me to talk to the scientists and I guess not a community of Rei blinkers but as a telos at least for L. Lawlor's "The infinite alterity called God opens up the very difference between being and the existent. the most excellent existent; we could not understand the being of this existent without ontology. AND the thought of being presupposes the thought of God ( in His infite transcendence) allows us to have the difference between existents and what trancends existents, being. We could of course, characterize this double..."p159 (Derrida and Husserl) was all I meant by

quote:

---

""faith" that is "attached" to the singularity in the correspondence you may have attempted to coordinate for yourself." ---------------------------------------------------------------------
Do I take it from this rather cryptic sentence that you thought that I was rudely pestering you for a response? I'm sorry if you feel this way, but I was just enthusiastic to get the topic going with someone who seemed to be able and keen to have a decent discussion.

---

I did not feel "purple" if that is what you asked but you did not answer my question relative to this v board as to color heats-- this would likely be usefu on any* c/e board if it was answered -so please do but dont expect me to speak around more than you...as I never said what Crashfrog or the French Taxonomy ambhibians does say...There has become a rather default position that "to be on topic" is to be DEFENDING evolution. This is absurd. I never had to "defend" it. I ran a 4-H club from 9-19 and it is still going strong 30 yrs later. I never defended biological change we simply learned more about. So if you are attempting to form a rigid structure of conversation with me based on other posts you may have read and think you emulate or would like to emulate it will not do with me- If you speak from the heart and I can sense it that is all that you need to keep my attention. Please, do not humor or patronize me with, "you know better than I " what posts to look at. I have stoped trying to get other people to read- you either do or you dont.I told you preciesly WHERE anatomcially I am thinking
I indicated where there needs to be more development for me to better understand how biology changes at this place (revolution vs rotation)
but I never said there was any "violation" (you word now) of ToE (which is a short I have used only because others have on the web- i have no problem NOT using ANY abbreviation for anything!!) but SAID that the issue of the AXIS from this place is Plurivocal. TOE needs it to be univocal. If it is then I see less to little that creationists would be able to say and do better critical of evolutionary theory sensu stricto. Will Provine DOES NOT solve this by becoming a biologist and leaving history behind and naming only varaible phase transitions with little diffusive change as any cardinal advance that Gould thinks evo-devo gain said from Mayr simply fails to extend the geographic distribution into an areally co-extensive set available for input. That should be PAID for as well. Maybe GBIF did it already, or NEON or... I have not looked up the latest in biodiverisity informatics standards but unless Croizat's method is incorporated directly the NZ work on minimal spanning trees via a extended graph theory planimeter desgin could compete with whatever the JAVA vs .NET world comes up with for etc etc nanotech etc...Do you have an understanding of Gould's Chapter ten "The Integration and Adaptation (Structure and Function) iun Ontogeny and Phylogeny: Historical Constraints and the Evolution of Development" in THE STRUCTURE OF EVOLUTIONARY THEORY? Did you see where Gould wrote, "We may legitimately quibble, as Jacobs et al. (1998) and many others have done, that upstream position in a cascade should not be equated with either causal or temporal primacy, for novel regulatory elemetns can be introduced by evolution into any position of a developing sequence."?? It is entirely possible that Gould for one confused topography and topology especially where he thought it fruitful to enhance or accelerate the WORK of natural selection. I never said the theory of evolution was violated. I have been interested in speciation in herps all along and have not found that developments with the introduction of the philosophy of biology to the synthetic position has done any thing to improve the state of herpetology itself. Instead one finds a trend to discuss creationism and devalue herpetology as legitemate field unto itself. It was for me.To say that one thing is primative is not to say that it is conservative but if one thinks that conservation substitues for what judgements of "primative" meant then one may indeed in the process of defending evolution loose culturally known truths in herpetology that for instance St-Hilliare called on biologists to "percieve" differntly, have often confused professionals as to what is simply the difference of a reptile and an amphibian and may be conseqent on a very restricted reading of Dobsahanky for need to validate but not violate the status quo. I dont know, I was never given the chance to do this work.My grandfather's papers indicated that what was at stake was a different position of CELLS in the wings of mutant flies as to their ordering relative to the body axis and Gould admirably is able to take this kind of criticism of chemisty and physiological genetics into the soft parts of fossil specimens as well. Once we know what cell we are talking about and can feel free to not worry about the person doing the talking THEN we will be able to see if the small carbon differences that Edleman wants to invoke topobiologically actually do express a space that atomic nanoecology can recover for the multiple levels of organization that need to be galelian before what hangs in the balance can be digit wise wisely communicated. I have no fear of this when reading Gould which is why I use him in C/E- he thinks biologically and that I like- as for his non-biological excursions -well...So you say "violated ToE" that means you have in mind what ToE is or did you simply mean Evo-Devo, please dont split hairs with me. If it clears it up for you- I think Waddingtons whole notion of developemental canalization DOES NOT EXIST but its proposal I think spurred thought to which Thom's biophilosphy to death has not been exhausted and little tried since applied to people in prison.
Sothen do tell what is TOE for you that I may hope to show by my own bootstraps confused rotation and revolution - You give me a defition and I may even be able to supply a perversion that twists artifical and natural selection different ways..I told you what I thought was in error, how it might be fixed and some comparisons to other time periods in biological history and now I have reiterated the same, If you wnat the output of a BioPERL module search etc you will have to pay me to do it. IF you think that the concept of regulatory genes is all standard then -well- I would only have written to "lord" it over you- this I didnt. I take it that you're asking VOID for a summary MEANS that you consider that there is substance to what I said- else it all appears as a waste of my time for you being less than serious about trying to have the coverstation with me. Maybe it would help if you told me more about yourself?

Summarise as in the annual 'Summarise Proust' competition I assume.

Why not? - On preparing myself a little better for the O-rang I started to collect any thought I may have on Gould's Chapter 10 and a quite remarkable thought occurred to me- that is so far only in truth this statement but likely much more- The O never rang this thought back "chromosomes divide an axis through Matchette's metaphysical Zero Atom Units". The primate certainly had the ability if even not in my words... I had thought up what may be final struggle with bioterminology in summary this may be a viable praxis for the formation of a needed academic discipline that came from a rather unorthodox thought on reading ex exhuastion Gould's chapter on deep homology that leaves may NOT be a ground state but are transformable in the Godel consistent sense into animals formally by a function of space in said new sub discipline of natural history :
####1)take a planar projectin of a collection of biogeographic places
##### 2) Apply a catastrophe set filter
###3)Sort LINEAR numbers and clocks into a sequence
#####4)Compare minimal spanning trees serially
#####5)Use Axiomatic Panbiogeography to deduce equivalent spaces for plants animals doing ( yest actually DOING) deductive biogeographyIf I can pull this off I guess even i would have to admit I am not crazy (you are a genius or crazy issue). I have the notion that Darwin's power of motion in plants in a sublimated tansit of progressive and theistic creationism that conditions an invertion of a plant INTO an animal in Gould'spunishingly new lumped morphospace. It does not necessarily mean that ANY plant can be turned formally into an animal but may be new way to explain what currently falls under "co-evolution"... should the metaphysics be a phsysics and biology instead. Why the orange man baited and switched ??? I dont know? If I am correct then Darwinism could spell its own death via the changes that Gould's TIME clocks teleologically. That requires more than biology as science but ethics as well...This may not have been thought up before because of the post modern scientific declination for classic axiomatics to truth and becuase few want to rish failing to this foundation on reason (Simon Levin's view of evolution as Jacobian junkyard seridipity of formation) of historical accidents making deductions harder to find than in prestructured disciplines. My feeling is that the concept of one to one and onto mapping may be enough using Cantor's notion of linear numbers which he used to argue angainst infintesimals to find restricted comparisons of plants and animals taxically (hence not full support for evolution as sole means of biochange in space during form-making) but actual as to space in the physical and not vicariant biogeographic sense.

There is something very Pythonesque about this topic I must admit.......five minute argument or the full half hour?

That was never five minutes just now!