|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,902 Year: 4,159/9,624 Month: 1,030/974 Week: 357/286 Day: 13/65 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: peer reviewed-int. design? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Wounded King Member Posts: 4149 From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA Joined: |
If you go to the NCBI site that Crash directed you to earlier you will find a section called 'Pubmed central' this is a database of journal papers all of which are freely available online.
You shouldn't need any sort of access to search the pubmed database, which is also available on the NCBI site. You may not be able to access the full-text of some of the journal papers that you will find but you should certainly be able to search the database and look at the abstracts. Many journals release their publications for free access after a waiting period, such as Development and PNAS. Other journals are starting up on an open-access basis, where the papers are published online for free access right from the start. A number of such journals are represented on the biomedcentral website and the Public library of Science publishes PLOS Biology and PLOS Medicine on a similar model. TTFN, WK This message has been edited by Wounded King, 06-16-2004 06:00 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1434 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
I've seen your "trash talk" on other topics, so let me see if I can spell this out in terms you will feel are intellectually stimulating enough for you to deem appropriate to answer:
In other words elements of "gross anatomy" used to disprove the concept of IC is just the kind of disproof that should be used rather than secondary features (like eye lashes or nictating membranes). Now you have three alternatives: (1) acknowledge that the eye is not an irreducibly complex organ. (2) keep telling yourself that you are right and others just don't understand, and it is too much work to enlighten them (this is also known as the "declare victory and run from the field" (3) explain how one could possibly look at intermediate stages that are all known viable vision systems for the various species involved and still think that the eye is an example of an irreducibly complex organ. I'm betting on door #2 Enjoy. we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1373 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
Behe says the eye is "irreducibly complex" (IC) and defines IC as something that cannot have anything removed from it and still operate. i don't have behe's book sitting around anymore, as i returned it to the library, but i'm certain that he does not claim the eye as an ic system. i'm also reasonably certain that he in fact addresses the eye, and the fact that it is not ic, saying that both darwin and dawkins have sufficiently answered the claim, which was made by a contemporary of darwin's. behe's book is called "Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution." pay attention to the second part of the title. he's talking about systems that are much smaller than gross anatomy: the systems things like the retina are made of, not the eye as a whole. he's still wrong, but it makes johnpaul even more wrong if he's using behe to back up a claim even behe refutes. if johnpaul is indeed doing that, i haven't really been paying attention to this thread.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1373 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
The way you talked about Behe I had figured you read his stuff, my bad. i have. he's not credible. happy?
Gross anatomy means that the details are missing "gross" means "large." gross anatomy talks about organs and bones and big features. behe states clearly in his book that he is not talking about gross anatomy.
What you or any other evolutionist can show is that random mutations culled by NS led to the development of any vision system. pick up a copy of "on the origin of species by means of natural selection" by charles darwin, he covers it quite thorooughly. as does richard dawkins, in "the blind watchmaker" and for that matter, so do michael j. behe in "darwin's black box: the biochemical challenge to evolution"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1434 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Arachnophilia writes:
I thought it was him, but I could be mistaken. i don't have behe's book sitting around anymore, as i returned it to the library, but i'm certain that he does not claim the eye as an ic system. we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1373 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
i don't think people read close enough, as the argument seems to get attributed to him quite a lot.
he does however argue that the light sensitive cells of the retina are ic systems.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1434 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
hmmm ... sounds like god of the gaps thinking ...
Studies of light exposure as a way to adjust people to different time zones or work schedules have found that exposing the backside of the knee joint to sunlight helps shift the body processes. The conclusion was that these cells are sensitive to sunlight. Anyone that sunbathes knows that you can feel not only the heat but the effect of too much UV light ... even before you get burned by it. For evolutionists it is easy to understand that once a system is available, and where improvement of that system increases survival, that it will undergo development to improve the system. we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
pink sasquatch Member (Idle past 6052 days) Posts: 1567 Joined: |
You seem interested in eye evolution - I wasn't sure if you were aware of the high degree of genetic conservation in the eye - the gene Pax6 is considered the master regulator of eye development - the same in binocular human eyes as in the compound eyes of the fruit fly. The same gene, Pax6 activates rhodopsin genes in insects and lens crystallin genes of vertebrates.
Recently, a group used the jellyfish Pax6 homolog (the jellyfish has surprisingly vertebrate-like eyes) in a study. Ectopic expression of the jellyfish Pax in fruit flies resulted in the formation of additional eyes: Role of Pax genes in eye evolution: a cnidarian PaxB gene uniting Pax2 and Pax6 functions - PubMed An additional tidbit to combat the "eyes-couldn't-have-evolved" argument, since a single gene has the evolutionary plasticity to function appropriately during development of different eye systems.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1434 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
PaxB, Pax6, pax vobiscum ...
Looks like significant overlap and indicates a common Pax anscestor in both lineages -- perhaps used for a different purpose and co-opted into eye production by independant evolution (as suggested) or related to more primative sensitivity to light (light sensitive skin?) interesting, thanks. we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1373 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
hmmm ... sounds like god of the gaps thinking ... it certainly is. i didn't mean to imply that i thought he was RIGHT, he certainly isn't. i was just pointing out what his argument actually was.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024