Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Booboocruise's Dissolvable Best Evidence
wj
Inactive Member


Message 61 of 65 (40140)
05-14-2003 7:50 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by Percy
05-14-2003 2:55 PM


Re: GLO pseudogenes
Percy, I think your post constitutes a "just so" story. It is completely unscientific in that the explanation can be condensed to "goddunit". Explanation is sacrificed for faith.
I'm sure Occam's razor would be badly blunted on such stories which might be necessary to preserve IDists' faith.
BTW, this is just intellectual thumb twiddling whilst we await the return of that self-proclaimed undefeated debater for creationism.
[This message has been edited by wj, 05-14-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by Percy, posted 05-14-2003 2:55 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by Percy, posted 05-14-2003 8:30 PM wj has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 62 of 65 (40149)
05-14-2003 8:30 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by wj
05-14-2003 7:50 PM


Re: GLO pseudogenes
wj writes:
Percy, I think your post constitutes a "just so" story. It is completely unscientific in that the explanation can be condensed to "goddunit". Explanation is sacrificed for faith.
I agree. Perhaps there are distinctions or subtleties in the ID approach that I'm missing, but to me all of ID is a "just so" story invented to remove God from Creationism so as to make it acceptable in the classroom, so my suggestion about why the IDer might have broken the GLO gene seems consistent with the rest of it. Once you postulate an entity for which there is no evidence you can only imbue him with qualities for which there is also no evidence, which we both did. Hence, your speculations about why an IDer would not have broken the GLO gene seem no more valid to me than mine about why he would. Arguments from Occam's Razor can also be developed for my approach, for example, that assuming evolution has stopped for human beings and that the IDer is no longer evolving us introduces additional complexity. I don't even favor the perspective I suggested over yours - I was just pointing out other possibilities.
That link I pointed to over in the Are you a quack? thread (http://quasar.as.utexas.edu/BillInfo/Quack.html) covers the ID theory pretty well under the "No Deepening Evidence" heading. The amount of evidence for ID (zero) isn't increasing with time. All the IDists can do is rehash the same philosophical arguments about how the evidence for design is all around us.
You're right, this is mere thumb twiddling while we await resumption of Creationist participation, but it's still nice to have a rational discussion now and then.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by wj, posted 05-14-2003 7:50 PM wj has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by Mammuthus, posted 05-15-2003 4:29 AM Percy has not replied

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6475 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 63 of 65 (40192)
05-15-2003 4:29 AM
Reply to: Message 62 by Percy
05-14-2003 8:30 PM


Re: GLO pseudogenes
Percy writes :For the IDer, taking life from its starting point to its ultimate destination is a MAMMOTH puzzle...
M: Since mammmoths and IDer are in the same sentence I think I am obligated to reply
P: for example, that assuming evolution has stopped for human beings and that the IDer is no longer evolving us introduces additional complexity
M: However, there are ongoing changes in allele frequency in human populations in response to environmental stimuli such as selective pressure of HIV and the protection of a deletion of the CCR5 locus...
"Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2001 Aug 28;98(18):10214-9
The coreceptor mutation CCR5Delta32 influences the dynamics of HIV epidemics and is selected for by HIV.
Sullivan AD, Wigginton J, Kirschner D.
Department of Microbiology and Immunology, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-0620, USA.
We explore the impact of a host genetic factor on heterosexual HIV epidemics by using a deterministic mathematical model. A protective allele unequally distributed across populations is exemplified in our models by the 32-bp deletion in the host-cell chemokine receptor CCR5, CCR5Delta32. Individuals homozygous for CCR5Delta32 are protected against HIV infection whereas those heterozygous for CCR5Delta32 have lower pre-AIDS viral loads and delayed progression to AIDS. CCR5Delta32 may limit HIV spread by decreasing the probability of both risk of infection and infectiousness. In this work, we characterize epidemic HIV within three dynamic subpopulations: CCR5/CCR5 (homozygous, wild type), CCR5/CCR5Delta32 (heterozygous), and CCR5Delta32/CCR5Delta32 (homozygous, mutant). Our results indicate that prevalence of HIV/AIDS is greater in populations lacking the CCR5Delta32 alleles (homozygous wild types only) as compared with populations that include people heterozygous or homozygous for CCR5Delta32. Also, we show that HIV can provide selective pressure for CCR5Delta32, increasing the frequency of this allele."
....also genetic drift still occurs in populations thus allele frequencies are changing in the human population, evolution has not stopped for humans...we are not clonal. Whether natural selection has anything more than a mariginal effect on humans is another matter..I think it does not...so the assumption that evolution does not occur in humans is not supported.
P: All the IDists can do is rehash the same philosophical arguments about how the evidence for design is all around us.
M: Which gets back to the main reason why ID is not a science as there is not testable or falsifiable hypothesis of ID.
back to thumb twiddling
cheers,
M

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Percy, posted 05-14-2003 8:30 PM Percy has not replied

  
wj
Inactive Member


Message 64 of 65 (40533)
05-17-2003 7:04 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by booboocruise
05-07-2003 1:03 AM


Re: GLO pseudogenes
Anything further to contribute, Booboo, or have your already claimed victory? Your credibility as a creation scientists is being tested.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by booboocruise, posted 05-07-2003 1:03 AM booboocruise has not replied

  
wj
Inactive Member


Message 65 of 65 (40817)
05-20-2003 7:25 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by booboocruise
05-07-2003 1:03 AM


Re: GLO pseudogenes
I think my dubbing of the self-proclaimed creation scientist as boobootroll has been vindicated.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by booboocruise, posted 05-07-2003 1:03 AM booboocruise has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024