LGF

more options

  

Advertisement

The Mysteries of the Genome

Science | Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 6:02:02 pm PST

Scientists studying the human genome, with the help of massively parallel arrays of supercomputers, are uncovering a world of information that is far more complex than anyone dreamed—and far more mysterious: Now - The Rest of the Genome.

Over the summer, Sonja Prohaska decided to try an experiment. She would spend a day without ever saying the word “gene.” Dr. Prohaska is a bioinformatician at the University of Leipzig in Germany. In other words, she spends most of her time gathering, organizing and analyzing information about genes. “It was like having someone tie your hand behind your back,” she said.

But Dr. Prohaska decided this awkward experiment was worth the trouble, because new large-scale studies of DNA are causing her and many of her colleagues to rethink the very nature of genes. They no longer conceive of a typical gene as a single chunk of DNA encoding a single protein. “It cannot work that way,” Dr. Prohaska said. There are simply too many exceptions to the conventional rules for genes.

It turns out, for example, that several different proteins may be produced from a single stretch of DNA. Most of the molecules produced from DNA may not even be proteins, but another chemical known as RNA. The familiar double helix of DNA no longer has a monopoly on heredity. Other molecules clinging to DNA can produce striking differences between two organisms with the same genes. And those molecules can be inherited along with DNA.

The gene, in other words, is in an identity crisis.

Advertisement

254 comments

  • Comments are open and unmoderated, and do not necessarily reflect the views of Little Green Footballs.
  • Obscene, abusive, silly, or annoying remarks may be deleted, but the fact that particular comments remain on the site in no way constitutes an endorsement of their views by Little Green Footballs.
  • Posts that contain phone numbers, street addresses, email addresses or other personal information will also be deleted, as will posts that consist only of a variation on the word, "First!"
  • Comments that advocate violence will be cause for immediate banning with no appeal.
  • Disagreement and debate are welcome, but insults and abuse are not, and may cause your account to be blocked.
  • REMEMBER: posting comments at LGF is a privilege, not a right. Abuse that privilege, and your account will be blocked.

Hide comments | Jump to bottom

1 gop_patriot  Thu, Nov 13, 2008 6:04:44pm

That's interesting!

/I'm going to read the rest later, right now I'm off to make chocolate chip cookies. :)

2 goddessoftheclassroom  Thu, Nov 13, 2008 6:04:46pm

I just don't see how this can be random chance.

3 Killgore Trout  Thu, Nov 13, 2008 6:06:47pm

Semi OT: Princeton Scientists Discover Proteins that Control Evolution


Evolutionary changes are supposed to take place gradually and randomly, under pressure from natural selection. But a team of Princeton scientists investigating a group of proteins that help cells burn energy stumbled across evidence that this is not how evolution works. In fact, their discovery could revolutionize the way we understand evolutionary processes. They have evidence that organisms actually have the ability to control their own evolution.

Let's get a few possible misconceptions out of the way first. The Princeton group, composed of researchers Raj Chakrabarti, Herschel Rabitz, Stacey Springs and George McLendon, haven't proven that intelligent design is a valid scientific theory. Nor are they claiming that DNA is making a set of conscious decisions about growing extra legs or wings (though that would admittedly be cool).

What they are saying is that evolution is not entirely random, as Darwin believed. The researchers were tinkering with a set of proteins forming the electron transport chain, a system that regulates energy use in cells. They discovered that the proteins were correcting any imbalance imposed on them through artificial mutations, constantly restoring the chain to working order. A mathematical analysis revealed that these proteins seem to make these minute corrections all the time, steering organisms toward evolutionary changes that make the creature fitter.


Nuance?

4 Wishing  Thu, Nov 13, 2008 6:07:59pm

We haven't even begun to understand this whole genetic process.
This is fascinating!

5 Killgore Trout  Thu, Nov 13, 2008 6:08:14pm

SemiOT(x2)
DNA strands become fibre optic cables

Thanks to a new technique, DNA strands can be easily converted into tiny fibre optic cables that guide light along their length. Optical fibres made this way could be important in optical computers, which use light rather then electricity to perform calculations, or in artificial photosynthesis systems that may replace today's solar panels.

Both kinds of device need small-scale light-carrying "wires" that pipe photons to where they are needed. Now Bo Albinsson and his colleagues at Chalmers University of Technology in Gothenburg, Sweden, have worked out how to make them. The wires build themselves from a mixture of DNA and molecules called chromophores that can absorb and pass on light.

6 Wishing  Thu, Nov 13, 2008 6:09:32pm

re: #3 Killgore Trout

Decision-making at the sub-cellular level!~
Breathtaking!

7 Shay4l  Thu, Nov 13, 2008 6:09:45pm

We have a lot of research going on at my place of business, and I don't understand most of it. I just don't get too close to the experimental rats.

8 Oh no...Sand People!  Thu, Nov 13, 2008 6:10:08pm

So I'm playing "Assassins Creed" (hate the politics involved, but it is a cool game...) and the game pushes the idea that our genes, being made up our ancestor's etc., and DNA hold the 'memories' of our ancestor's etc.

I find that line of though intriguing and am interested in finding out just what they can figure out about DNA and the genome project.

9 Killgore Trout  Thu, Nov 13, 2008 6:10:12pm

re: #2 goddessoftheclassroom

The point is that this is wondrous and fantastic stuff discovered by real scientists doing real science. If the Disco Institute's version of science were anywhere close to reality then Ben Stein would be making these discoveries.

10 karmic_inquisitor  Thu, Nov 13, 2008 6:10:17pm

I understand there is a fossil of a blueprint labeled "genome" with the inscription "Yahweh and Associates Design, LLC" in the archives over at the Discovery Institute.

11 Cato the Elder  Thu, Nov 13, 2008 6:10:21pm

I'm taking the liberty of reposting this here as this new thread started just as I put this item on the previous thread.

Well, Charles, one thing's for sure: the Obama team is doing everything it can to make sure no one working for the White House will have anything resembling a blot on his escutcheon by which the administration could find itself embarrassed.

For a Washington Job, Be Prepared to Tell All

There are 63 questions you have to answer with your application.

Among them: Do you or does anyone in your family own a gun?

Question 8: "Briefly describe the most controversial matters you have been involved with during the course of your career."

Applicants "must include any e-mail that might embarrass the president-elect, along with any blog posts and links to their Facebook pages."

More: "There are no time limits for some information, including liens, tax audits, lawsuits, legal charges, bankruptcies or arrests. Applicants must report all businesses with which they and their spouses have been affiliated or in which they have had a financial stake of more than 5 percent. All gifts over $50 that they and their spouses have received from anyone other than close friends or relatives must be identified."

And in case the first 62 questions don't cover everything, no. 63 states, "Please provide any other information, including information about other members of your family, that could suggest a conflict of interest or be a possible source of embarrassment to you, your family, or the president-elect."

A lawyer who worked for the Carter and Clinton transition teams is quoted as saying, "I am very happy I am not seeking a job in the federal government."

Has anyone here already posted about this?

It seems to me this will produce nothing but squeaky-clean, virtually perfect candidates. The question is, will such "perfect people be the best ones for the jobs? To err is human, and the more talented you are, the more likely you'll have pulled a boner or two in your career. Only people who never take risks can pass scrutiny like this.

One good thing is that the process does seem likely to weed out the sleazy lobbyists.

I wonder if Rahmbo had to fill out this questionnaire.

Discuss.

12 Walter L. Newton  Thu, Nov 13, 2008 6:11:24pm

re: #2 goddessoftheclassroom

I just don't see how this can be random chance.

It's not random chance. It is the laws of science, playing out like they always do. It is us that are playing catch up with discovering how these laws work.

Calling this random chance is a strawman. Scientists do not believe it is random. Please link me to a quote otherwise, that it is random chance.

13 Charles  Thu, Nov 13, 2008 6:11:40pm

re: #11 Cato the Elder

Two words: politics stinks.

14 Oh no...Sand People!  Thu, Nov 13, 2008 6:11:54pm

re: #8 Oh no...Sand People!

*thought

15 Wishing  Thu, Nov 13, 2008 6:12:19pm

re: #8 Oh no...Sand People!

So I'm playing "Assassins Creed" (hate the politics involved, but it is a cool game...) and the game pushes the idea that our genes, being made up our ancestor's etc., and DNA hold the 'memories' of our ancestor's etc.

I find that line of though intriguing and am interested in finding out just what they can figure out about DNA and the genome project.

There is a famous line that says: That which has been is now, and that which shall be has already been.
-Solomon

16 MacGregor  Thu, Nov 13, 2008 6:12:19pm

Here's a company that uses photonic DNA ink taggants for brand security. They're betting the complexity ensures security.

17 Killgore Trout  Thu, Nov 13, 2008 6:12:40pm

re: #11 Cato the Elder

I don't think it's that unusual. Pretty much everybody who get a gig with the Feds (especially in the White house) gets an extensive background check.

18 Wishing  Thu, Nov 13, 2008 6:15:41pm

re: #2 goddessoftheclassroom

I just don't see how this can be random chance.

Interesting that you said this right before the link that said it isn't necessarily random. Great stuff here!

19 Charles  Thu, Nov 13, 2008 6:16:38pm

And now appearing on Hannity & Colmes: Texas governor Rick Perry.

Another creationist.

20 apachegunner  Thu, Nov 13, 2008 6:16:45pm

this dna/rna research is like peeling an onion. we've only just begun.

21 HelloDare  Thu, Nov 13, 2008 6:16:47pm

re: #17 Killgore Trout

I don't think it's that unusual. Pretty much everybody who get a gig with the Feds (especially in the White house) gets an extensive background check.

The thing is, Obama would not pass his own vetting.

22 angst  Thu, Nov 13, 2008 6:16:57pm

First- the guy in the pic sure looks like Tim Robbins without makeup.

Second- it's really amazing how much we don't know about genes. That whole bit on epigenomes is truly amazing. They don't come right out and say it, but basically, that causes the genes and their products to have three dimensions- it's not that simple ATGC stuff we were all taught in highschool. It's like those puzzles where you fold along certain lines and get totally different pictures than when you lay the paper flat. Totally different products out of the same sequence.

Very cool.

23 Occasional Reader  Thu, Nov 13, 2008 6:18:06pm
The gene, in other words, is in an identity crisis.

Oh, no.

Now the gene is going to go all "emo", and lock itself in its room listening to The Cure.

24 angst  Thu, Nov 13, 2008 6:20:29pm

re: #5 Killgore Trout

Ooo-

nanotech meets biotech. That's very cool.

25 SWPaul  Thu, Nov 13, 2008 6:21:25pm

Unfortunately, even if all the schools taught strictly science, kids still wouldn't find this stuff amazing. If it ain't on an iPod, it's not worth it to kids nowadays...

I can't wait until they fully unlock the human genome! Some awesome days for science ahead!

26 experiencedtraveller  Thu, Nov 13, 2008 6:21:28pm

The dinosaurs, too, have an identity crises.

Marauding, meat eating monsters or gentle, human loving vegetarians?

27 Thanos  Thu, Nov 13, 2008 6:22:34pm

re: #3 Killgore Trout

Semi OT: Princeton Scientists Discover Proteins that Control Evolution

Careful on that one KT.... the paper's not out quite yet, and one of the researchers was mumbling about a blind watchmaker...

/just sayin


Nuance?

28 Oh no...Sand People!  Thu, Nov 13, 2008 6:22:39pm

re: #19 Charles

And now appearing on Hannity & Colmes: Texas governor Rick Perry.

Another creationist.

Given that 80% of America has some sort of christian 'religious' tinge to them, you can expect to run into that for a LOOOOONG time.

Dicovery Institute has done a good job of positioning themselves into an 'either / or' argument and most religious types think that ID is the only other weapon they have in the 'creationist / ID' versus 'Evolution' battle. When they can just separate the arena's entirely. What I do at home and church and my off time. My business. What happens in the science room, labs, etc. Science's business.

29 RTLM  Thu, Nov 13, 2008 6:23:22pm

re: #11 Cato the Elder

The hypOcrite speaks.

I clearly recall being reminded incessantly by Obama AND his media about the canard of guilt by association.

30 Joo-LiZ  Thu, Nov 13, 2008 6:23:24pm

A friend of mine was doing research related to this last summer...

Epigenesis, its called. They are discovering tons of new factors that influence gene expression from the same set of base pairs.

31 MandyManners  Thu, Nov 13, 2008 6:24:10pm

The Kid raced me to the car after school today. He tossed his jacket onto it before I touched the car and said he won. I said he didn't. He said he did 'cause his DNA is on the jacket.

32 Occasional Reader  Thu, Nov 13, 2008 6:24:13pm

re: #26 experiencedtraveller

The dinosaurs, too, have an identity crises.

Marauding, meat eating monsters or gentle, human loving vegetarians?

Adam and Eve rode them, so....

33 Oh no...Sand People!  Thu, Nov 13, 2008 6:24:29pm

re: #30 Joo-LiZ

A friend of mine was doing research related to this last summer...

Epigenesis, its called. They are discovering tons of new factors that influence gene expression from the same set of base pairs.

So DNA is like the ultimate 'If else if' statement.

34 MacGregor  Thu, Nov 13, 2008 6:24:30pm

re: #20 apachegunner

this dna/rna research is like peeling an onion. we've only just begun.

Yes, Michael Crichton's novel 'Next' goes into the intricacies and interdependencies of gene parts which we are only beginning to understand.

35 OldLineTexan  Thu, Nov 13, 2008 6:24:30pm

re: #19 Charles

And now appearing on Hannity & Colmes: Texas governor Rick Perry.

Another creationist.

No reason to worry about Governor Goodhair. He blew his political capital on the Trans-Texas corridor.

36 OldLineTexan  Thu, Nov 13, 2008 6:25:38pm

re: #32 Occasional Reader

Adam and Eve rode them, so....

Cite, please.

37 OldLineTexan  Thu, Nov 13, 2008 6:26:40pm

re: #31 MandyManners

The Kid raced me to the car after school today. He tossed his jacket onto it before I touched the car and said he won. I said he didn't. He said he did 'cause his DNA is on the jacket.

Bill Clinton is ancient history to him. DNA on clothes was invented ages ago.

//

38 Occasional Reader  Thu, Nov 13, 2008 6:26:42pm

re: #36 OldLineTexan

Cite, please.

Ta-da!

Turtles all the way down, Science Boy!

39 Thanos  Thu, Nov 13, 2008 6:26:53pm

This is fascinating however, things that trigger, and how environments can suddenly affect whole populations. (kind of like the chemicals that sometimes change the genders of frogs.)

40 buzzsawmonkey[deleted]  Thu, Nov 13, 2008 6:27:51pm
41 OldLineTexan  Thu, Nov 13, 2008 6:28:36pm

re: #38 Occasional Reader

Ta-da!

Turtles all the way down, Science Boy!

Those people are obviously Creationists. Unacceptable. Better cite, please.

And I was a Science Boy. But I met Angie Dickinson, and became a Science Man.

42 SWPaul  Thu, Nov 13, 2008 6:29:14pm
43 OldLineTexan  Thu, Nov 13, 2008 6:30:11pm

re: #42 SWPaul

Jesus Riding Dinosaurs! Duh!

Are all your books strictly pictures? A "cite" would technically have some words in it.

44 HelloDare  Thu, Nov 13, 2008 6:30:16pm

re: #42 SWPaul

Jesus Riding Dinosaurs! Duh!

Didn't Jesus do a cameo on the Flintstones?

45 buzzsawmonkey[deleted]  Thu, Nov 13, 2008 6:30:39pm
46 OldLineTexan  Thu, Nov 13, 2008 6:30:45pm

re: #44 HelloDare

Didn't Jesus do a cameo on the Flintstones?

He's on South Park all the time.

47 OldLineTexan  Thu, Nov 13, 2008 6:31:15pm

Plus, in Texas, there are at least a couple of thousand guys named Jesus.

48 Occasional Reader  Thu, Nov 13, 2008 6:31:18pm

re: #42 SWPaul

Jesus Riding Dinosaurs! Duh!

Damn. If someone could really show that Jesus rode a velociraptor, I'd become religious again. That would totally rock.

49 Salem  Thu, Nov 13, 2008 6:31:33pm

re: #2 goddessoftheclassroom

I just don't see how this can be random chance.

...ergo...

50 SWPaul  Thu, Nov 13, 2008 6:31:39pm

re: #43 OldLineTexan

Unfortunately, the school I went to didn't have books with many words and they continued to refer to the "new Bolshevik Revolution in Russia"....

I might not be the best on this.

51 Dark_Falcon  Thu, Nov 13, 2008 6:32:00pm

re: #13 Charles

Two words: politics stinks.

Concur.

52 taxfreekiller[deleted]  Thu, Nov 13, 2008 6:32:41pm
53 Killgore Trout  Thu, Nov 13, 2008 6:32:49pm

re: #27 Thanos

Yeah, I almost linked to it yesterday but thought better of it. It will be interesting to see what they come up with.

54 OldLineTexan  Thu, Nov 13, 2008 6:33:05pm

re: #50 SWPaul

Unfortunately, the school I went to didn't have books with many words and they continued to refer to the "new Bolshevik Revolution in Russia"....

I might not be the best on this.

HA!

Our textbooks referred to a dynamic new President, John F. Kennedy.

55 Walter L. Newton  Thu, Nov 13, 2008 6:33:24pm

re: #49 Salem

...ergo...

Then I will ask you the same question I asked GOTC, which I guess she didn't want to answer...

"It's not random chance. It is the laws of science, playing out like they always do. It is us that are playing catch up with discovering how these laws work.

Calling this random chance is a strawman. Scientists do not believe it is random. Please link me to a quote otherwise, that it is random chance."

56 experiencedtraveller  Thu, Nov 13, 2008 6:33:46pm

What about Adam petting the dinosaurs?

57 Oh no...Sand People!  Thu, Nov 13, 2008 6:34:01pm

re: #54 OldLineTexan

HA!

Our textbooks referred to a dynamic new President, John F. Kennedy.

Now they just take white-out and replace JFK with Barack H. Obama.

58 Dark_Falcon  Thu, Nov 13, 2008 6:34:01pm

re: #42 SWPaul

Jesus Riding Dinosaurs! Duh!

LOL! What some people won't do to avoid reality.

59 RTLM  Thu, Nov 13, 2008 6:34:21pm

I wish the GOP would not push Creationism. The RNC/GOP might want to model after Reagan, who was a very successful Creationist without ever attracting attention to his beliefs. Don't remember its coming up. Ever.

Attn, GOP: Beliefs are fine, but do not assign them to law.

And regarding Jindah, he's probably the smartest and most articulate of all the Repubs. He can mop the floor with any Dem/Lib - just by his command of facts and his record as Governor. That he believes in Creationism shouldn't be any of my business.

Note to Bobby,
Please do not make it my business and make me worry that Jr. won't be taught to competence in science.

60 Salem  Thu, Nov 13, 2008 6:34:36pm

re: #11 Cato the Elder

It's a learning process. Obama will learn to be flexible.

61 HoosierHoops  Thu, Nov 13, 2008 6:35:51pm

re: #40 buzzsawmonkey

My mother was a researcher
She checked DNA proteins
My father was a creationist
Down in New Orleans.

--House of the Rising Genome

When I think of all those nights
all those games you played
All those times I tried to leave
but all those times I stayed
I still hear your laughter
but it cuts me like a blade..
It's a fine line
between what is...and what is not
It's a fine line
between whats you need and what you got
It's a fine line
I've got a foot on either side...

-the hoopster
you should see the second verse..It really rocks..

62 Killgore Trout  Thu, Nov 13, 2008 6:36:04pm

re: #56 experiencedtraveller

This one is still my fave.

63 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Thu, Nov 13, 2008 6:36:13pm

Oh, I read it wrong. Was wondering why we were talking about Gnomes.

64 OldLineTexan  Thu, Nov 13, 2008 6:36:13pm

re: #56 experiencedtraveller

What about Adam petting the dinosaurs?

You may want to check the picture...those don't appear to be dinosaurs getting petted. It does look like there was a wild party at a petting zoo one night, though.

65 Oh no...Sand People!  Thu, Nov 13, 2008 6:36:42pm

re: #62 Killgore Trout

This one is still my fave.

That is funny.

66 Walter L. Newton  Thu, Nov 13, 2008 6:36:56pm

re: #62 Killgore Trout

This one is still my fave.

Is that Bobby Jindal riding that thing?

67 Salem  Thu, Nov 13, 2008 6:36:59pm

re: #55 Walter L. Newton

Then I will ask you the same question I asked GOTC, which I guess she didn't want to answer...

"It's not random chance. It is the laws of science, playing out like they always do. It is us that are playing catch up with discovering how these laws work.

Calling this random chance is a strawman. Scientists do not believe it is random. Please link me to a quote otherwise, that it is random chance."

And the question is?...

68 Dark_Falcon  Thu, Nov 13, 2008 6:37:00pm

re: #59 RTLM

I agree. Jindal is out there in some ways, but he is smart and honest. He's the kind of marquee leader we need.

69 Killgore Trout  Thu, Nov 13, 2008 6:37:10pm

re: #66 Walter L. Newton

Ha!

70 OldLineTexan  Thu, Nov 13, 2008 6:37:19pm

re: #62 Killgore Trout

This one is still my fave.

Is that kid Adam, or Jesus?

71 Occasional Reader  Thu, Nov 13, 2008 6:37:32pm

re: #56 experiencedtraveller

What about Adam petting the dinosaurs?

"Adam, are you petting the dinosaur again?" Eve would demand, highly annoyed.

72 Killgore Trout  Thu, Nov 13, 2008 6:37:59pm

re: #70 OldLineTexan

Popular verdict sez: Bobby Jindal

73 Oh no...Sand People!  Thu, Nov 13, 2008 6:38:03pm

re: #71 Occasional Reader

"Adam, are you petting the dinosaur again?" Eve would demand, highly annoyed.

That's why Lilith left him...
/

74 JackFlack  Thu, Nov 13, 2008 6:38:05pm

Very interesting!

Another interesting article I found today: Is Earth at the heart of a giant cosmic void?

[Link: www.newscientist.com...]

Conclusion: "The Copernican principle might survive the tests, leaving us with the known unknown of dark energy. Or it might fall, leaving us with the unknown unknown of an entirely new cosmological model. Either way, cosmologists will still have plenty of explaining to do."

75 HelloDare  Thu, Nov 13, 2008 6:38:14pm

Then there's this:
[Link: www.badastronomy.com...]

76 OldLineTexan  Thu, Nov 13, 2008 6:38:19pm

re: #72 Killgore Trout

Popular verdict sez: Bobby Jindal

Jindal wears glasses?

77 pingjockey  Thu, Nov 13, 2008 6:38:33pm

re: #63 Fat Bastard Vegetarian
This is not about underwear stealing gnomes. This is about genomes stealing dinosaurs underwear!

78 Killgore Trout  Thu, Nov 13, 2008 6:39:01pm

re: #74 JackFlack

"The Copernican principle might survive the tests, leaving us with the known unknown of dark energy. Or it might fall, leaving us with the unknown unknown of an entirely new cosmological model. Either way, cosmologists will still have plenty of explaining to do."


They are going to fire up CERN again soon and all will be revealed.

79 Thanos  Thu, Nov 13, 2008 6:39:03pm

re: #53 Killgore Trout

Yeah, I almost linked to it yesterday but thought better of it. It will be interesting to see what they come up with.

I'm interested too, but gonna withhold judgement this is a paper I actually want to read.


Back to Charle's article, after reading further I've come to the conclusion that I shouldn't have messed with all of that Methyl-ethyl Ketone when I was a kid.

80 OldLineTexan  Thu, Nov 13, 2008 6:39:05pm

re: #74 JackFlack

Very interesting!

Another interesting article I found today: Is Earth at the heart of a giant cosmic void?

[Link: www.newscientist.com...]

Conclusion: "The Copernican principle might survive the tests, leaving us with the known unknown of dark energy. Or it might fall, leaving us with the unknown unknown of an entirely new cosmological model. Either way, cosmologists will still have plenty of explaining to do."

No, Earth is the forgotten insane asylum of a collapsed intergalactic society.

81 Walter L. Newton  Thu, Nov 13, 2008 6:39:16pm

re: #67 Salem

And the question is?...

I was interested an a link to any scientist stating that this science is based on random chance.

82 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Thu, Nov 13, 2008 6:39:37pm

re: #66 Walter L. Newton

Is that Bobby Jindal riding that thing?

Looks like "McLovin" to me.

83 taxfreekiller[deleted]  Thu, Nov 13, 2008 6:40:01pm
84 Walter L. Newton  Thu, Nov 13, 2008 6:40:01pm

re: #76 OldLineTexan

Jindal wears glasses?

He doesn't need them for driving, only close up.

85 OldLineTexan  Thu, Nov 13, 2008 6:40:01pm

re: #77 pingjockey

This is not about underwear stealing gnomes. This is about genomes stealing dinosaurs underwear!

Underpants gnomes and Obama have the same business skills.

Step 1: Get elected.
Step 3: Everyone happy!

86 Truck Monkey  Thu, Nov 13, 2008 6:40:02pm

re: #71 Occasional Reader

"Adam, are you petting the dinosaur again?" Eve would demand, highly annoyed.

I always thought that was "shampooing the Buffalo", or "Washing the Pony"?

87 pingjockey  Thu, Nov 13, 2008 6:40:22pm

re: #80 OldLineTexan
Hahahaha! I believe you maybe right.

88 Shay4l  Thu, Nov 13, 2008 6:40:32pm

Currently living in TX, I remember the last election fairly clearly. There was one commercial that played endlessly with Perry striding purposefully next to the Rio Grande with a Border Patrol Agent that played a lot, but I really don't recall his push for replacing evolution with creationism in the schools.

89 OldLineTexan  Thu, Nov 13, 2008 6:40:59pm

re: #79 Thanos

I'm interested too, but gonna withhold judgement this is a paper I actually want to read.


Back to Charle's article, after reading further I've come to the conclusion that I shouldn't have messed with all of that Methyl-ethyl Ketone when I was a kid.

Yep, that is bad stuff. The tingling feeling is nerve damage.

90 OldLineTexan  Thu, Nov 13, 2008 6:41:24pm

re: #84 Walter L. Newton

He doesn't need them for driving, only close up.

Whew, you had me worried.

91 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Thu, Nov 13, 2008 6:41:27pm

re: #77 pingjockey

This is not about underwear stealing gnomes. This is about genomes stealing dinosaurs underwear!

So, the question is, who made the dinosaurs' underwear if there were no people around? Huh?

92 pingjockey  Thu, Nov 13, 2008 6:42:15pm

re: #89 OldLineTexan
Tri-chlor is bad shit too. Don't ask me to spell it!

93 TaeJohnDo  Thu, Nov 13, 2008 6:42:26pm

re: #28 Oh no...Sand People!

Given that 80% of America has some sort of christian 'religious' tinge to them, you can expect to run into that for a LOOOOONG time.

Dicovery Institute has done a good job of positioning themselves into an 'either / or' argument and most religious types think that ID is the only other weapon they have in the 'creationist / ID' versus 'Evolution' battle. When they can just separate the arena's entirely. What I do at home and church and my off time. My business. What happens in the science room, labs, etc. Science's business.

Faith. It is called faith. No faith, no God. They go together.

94 Truck Monkey  Thu, Nov 13, 2008 6:42:31pm

re: #76 OldLineTexan

Jindal wears glasses?

Obviously not when riding his Triceratops!

95 Salem  Thu, Nov 13, 2008 6:42:51pm

re: #81 Walter L. Newton

I was interested an a link to any scientist stating that this science is based on random chance.

Well, you got me there. I wasn't agreeing with GOTC. She'd probably be floored if I ever did. I was just waiting for her conclusion, e.g.: "...So God did it!". Which, for some, is the literally the answer to everything.

96 pingjockey  Thu, Nov 13, 2008 6:42:58pm

re: #91 Fat Bastard Vegetarian
They just were! Don't confuse me with facts damnit!

97 angst  Thu, Nov 13, 2008 6:43:40pm

I think you all probably saw this: Bone marrow transplant "cures" HIV.

It's not that it was a bone marrow transplant that makes this interesting, but that the doctor was smart enough to find a donor who carries a rare surface protein that makes his cells HIV resistant. Theoretically, they could develop gene therapy that could make people immune to HIV. Maybe even in people who already have it.

98 TaeJohnDo  Thu, Nov 13, 2008 6:43:42pm

re: #59 RTLM

I wish the GOP would not push Creationism. The RNC/GOP might want to model after Reagan, who was a very successful Creationist without ever attracting attention to his beliefs. Don't remember its coming up. Ever.

Attn, GOP: Beliefs are fine, but do not assign them to law.

And regarding Jindah, he's probably the smartest and most articulate of all the Repubs. He can mop the floor with any Dem/Lib - just by his command of facts and his record as Governor. That he believes in Creationism shouldn't be any of my business.

Note to Bobby,
Please do not make it my business and make me worry that Jr. won't be taught to competence in science.

Amen!

99 Thanos  Thu, Nov 13, 2008 6:44:06pm

re: #89 OldLineTexan

Yep, that is bad stuff. The tingling feeling is nerve damage.

Tell me about it, I used to fabricate fiberglas molds, car bodies, etc.
I quit that job after standing in a 12 foot deep water tank the boss wanted us to resurface a few hours, his Idea was to get the old coating off the inside with MEK....

100 FightingBack  Thu, Nov 13, 2008 6:44:25pm

re: #73 Oh no...Sand People!

In the movie "Idiocracy," a diorama of "the past" shows dinosaurs fighting in WWII, wearing US& German flags. Hilarious.

101 taxfreekiller[deleted]  Thu, Nov 13, 2008 6:45:47pm
102 TaeJohnDo  Thu, Nov 13, 2008 6:46:12pm

re: #26 experiencedtraveller

The dinosaurs, too, have an identity crises.

Marauding, meat eating monsters or gentle, human loving vegetarians?

If they really were around together, they'd be human loving meat eaters.

103 OldLineTexan  Thu, Nov 13, 2008 6:46:35pm

re: #83 taxfreekiller

So, water planet.
So, ice crystals
they come in at the poles.

What draws them here and not to mars?

Mars ain't the kind of place to raise your kids

104 pingjockey  Thu, Nov 13, 2008 6:46:42pm

re: #99 Thanos
That is MAD!

105 notutopia  Thu, Nov 13, 2008 6:47:03pm

re: #12 Walter L. Newton

Genome Science is still an infant. I too am so encouraged at the discovery of finding the root causes of genetic mutations/defects. I am also quite curious if the discoveries being made will be used in an ethical manner. The Japanese cloning projects are just a hint at genetic science gone awry? It's starting to become even more competitive amongst countries.
What if this ability were to be capitalized to a specific ethnicity or race?
What if epigenesis research discovers specific links to families with borderline mental illness? Will they become outliers to our society or to the human race?
It is truly wonderous indeed what they are discovering in their researching, but science must be forever ethical to the human race.
We know what ethics are considered in today's science. But, what about in 20, 40, 60 years?

106 TaeJohnDo  Thu, Nov 13, 2008 6:47:11pm

re: #100 FightingBack

In the movie "Idiocracy," a diorama of "the past" shows dinosaurs fighting in WWII, wearing US& German flags. Hilarious.

I hope we won -- I'd want it to be historically accurate.

107 Oh no...Sand People!  Thu, Nov 13, 2008 6:47:25pm

I just think all this talk about genomes and DNA is just toadflax...

/

108 OldLineTexan  Thu, Nov 13, 2008 6:47:34pm

re: #95 Salem

Well, you got me there. I wasn't agreeing with GOTC. She'd probably be floored if I ever did. I was just waiting for her conclusion, e.g.: "...So God did it!". Which, for some, is the literally the answer to everything.

That was her conclusion?

109 Occasional Reader  Thu, Nov 13, 2008 6:48:35pm

re: #97 angst

I think you all probably saw this: Bone marrow transplant "cures" HIV.

It's not that it was a bone marrow transplant that makes this interesting, but that the doctor was smart enough to find a donor who carries a rare surface protein that makes his cells HIV resistant. Theoretically, they could develop gene therapy that could make people immune to HIV. Maybe even in people who already have it.

Wouldn't that be something.

Here's hoping. Science!

110 OldLineTexan  Thu, Nov 13, 2008 6:49:10pm

re: #99 Thanos

Tell me about it, I used to fabricate fiberglas molds, car bodies, etc.
I quit that job after standing in a 12 foot deep water tank the boss wanted us to resurface a few hours, his Idea was to get the old coating off the inside with MEK....

I forget the name of the poison we cleaned pipe dope with. Bad, bad stuff.

111 OldLineTexan  Thu, Nov 13, 2008 6:50:04pm

re: #109 Occasional Reader

Wouldn't that be something.

Here's hoping. Science!

Use dino marrow. Those bones are BIG.

Maybe we could buy those cloned mammoths from the Japanese.

112 DoubleU  Thu, Nov 13, 2008 6:50:21pm

Let's see if the media can go a day without saying the word "historic"

113 Occasional Reader  Thu, Nov 13, 2008 6:50:59pm

re: #99 Thanos

Tell me about it, I used to fabricate fiberglas molds, car bodies, etc.
I quit that job after standing in a 12 foot deep water tank the boss wanted us to resurface a few hours, his Idea was to get the old coating off the inside with MEK....

I heard a story about a guy who decided to commit suicide by drinking MEK.

The worst part is, it *didn't* work.

114 Steffan  Thu, Nov 13, 2008 6:51:19pm

re: #11 Cato the Elder

I'd like to see Obama complete one of those applications.

Would he hire himself? Would he hire Biden?

/do I have to answer that?

115 TaeJohnDo  Thu, Nov 13, 2008 6:53:46pm

re: #112 DoubleU

Let's see if the media can go a day without saying the word "historic"

They can't -- they are hysterical about historical.

116 Optimizer  Thu, Nov 13, 2008 6:53:55pm

OK, before we get too metaphysical, or whatever, let's notice that some of this stuff doesn't really make much sense, as written. The thing is, generally these writers don't understand the subject very well, and what you get is some sort of weird dumbed-down version.

For example, what is a "single chunk" of DNA, and how does it differ from a "single stretch"? Also, I'm no expert, but I'm not sure it's news that DNA can produce RNA.

What are these mysterious "other molecules"? How do they "cling to" DNA? How do they replicate? It all sounds a bit odd, and would be more interesting if they got into it.

"The gene, in other words, is in an identity crisis." - Very provocative, but what does it even mean? A "gene" isn't even a bio-chemical concept - it exists independently from the physical mechanism - and here it is actually personified. The story about the doctor trying not to use the word doesn't make any sense.

The whole article seems to be more about grabbing attention and inciting emotions than about passing along what's probably interesting new science.

117 Pastorius  Thu, Nov 13, 2008 6:53:56pm

Another quest, and another few billion dollars of investment for Craig Venter.

;-)

118 angst  Thu, Nov 13, 2008 6:54:20pm

re: #105 notutopia

The horse is already out of the barn on that one, unfortunately.

If genetic tests can be done, and abortion is legal, then genetically flawed individuals will be eliminated depending upon what their parents' tolerance for genetic flaws happens to be.

119 Steffan  Thu, Nov 13, 2008 6:55:11pm

re: #80 OldLineTexan

No, Earth is the forgotten insane asylum of a collapsed intergalactic society.

Actually, Earth is "Mostly harmless."

120 TaeJohnDo  Thu, Nov 13, 2008 6:55:12pm

re: #116 Optimizer

The whole article seems to be more about grabbing attention and inciting emotions than about passing along what's probably interesting new science.

In other words, typical journalism.

121 Shay4l  Thu, Nov 13, 2008 6:55:58pm

I followed the link to Discovermagazine.com, but they only had someone's blog opinion stating that Perry is a fanatical creationist.

I googled "gov perry TX creationism" and the closest thing to what has been inferred is that he named someone to the state Bd of Ed, that some blogger insisted was going to have creationism taught on an equal level to evolution, but that was merely the opinion of the blogger on the link. That entry was from July 2007.

I don't think Perry is pushing creationism. I think I would have noticed something in the news here over the past several years. Maybe the MSM has successfully demonized a young Republican before he can try to get on the national scene.

122 Steffan  Thu, Nov 13, 2008 6:56:59pm

re: #103 OldLineTexan

Mars ain't the kind of place to raise your kids

Exactly. For one thing, Mars needs women.

123 angst  Thu, Nov 13, 2008 6:59:06pm

re: #119 Steffan

Fortunately, Earth Girls are Easy.

124 calcajun  Thu, Nov 13, 2008 7:03:17pm

Slightly OT, but not by much, is this bit of news:

[Link: www.cbsnews.com...]

Someone is failing to keep the British end up! We must do something.

Of course, given the depth of the English gene pool, maybe we need to send donations to the Mother Country.////

125 TaeJohnDo  Thu, Nov 13, 2008 7:04:47pm

re: #118 angst

The horse is already out of the barn on that one, unfortunately.

If genetic tests can be done, and abortion is legal, then genetically flawed individuals will be eliminated depending upon what their parents' tolerance for genetic flaws happens to be.

A friend of mine, suffering from cerebral palsy is afraid society may someday decide that he should no longer be a burden ...

126 Steffan  Thu, Nov 13, 2008 7:07:49pm

re: #123 angst

Fortunately, Earth Girls are Easy.

True. If they get rambunctious, though, we can always call Santa Claus.

Actually, I'd prefer to visit this Mars.

127 taxfreekiller[deleted]  Thu, Nov 13, 2008 7:08:13pm
128 TaeJohnDo  Thu, Nov 13, 2008 7:08:51pm

re: #124 calcajun

Slightly OT, but not by much, is this bit of news:

[Link: www.cbsnews.com...]

Someone is failing to keep the British end up! We must do something.

Of course, given the depth of the English gene pool, maybe we need to send donations to the Mother Country.////

You know, one of the causes of the war of 1812 was the British would board our ships and impress our seamen. Maybe they do need a new shot of American seamen.

129 notutopia  Thu, Nov 13, 2008 7:10:32pm

re: #118 angst

Do you see however where this is headed? We Have opened the door to redefine 'defective'. We also opened the door with Wade vs Roe as a society.
We as a society still have also not defined a gradient on limitations of 'defective'.
And what of natural selection and natural order evolution? Are we destined to become the perfect human by our own command of science?
Most of genome research is funded and approved based upon specific hypothesis/es which will have a "positive outcome" for humankind.
Where are we heading with this in the future?
I ask myself these questions every time I read about our genetic scientific advances.

130 taxfreekiller[deleted]  Thu, Nov 13, 2008 7:12:19pm
131 Steffan  Thu, Nov 13, 2008 7:14:07pm

re: #124 calcajun

Slightly OT, but not by much, is this bit of news:

[Link: www.cbsnews.com...]

Someone is failing to keep the British end up! We must do something.

Of course, given the depth of the English gene pool, maybe we need to send donations to the Mother Country.////

Hmmm. Seems to be a long-standing (ahem) problem.

Curse the blasted, jelly-boned swines, the slimy, the belly-wriggling invertebrates, the miserable soddingrotters, the flaming sods, the sniveling, dribbling, dithering, palsied, pulse-less lot that make up England today. They’ve got white of egg in their veins, and their spunk is that watery it’s a marvel they can breed.

- - - D. H. Lawrence, 1912

/heh

132 Marvo76  Thu, Nov 13, 2008 7:15:45pm

re: #8 Oh no...Sand People!

So I'm playing "Assassins Creed" (hate the politics involved, but it is a cool game...) and the game pushes the idea that our genes, being made up our ancestor's etc., and DNA hold the 'memories' of our ancestor's etc.

I find that line of though intriguing and am interested in finding out just what they can figure out about DNA and the genome project.

I have heard of more than one line of thought like that, so called "racial memories", it was even used as a background story for the chornicles of Riddick

133 Optimizer  Thu, Nov 13, 2008 7:17:31pm

re: #3 Killgore Trout

This Princeton article is also challenged.

"They have evidence that organisms actually have the ability to control their own evolution."

That just doesn't make much sense on it's own. Then, in the next paragraph, they say that's not what they meant.

In the last paragraph, they say, "that evolution is not entirely random". But what they really describe is essentially what technical people usually call a "feedback mechanism". Instead, these guys call it "evolutionary changes that make the creature fitter."

They play with the reader with this not random/random stuff, but they're just talking about feedback. Feedback mechanisms are all over the place in nature. It might be scientific progress, but it's being billed as something that it's not - to grab attention. It's what researchers and writers do.

134 Optimizer  Thu, Nov 13, 2008 7:18:55pm

re: #120 TaeJohnDo

In other words, typical journalism.

Bingo! - It's what they get paid for.

135 angst  Thu, Nov 13, 2008 7:19:07pm

re: #125 TaeJohnDo

A friend of mine, suffering from cerebral palsy is afraid society may someday decide that he should no longer be a burden ...

If your friend lived in The Netherlands, he'd have serious cause for alarm:
The Groningen Protocol allows the euthanization of children under 12 years of age, sometimes without parental consent. And there's talk of applying it to adults whose lives are deemed not worth living.

I kid you not.

136 TaeJohnDo  Thu, Nov 13, 2008 7:24:15pm

re: #135 angst

If your friend lived in The Netherlands, he'd have serious cause for alarm:
The Groningen Protocol allows the euthanization of children under 12 years of age, sometimes without parental consent. And there's talk of applying it to adults whose lives are deemed not worth living.

I kid you not.

Those Europeans, always at the forefront of clever solutions. I'm so glad the o will make us more like them ..////

137 Optimizer  Thu, Nov 13, 2008 7:25:56pm

re: #125 TaeJohnDo

A friend of mine, suffering from cerebral palsy is afraid society may someday decide that he should no longer be a burden ...

Maybe if our scientists take a break from chasing headlines and pushing socialism, they'll find a cure for your friend before it comes to that. (Not that I really expect that day would come any time soon.)

138 angst  Thu, Nov 13, 2008 7:27:23pm

re: #129 notutopia

Do you see however where this is headed? We Have opened the door to redefine 'defective'. We also opened the door with Wade vs Roe as a society.
We as a society still have also not defined a gradient on limitations of 'defective'.
And what of natural selection and natural order evolution? Are we destined to become the perfect human by our own command of science?
Most of genome research is funded and approved based upon specific hypothesis/es which will have a "positive outcome" for humankind.
Where are we heading with this in the future?
I ask myself these questions every time I read about our genetic scientific advances.

I agree. They don't call it the "slippery slope" for nothing. People always say common sense will reign and we will not go too far. But we will. Maybe not all of us, but definitely some of us.

One of Obama's first acts will be to overturn Bush's ban on new embryonic stem cell lines, despite the fact that real advances have been made using nonembryonic stem cells, and none using embryonic cells, even where new ones are legal to develop.

I guess I think that if we can avoid the whole issue of experimenting with embryos, why not?

139 Shay4l  Thu, Nov 13, 2008 7:27:53pm

re: #130 taxfreekiller

I'm not an expert on Barton or Perry, I'm just saying Perry has been gov for quite a while, and the creationists are not having their way in TC schools, from what I have seen. I'm checking links to "creationism in TX schools" now to learn more.

140 Marvo76  Thu, Nov 13, 2008 7:28:47pm

re: #67 Salem

And the question is?...

I would like to pose a question along those lines here if I may?

How did something this complex, EVOLVE from single cells into something as complex as a human brain/liver/kidney/lung/thought processing intellegence, when faced with the Second Law of Thermodynamics?

141 nyc redneck  Thu, Nov 13, 2008 7:35:46pm

it seems a miracle that life goes on.
the chaos and danger in successful reproduction is immense. and yet all that could go wrong somehow mostly doesn't.
incredible how all the components of the genome manage to swing into gear and in spite of junk DNA and all the other defects and weird molecular structures, a viable organism is born. time and time again.
looking too closely can be scary.
i love how the perceived chaos may only be that. perceived.
like how a fancy lovely meal can come out of a completely disheveled kitchen.

142 Floral Giraffe  Thu, Nov 13, 2008 7:35:55pm

Charles,
thank you for posting this! It was an interesting read, I only wish I understood more of it, and that we understood more of genetics. It will take time, and I wonder if we will ever fully understand it?

143 angst  Thu, Nov 13, 2008 7:38:16pm

re: #140 Marvo76

I would like to pose a question along those lines here if I may?

How did something this complex, EVOLVE from single cells into something as complex as a human brain/liver/kidney/lung/thought processing intellegence, when faced with the Second Law of Thermodynamics?

That only applies to an isolated system. If one acquires energy from outside the system (food, sunlight) one can indeed create a highly ordered structure. Otherwise, there couldn't be any life, not even single-celled organisms.

In other words, there can be pockets of organization at the expense of other areas that become less organized as a result, as long as the total entropy in the universe is increasing.

144 TaeJohnDo  Thu, Nov 13, 2008 7:40:27pm

re: #138 angst

I agree. They don't call it the "slippery slope" for nothing. People always say common sense will reign and we will not go too far. But we will. Maybe not all of us, but definitely some of us.

One of Obama's first acts will be to overturn Bush's ban on new embryonic stem cell lines, despite the fact that real advances have been made using nonembryonic stem cells, and none using embryonic cells, even where new ones are legal to develop.

I guess I think that if we can avoid the whole issue of experimenting with embryos, why not?

I have always felt that the left always used this issue to push science and society not towards discovery, but towards desensitizing us.

145 CharlieBravo  Thu, Nov 13, 2008 7:42:12pm

re: #28 Oh no...Sand People!

Given that 80% of America has some sort of christian 'religious' tinge to them, you can expect to run into that for a LOOOOONG time.

Dicovery Institute has done a good job of positioning themselves into an 'either / or' argument and most religious types think that ID is the only other weapon they have in the 'creationist / ID' versus 'Evolution' battle. When they can just separate the arena's entirely. What I do at home and church and my off time. My business. What happens in the science room, labs, etc. Science's business.

I went to a public school back when the lord's prayer was a daily thing along with pledging allegiance to the flag. There were bible stories read mixed in along with Huck Finn, etc. There were kids of various religions and like me - no religion. There were US citizen kids and Canadian kids. We all seemed to have turned out fine. Maybe the man had a point when he said 'there is nothing either right or wrong but thinking makes it so'.

146 angst  Thu, Nov 13, 2008 7:42:42pm

re: #144 TaeJohnDo

I have always felt that the left always used this issue to push science and society not towards discovery, but towards desensitizing us.

I always thought they were just digging in their heels because they didn't like President Bush. The truth is, amazing things can be done with nonembryonic cell lines, and he was right to push research in that direction because there is almost an unlimited supply of material to work with.

147 nyc redneck  Thu, Nov 13, 2008 7:43:37pm

re: #142 Floral Giraffe

Charles,
thank you for posting this! It was an interesting read, I only wish I understood more of it, and that we understood more of genetics. It will take time, and I wonder if we will ever fully understand it?

and it seems to be getting more complex.
like the more we know, the more we don't know.
i just read it and marvel.
i love this stuff. i wish i understood it better too.

148 Bobibutu  Thu, Nov 13, 2008 7:44:07pm

re: #140 Marvo76

I would like to pose a question along those lines here if I may?

How did something this complex, EVOLVE from single cells into something as complex as a human brain/liver/kidney/lung/thought processing intellegence, when faced with the Second Law of Thermodynamics?

Deep stuff... sentient evolution may transcend the 2nd law. Who knows?

I leave it to the next generation to find out.

149 CharlieBravo  Thu, Nov 13, 2008 7:47:38pm

re: #148 Bobibutu

Deep stuff... sentient evolution may transcend the 2nd law. Who knows?

I leave it to the next generation to find out.

I dunno (yet), I'm just happy we learned how to make wine as we evolved.

150 notutopia  Thu, Nov 13, 2008 7:50:07pm

re: #138 angst

We as a society still have also not defined a gradient on limitations of 'defective'.
And what of natural selection and natural order evolution?

Until we as a society, and not as a government, define the limitations of 'defective',
we are ethically limited to NON embryonic stem cell research.
This is an issue to be decided by society and not by a president.

151 Spare O'Lake  Thu, Nov 13, 2008 7:51:42pm

re: #129 notutopia

Abortion on demand has always been problematic from a societal viewpoint, assuming that society wishes to encourage procreation.
But if the issue is focused on the rights of the individual then the issue is whether the right of the mother to control her own body trumps the rights (if any) of the unborn fetus. Roe and subsequent decisions have for the most part preferred the rights of the mother to those of the fetus.

Genetic research will continue to increase the available information about the likely characteristics of the fetus, including its health prospects and physical characteristics. If the information discloses the likelihood of a normal, healthy child with other characteristics which please the mother, this may actually encourage many mothers not to abort who might otherwise have chosen to abort. Of course if the mother receives negative information she may choose to abort a fetus which she might otherwise have carried to term.

Assuming that the information provided to the mother will more often be good news rather than bad, then one would expect a net decrease in the number of abortions, which would presumably be of some comfort to those who are staunchly anti-abortion.

152 CharlieBravo  Thu, Nov 13, 2008 7:55:04pm

re: #150 notutopia

We as a society still have also not defined a gradient on limitations of 'defective'.
And what of natural selection and natural order evolution?

Until we as a society, and not as a government, define the limitations of 'defective',
we are ethically limited to NON embryonic stem cell research.
This is an issue to be decided by society and not by a president.

I thought embryonic stem cell research was 'legal'... and the ban was only on Federal (tax) money funding it. If that is so and there was profit to be made, why isn't there a lot more private research? I haven't been keeping up on it.. really don't know.

153 angst  Thu, Nov 13, 2008 7:58:35pm

re: #151 Spare O'Lake

Abortion on demand has always been problematic from a societal viewpoint, assuming that society wishes to encourage procreation.
But if the issue is focused on the rights of the individual then the issue is whether the right of the mother to control her own body trumps the rights (if any) of the unborn fetus. Roe and subsequent decisions have for the most part preferred the rights of the mother to those of the fetus.

Genetic research will continue to increase the available information about the likely characteristics of the fetus, including its health prospects and physical characteristics. If the information discloses the likelihood of a normal, healthy child with other characteristics which please the mother, this may actually encourage many mothers not to abort who might otherwise have chosen to abort. Of course if the mother receives negative information she may choose to abort a fetus which she might otherwise have carried to term.

Assuming that the information provided to the mother will more often be good news rather than bad, then one would expect a net decrease in the number of abortions, which would presumably be of some comfort to those who are staunchly anti-abortion.

I would repectfully disagree, simply because we will definitely see the day when parents are asked to decide whether or not to keep a fetus that has what many people would find to be an "acceptable" flaw if only they found out about it after the baby is born. Cleft palate is an example of that, or omphalocele, cystic fibrosis or any of a number of nonfatal defects. Even not being the "right" sex.

I definitely think there will come a time when people just throw up their hands and say "I don't want to know." In fact, quite a few already do.

154 notutopia  Thu, Nov 13, 2008 7:58:45pm

re: #149 CharlieBravo

Some of those exons are probably from the mold, fungus, and viruses from the early fruits, berries, meat, grasses and grains our millionth forefathers ate and drank, that we are still carrying around inside us today.
Somewhere in my lineage, somebody had a nasty time with sulfided fermented alcohol. I cannot consume a drop of red wine without getting really ill.

155 Optimizer  Thu, Nov 13, 2008 8:05:54pm

re: #146 angst

I always thought they were just digging in their heels because they didn't like President Bush. The truth is, amazing things can be done with nonembryonic cell lines, and he was right to push research in that direction because there is almost an unlimited supply of material to work with.

Are you suggesting that this was just some kind of clever move by Bush to get the medical community moving in the right direction? That's pretty silly. IIRC, he said it was a moral (for him, that means religious) decision on his part. So you're saying he was lying about that?

Let's remember, though, that he only halted govt spending on this research. The moonbats made it sound like he made the research illegal (because they can't think in terms of anybody besides the govt doing research, and, yes, because they hate him). Ideally, one could argue that such things should be privately funded anyway.

156 mich-again  Thu, Nov 13, 2008 8:11:23pm
The gene, in other words, is in an identity crisis.

Uh no. The gene is just fine. Its some the old theories about genes that are having an identity crisis.

157 notutopia  Thu, Nov 13, 2008 8:12:34pm

re: #151 Spare O'Lake

I return back to the issue of the unearthing new genome discoveries, specifically of 'defects'.
Until society first off, understands the new implications, and then defines 'defects', then contemplates the benefits and consequences of the new bio technology, then society will need to decide the legal aspects.
I feel as a result of the infancy of our knowledge in genome identification and mapping, that we need to stick with NON embryonic stem cell research, until we know for sure, that we are not passing on yet unidentified consequential markers of RNA onto donors.

158 angst  Thu, Nov 13, 2008 8:13:28pm

re: #155 Optimizer

Are you suggesting that this was just some kind of clever move by Bush to get the medical community moving in the right direction? That's pretty silly. IIRC, he said it was a moral (for him, that means religious) decision on his part. So you're saying he was lying about that?

Let's remember, though, that he only halted govt spending on this research. The moonbats made it sound like he made the research illegal (because they can't think in terms of anybody besides the govt doing research, and, yes, because they hate him). Ideally, one could argue that such things should be privately funded anyway.

No, I never said he knew enough about it to direct the course of research- no one did. The point is that by being a little more cautious, no medical breakthroughs appear to have been lost. Bush was cautious. It wouldn't hurt for us all to be a little cautious when it comes to things like this. We hadn't exhausted the opportunities for using somatic cell lines and here we were clamoring for funding to use embryonic cell lines (which are hard to come by, BTW, which explains why little has been done with them). People had serious moral concerns and whenever that happens I think it does behoove science to slow down a little.

And I do agree with what you said about the moonbats. Which also applies to most of the MSM.

159 locke/demosthenes  Thu, Nov 13, 2008 8:14:48pm
116 Optimizer

Alright, as resident lizard biochemist/molecular biologist, I'm gonna try tackling these one at a time.

For example, what is a "single chunk" of DNA, and how does it differ from a "single stretch"?


There's no difference. What's significant is that several proteins can be made from the same stretch/chunk of DNA. Sometimes these proteins are pretty similar to each other, as in one may be a long "complete" version while another may be one that terminated early when being made and is short/truncated. After being made, these may be chemically modified by other proteins to the extent where you have to ask "is this still the same protein." Sometimes though, really freaky things happen. To give a computer-based analogy, let's say we have 16 bits where the "code" is 8 bits represent a single character. In the past, we'd have assumed that there's (maximum) two characters (genes?) of information there. But who says we can't have bits 1-8 represent one character, 2-9 represent another one, 3-10 representing another, etc.? It makes things ridiculously interdependent, but we're actually finding that sort of like that in viruses where the physical space needed for information is at a premium and there's just so much DNA you can stuff in a viral capsid.

Also, I'm no expert, but I'm not sure it's news that DNA can produce RNA.


It's not. In fact, I'm pretty sure there aren't any proteins that are made directly of DNA. The order goes DNA -> RNA -> protein. The subtlety the NYTimes didn't catch here is that for a long time, people assumed that the functional purpose of the DNA was to make a protein. Although all proteins are made from DNA, what we're now finding is that there's a hell of a lot of DNA that makes RNA, where the RNA never makes a protein and is itself responsible for some function in the cell. This might involve interacting with other RNAs to regulate them or even folding up into three-dimensional structures themselves that catalyze a reaction the way a protein would (so-called, "ribozymes.")

What are these mysterious "other molecules"? How do they "cling to" DNA? How do they replicate?

These "other molecules" are mostly proteins (as far as i know) and are made the way all other proteins are made. People have known for a long time that there are proteins that bind to DNA. In fact, this is central to what allows cells to differentiate. If you consider that virtually every cell in your body has identical DNA, you have to wonder how a cell "knows" how to be a heart/skin/brain cell. That basically means having a way to turn on the right genes and keep off the wrong ones so it can function properly. The cells in a newly formed embryo (embryonic stem cells) are undifferentiated and can in principle differentiate into any cell in the body, so we wouldn't expect to see any genes turned off by attached proteins. The weird thing is (and this has only been found in mammals) is that some genes right from the start have proteins stuck to them that are regulating them. Not only that, but embryos tend to have different sets of DNA silenced/activated on different chromosomes, depending on whether or not those chromosomes came from the mother or father. It's really weird and no one understands it all that well.

"The gene, in other words, is in an identity crisis." - Very provocative, but what does it even mean?


Again, this goes back to what I was saying earlier about DNA not necessarily making proteins directly. If we have a lot of DNA being transcribed into RNA, but that RNA isn't going on to make proteins, and is doing something else, does it still count as a "gene." If we have several separate pieces of RNA read and their peptides coming together to form one protein, was that made by one or more proteins? There's no clear answer.

Hope my long-winded response helps!

160 mich-again  Thu, Nov 13, 2008 8:28:15pm

re: #158 angst

We hadn't exhausted the opportunities for using somatic cell lines and here we were clamoring for funding to use embryonic cell lines (which are hard to come by, BTW, which explains why little has been done with them).

You make an interesting point there. Maybe the tactic to do research with embryonic cells was meant to restrict access to raw materials and limit the competition.

161 angst  Thu, Nov 13, 2008 8:38:18pm

re: #160 mich-again

You make an interesting point there. Maybe the tactic to do research with embryonic cells was meant to restrict access to raw materials and limit the competition.

I hadn't thought of that, but it would definitely favor institutions that had access to embryos over those that did not. Not to mention the people that could make a ton of money peddling embryos, because as sure as the sun rises someone would figure out a way to sell them.

Cord blood and like sources of stem cells are very easy to come by- free actually, except for processing. Women donate umbilical cord blood all the time to use for transplants, etc. They certainly would for research like this.

162 Jim D  Thu, Nov 13, 2008 8:42:00pm

re: #140 Marvo76

The second law of thermodynamics does not imply that complex systems cannot arise out of simple ones. The entropy of an open system can increase.

163 Jim D  Thu, Nov 13, 2008 8:47:26pm

re: #162 Jim D

whoops! the entropy of an open system can decrease

164 pbird  Thu, Nov 13, 2008 8:59:24pm

re: #52 taxfreekiller

Godless star dust out and about the re-distribution of the codes of life.

Just that simple given time uh?

Heh, you bet.

165 Marvo76  Thu, Nov 13, 2008 9:01:42pm

re: #162 Jim D

The second law of thermodynamics does not imply that complex systems cannot arise out of simple ones. The entropy of an open system can increase.

Ok, I guess I need to rephrase the the question in another light. How did these DNA molecules piece themselves together randomly over so many different speicies and types of cells from viruses to nerve cells, at such an intricate level of assembly, in the face of a universe that is and has been sliding down towards total destruction since it was formed? There are enough variables that random chance seems far fetched.....

166 Marvo76  Thu, Nov 13, 2008 9:05:06pm

re: #153 angst

I would repectfully disagree, simply because we will definitely see the day when parents are asked to decide whether or not to keep a fetus that has what many people would find to be an "acceptable" flaw if only they found out about it after the baby is born. Cleft palate is an example of that, or omphalocele, cystic fibrosis or any of a number of nonfatal defects. Even not being the "right" sex.

I definitely think there will come a time when people just throw up their hands and say "I don't want to know." In fact, quite a few already do.


would they perhaps take it to the furthest point and offer a genetic counciling PRIOR to any fertilized embryo, including perhaps sterilization to PREVENT this gene from passing on?

167 pbird  Thu, Nov 13, 2008 9:07:55pm

re: #110 OldLineTexan

I forget the name of the poison we cleaned pipe dope with. Bad, bad stuff.

Methl Ethyl Ketone is my kitty's name!

168 Salamantis  Thu, Nov 13, 2008 9:11:19pm

re: #2 goddessoftheclassroom

I just don't see how this can be random chance.

It isn't, at least not entirely; nonrandom environmental selection is also in the mix.

169 angst  Thu, Nov 13, 2008 9:12:41pm

re: #166 Marvo76

would they perhaps take it to the furthest point and offer a genetic counciling PRIOR to any fertilized embryo, including perhaps sterilization to PREVENT this gene from passing on?

Yes, if the trait is suspected ahead of time, the parents can conceive using in-vitro-fertilization and all the embryos tested. Then the ones who do not have the defect are implanted. In other countries they will do this to select sex, but I don't think that is done in the USA. I don't think many opt for sterilization these days because of this pre-implantation testing, but some might.

Want to know something interesting, though? Dwarf parents often prefer babies with dwarfism. Just goes to show you that one person's flaw is another's desirable trait.

170 pbird  Thu, Nov 13, 2008 9:13:38pm

re: #141 nyc redneck

it seems a miracle that life goes on.
the chaos and danger in successful reproduction is immense. and yet all that could go wrong somehow mostly doesn't.
incredible how all the components of the genome manage to swing into gear and in spite of junk DNA and all the other defects and weird molecular structures, a viable organism is born. time and time again.
looking too closely can be scary.
i love how the perceived chaos may only be that. perceived.
like how a fancy lovely meal can come out of a completely disheveled kitchen.

Indeed. I can't even figure out why people in a skating rink don't bump into each other, hardly at all.

171 Salamantis  Thu, Nov 13, 2008 9:15:00pm

re: #59 RTLM

I wish the GOP would not push Creationism. The RNC/GOP might want to model after Reagan, who was a very successful Creationist without ever attracting attention to his beliefs. Don't remember its coming up. Ever.

Attn, GOP: Beliefs are fine, but do not assign them to law.

And regarding Jindah, he's probably the smartest and most articulate of all the Repubs. He can mop the floor with any Dem/Lib - just by his command of facts and his record as Governor. That he believes in Creationism shouldn't be any of my business.

Note to Bobby,
Please do not make it my business and make me worry that Jr. won't be taught to competence in science.

Too late to continue harboring that delusion, after he signed a Disco Dewde authored bill into law that allows the introduction of creationist materials into public high school science classes there.

172 calcajun  Thu, Nov 13, 2008 9:16:28pm

I tried writing a paper on entropy, but I just kept falling apart.

173 Salamantis  Thu, Nov 13, 2008 9:18:50pm

re: #140 Marvo76

I would like to pose a question along those lines here if I may?

How did something this complex, EVOLVE from single cells into something as complex as a human brain/liver/kidney/lung/thought processing intellegence, when faced with the Second Law of Thermodynamics?

The 2nd Law of thernodynamics doesn't apply when an outside energy source is present. Like, say, the SUN. And evolution has had 3 1/2 billion years to proceed. That's 1.75 million times the span between Jesus and today. Plenty of time to be guided by environmental selection.

174 Salamantis  Thu, Nov 13, 2008 9:22:29pm

re: #165 Marvo76

Ok, I guess I need to rephrase the the question in another light. How did these DNA molecules piece themselves together randomly over so many different speicies and types of cells from viruses to nerve cells, at such an intricate level of assembly, in the face of a universe that is and has been sliding down towards total destruction since it was formed? There are enough variables that random chance seems far fetched.....

Genetic mutation is random, but environmental selection is NONrandom. And the results synergistically aggregate and guide.

175 Mich-again  Thu, Nov 13, 2008 9:27:57pm

re: #173 Salamantis

Yet we can see about no evolution at all in the human species in 2,000 years, so multiplying that span by 1.75 million doesn't really prove all that much. It seems that the more science learns about OOL, the more we realize how little we really know.

176 Charles  Thu, Nov 13, 2008 9:30:44pm

re: #140 Marvo76

I would like to pose a question along those lines here if I may?

How did something this complex, EVOLVE from single cells into something as complex as a human brain/liver/kidney/lung/thought processing intellegence, when faced with the Second Law of Thermodynamics?

Oh for Pete's sake. Not this "second law of thermodynamics" canard again.

There is about a trillion times more entropy flux available than is required for evolution.

177 Charles[deleted]  Thu, Nov 13, 2008 9:31:29pm
178 angst  Thu, Nov 13, 2008 9:34:53pm

re: #175 Mich-again

Yet we can see about no evolution at all in the human species in 2,000 years, so multiplying that span by 1.75 million doesn't really prove all that much. It seems that the more science learns about OOL, the more we realize how little we really know.

Maybe we've come far enough to take the evolutionary pressures of off ourselves. Heck, we don't even have to be big, strong and furry anymore. Once we got to the point where we could effectively manipulate our environment, maybe evolution stalled.

179 LEGION  Thu, Nov 13, 2008 9:39:03pm

I used to like Lee and Levi genes, or was that jeans? Rangers liked Sassoon- ohh lala sassoon. Wrangler also. Now, whatever is on sale.

180 Nightwatch  Thu, Nov 13, 2008 9:59:21pm

Bible IS
Most read book , Fact. Goggle that.
Science is what we hope for in knowledge to ANSWER what things we question from the Bible.

GOT IT?

Mankind wants a definitive truth...or do they?

181 Nightwatch  Thu, Nov 13, 2008 10:03:13pm

re: #176 Charles
Post 180.

Goodnight Charles.

182 Salamantis  Thu, Nov 13, 2008 10:03:41pm

re: #175 Mich-again

Yet we can see about no evolution at all in the human species in 2,000 years, so multiplying that span by 1.75 million doesn't really prove all that much. It seems that the more science learns about OOL, the more we realize how little we really know.

I beg to disagree:

[Link: www.reuters.com...]

183 Mr Secul  Thu, Nov 13, 2008 10:53:18pm

re: #140 Marvo76

I would like to pose a question along those lines here if I may?

How did something this complex, EVOLVE from single cells into something as complex as a human brain/liver/kidney/lung/thought processing intellegence, when faced with the Second Law of Thermodynamics?

You don't understand the laws of thermodynamics.

But are you just ignorant? just stupid? or are you willfully ignorant?

Or is it all an act?

Are you pretending not to get it or are you just trying your hardest not to get it? (And succeeding through sheer force of will.)

Which is it?

184 Mr Secul  Thu, Nov 13, 2008 11:18:59pm

re: #3 Killgore Trout

Semi OT: Princeton Scientists Discover Proteins that Control Evolution

Take that with a ton of salt.

Read all the posts.

But from the article itself:

Said Chakrabarti:

The discovery answers an age-old question that has puzzled biologists since the time of Darwin: How can organisms be so exquisitely complex, if evolution is completely random, operating like a 'blind watchmaker'? Our new theory extends Darwin's model, demonstrating how organisms can subtly direct aspects of their own evolution to create order out of randomness.

This is typical creationist BS. Evolution is completely random? Really? saiz who? (oh, I know: Creationists!)

An age old puzzle that has puzzled biologists since the time of Darwin?

Nope, Darwin gave the answer to the puzzle. Lets fix it.

An age old puzzle that has been answered since the time of Darwin.

Better! :-)

185 RTLM  Thu, Nov 13, 2008 11:22:21pm

re: #171 Salamantis

Too late to continue harboring that delusion, after he signed a Disco Dewde authored bill into law that allows the introduction of creationist materials into public high school science classes there.

Could I get a link and some text? I read a lot of Creationist prose.

But I was fairly grounded.

186 RTLM  Thu, Nov 13, 2008 11:23:08pm

And "Disco Dewde" is Carter?

(just checking)

187 RTLM  Thu, Nov 13, 2008 11:25:52pm

pimf - Read as in,"have read".

188 damnyanqui  Fri, Nov 14, 2008 3:03:22am

I can't help thinking that genetics is humanity's only hope for the future.
This notion has been tossed around a bit lately
In this day and age, the most intelligent and productive of us are those most DISCOURAGED from reproducing. While the least intelligent seem to do little BUT reproduce. What does that say for the gene pool of tomorrow?
To keep today's twisted version of natural selection from throwing evolution into reverse, it seems the only alternative is active management of our species' genes.
Of course there are the not-so-simple questions of "how?" and "according to whose standards and priorities?" cuz the science certainly isn't there yet and the politics... whoo (cringe)!
But what happens when this planet, with its finite resources and space gradually comes to be inhabited by 6 or 7 billion neo-neanderthals a few generations down the line?
This research could quickly change from "understanding where we came from" or "curing genetic diseases" to quite literally "saving the world."

189 Salamantis  Fri, Nov 14, 2008 4:16:55am

re: #185 RTLM

Could I get a link and some text? I read a lot of Creationist prose.

But I was fairly grounded.

Try these links; Charles has blogged about this before:

[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com...]

[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com...]

[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com...]

[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com...]

190 Salamantis  Fri, Nov 14, 2008 4:18:27am

re: #186 RTLM

And "Disco Dewde" is Carter?

(just checking)

Nope; the Disco Dewdes are the Discovery Institute, a creationist lobby that continually labors to shoehorn sectarian religious dogma into public high school science classes.

191 mph  Fri, Nov 14, 2008 4:30:52am

I'm currently reading The Language of God by Francis Collins (head of the Human Genome Project). I'm looking forward to the part where he explains how the wonderful mysteries of our DNA have something to do with the Bible and Jesus, because I assume that is going to be quite a challenge to describe for any believing scientist. Collins is a Christian and a Darwinist (and this book was recommended by Kenneth Miller - who I first saw here on LGF). I'd also like to know what he thinks of Ben Stein's movie.

192 Mr Secul  Fri, Nov 14, 2008 5:20:44am

re: #74 JackFlack

Very interesting!

Another interesting article I found today: Is Earth at the heart of a giant cosmic void?

[Link: www.newscientist.com...]

Conclusion: "The Copernican principle might survive the tests, leaving us with the known unknown of dark energy. Or it might fall, leaving us with the unknown unknown of an entirely new cosmological model. Either way, cosmologists will still have plenty of explaining to do."

Almost every single issue of New Scientist has a headline article that says that physics or cosmology is about to be overturned by a new compelling theory. Its just what New Scientist does.

193 Mr Secul  Fri, Nov 14, 2008 5:29:14am

re: #143 angst

That only applies to an isolated system. If one acquires energy from outside the system (food, sunlight) one can indeed create a highly ordered structure. Otherwise, there couldn't be any life, not even single-celled organisms.

In other words, there can be pockets of organization at the expense of other areas that become less organized as a result, as long as the total entropy in the universe is increasing.

Either he already knows this or he has his fingers in his ears and he is shouting, "I'm not listening, I'm not listening!".

But its good that somebody says this in case any innocents are reading who may not know about the 2nd law.

194 Lince  Fri, Nov 14, 2008 5:47:16am

And to think that all this design and sophistication and coded information came into existence by itself...............right? Right?

195 MPH  Fri, Nov 14, 2008 5:51:33am

re: #194 Lince

And to think that all this design and sophistication and coded information came into existence by itself...............right? Right?

But what does your question even mean? Does it have something to do with Jesus and Noah and such? or Aliens? or some unknowable creator of the universe?

196 Lince  Fri, Nov 14, 2008 5:52:56am

re: #195 MPH

But what does your question even mean?

What do you think it means?

197 Vancomycin  Fri, Nov 14, 2008 6:06:00am

Um...

Just from the bit that was posted (and I don't have time to read more of the article right now)...

The person writing that article is *very* misinformed about molecular genetics. Very. I mean, basically...wrong.
Just from the part that's posted above that is. I went to school for this specifically (double major in genetics and bacteriology), and yeah...that stuff there...just, not written in a way that's going to actually inform someone of the actual scientific facts.

198 Vancomycin  Fri, Nov 14, 2008 6:20:43am

Actually, let me clarify.

The bit above is overly simplistic and will do no-one any good unless they study the actual science more. If the only thing they go by for molecular genetics is this type of article they'll be really really misinformed.

199 MPH  Fri, Nov 14, 2008 6:21:06am

re: #196 Lince

What do you think it means?

I don't know -- which is why I asked. I really do not understand that specific point.

200 Salamantis  Fri, Nov 14, 2008 7:08:06am

re: #194 Lince

And to think that all this design and sophistication and coded information came into existence by itself...............right? Right?

Right.

201 Basho  Fri, Nov 14, 2008 7:09:44am

re: #200 Salamantis

Heh.

202 ASU86PE  Fri, Nov 14, 2008 7:15:32am

It's not in man to know God fully or the creation of God's full work. This is one of the many times the simplicity of man is confounded by the complexity of God.

Yet even a a one celled critter can reproduce without the instructions of man.

Experiment, test, but know that God is good!
And now, after 100 years of use, we now know how bleach kills baterium.

203 Salamantis  Fri, Nov 14, 2008 7:30:02am

re: #202 ASU86PE

It's not in man to know God fully or the creation of God's full work. This is one of the many times the simplicity of man is confounded by the complexity of God.

Yet even a a one celled critter can reproduce without the instructions of man.

Experiment, test, but know that God is good!
And now, after 100 years of use, we now know how bleach kills baterium.

We have a habit of figuring things out over time. I don't see that habit being broken any time in the foreseeable future.

And the DNAs of the millions of various species both existent and extinct have emerged from billions of years of random mutation and nonrandom environmental selection, not from 6 days of creation a few thousand years ago.

Wouldn't something as complex as a God, which would have to be more complex than the universe itself in order to purposefully design and create it, require something still more complex in order to engineer such a deity? And wouldn't that something require something more complex still to create it, and on and on in an infinite regress of increasingly greater and more improbable complexity? More and more complex, and more improbably complex, turtles, all the way down - and the way down goes on forever.

204 notutopia  Fri, Nov 14, 2008 7:44:44am

re: #169 angst

Currently, sex selection is not performed here, however, moms have elected to go to the UK to privately pay for the service.
I anticipate we will also see immigration laws concerning in vitro fertilization.

205 notutopia  Fri, Nov 14, 2008 7:54:58am

re: #176 Charles
Just ordered my hard copy. 2008 release, looking forward to reading it.
The Counter-Creationism Handbook (Paperback)
by Mark Isaak (Author)
Available on Kindle

206 notutopia  Fri, Nov 14, 2008 8:03:12am

re: #188 damnyanqui

But what happens when this planet, with its finite resources and space gradually comes to be inhabited by 6 or 7 billion neo-neanderthals a few generations down the line?
This research could quickly change from "understanding where we came from" or "curing genetic diseases" to quite literally "saving the world."

And those neo-neanderthals will be "saving" the world?
I think you actually just answered your own prediction. Unintended consequences.

It is so vitally important for us to embrace the ethical intentions and weigh the consequences of our genetic manipulations NOW.

207 Classic Conservative  Fri, Nov 14, 2008 8:26:29am

I'm a molecular biology ph.d. student. None of what this article discusses is new, been known about for at least 10 years now. However, I am always interested to see that others are interested in my geeky world :>)

208 Charles  Fri, Nov 14, 2008 8:50:58am

re: #194 Lince

And to think that all this design and sophistication and coded information came into existence by itself...............right? Right?

It's even more amazing that you would come back to LGF with a sockpuppet account after you were previously banned, just start spouting the same nonsense, and think I wouldn't notice you.

Banned again.

209 satan sidekick  Fri, Nov 14, 2008 9:01:54am

re: #138 angst

This is so true. I'm a co-founder of a forum dedicated to stem cells and underwent umbilical cord stem cell therapy in April 2007 which didn't cure my illness but definitely improved my condition. Our site is dedicated to helping people with incurable illnesses to find help with stem cell therapy. There are new discoveries almost every day.

The name of the site is hhtp[Link: www.stemcellpioneers.com...] for anyone who is interested in reading about stem cells and the stories of people who have actually had treatments from all over the world.

I hope I'm not doing anything wrong by posting this website.

210 Yashmak  Fri, Nov 14, 2008 9:02:51am

re: #175 Mich-again

Yet we can see about no evolution at all in the human species in 2,000 years, so multiplying that span by 1.75 million doesn't really prove all that much. It seems that the more science learns about OOL, the more we realize how little we really know.

Average height has increased dramatically, just in the last 1000 years. . .let alone, the last 2000. There have been numerous other subtle changes as well. Multiply THAT by 1.75 million (wherever that figure came from), and it's not too hard to see that period of time could contain a huge amount of developement.

211 JackFlack  Fri, Nov 14, 2008 9:05:12am

re: #78 Killgore Trout

They are going to fire up CERN again soon and all will be revealed.

Is that before or after the black hole it creates swallows the earth? ;)

212 satan sidekick  Fri, Nov 14, 2008 9:06:40am

re: #210 Yashmak

Actually human height has shot up since the 18th Century for sure. If you visit Old Ironsides in Boston the tour guides tell you that the reason the door heights are so low on the ship is because the men were much shorter than they are today.

213 Yashmak  Fri, Nov 14, 2008 9:15:06am

re: #212 satan sidekick

Actually human height has shot up since the 18th Century for sure. If you visit Old Ironsides in Boston the tour guides tell you that the reason the door heights are so low on the ship is because the men were much shorter than they are today.

Indeed. Considering the implications (imagine a bunch of 5' tall greeks in the movie "300" instead of tall statueque actors) is amusing.

214 Marvo76  Fri, Nov 14, 2008 9:28:19am

re: #183 Mr Secul

You don't understand the laws of thermodynamics.

But are you just ignorant? just stupid? or are you willfully ignorant?

Or is it all an act?

Are you pretending not to get it or are you just trying your hardest not to get it? (And succeeding through sheer force of will.)

Which is it?

ahhh since a question asked in good faith, by one who is trying to better one's knowledge, is met with sarcasim, name calling, and belittlement, I must assume you are one of my "betters". Did you read further and see that I rephrased my question in a different light? My understanding of the 2nd law was thru reading a text some time ago, while I do have a fairly good memory I did not grasp the concept as well as you might. Therefore I asked the question, was rebuffed, and rehrased in order to better clarify what I was trying to convey. Perhaps your mind is like a steel trap, being locked in the closed position, I however, keep mine open in order to compare different viewpoints/conjectures/theories/studies which may have changed or been found incomplete/wanting. I wish you a good day and hope that find a way to curb your didain for those who you find "beneath" your lofty status, it must be lonely there at the top....

215 Marvo76  Fri, Nov 14, 2008 9:36:09am

re: #194 Lince

And to think that all this design and sophistication and coded information came into existence by itself...............right? Right?

This is similar to my question, how did it become so complex by accident? I have a hard time believeing that lightning hit a pool of chemicals and life evolved. Yet we are ridiculed if dare to question that it was indeed random chance...I would like to see a one celled animal created by man from base chemicals, that can reproduce itself to at least 7 generations holding true to its form or adapting to conditions based on the fomr's original design. Perhaps one day someone can show us this, but for now genetic manipulation of already exiting materials is all science can do to show us that man is God....and that random chance is what created us.

216 Charles  Fri, Nov 14, 2008 9:58:06am

re: #215 Marvo76

Yet we are ridiculed if dare to question that it was indeed random chance...

You're ridiculed when you attempt to foist off creationist talking points like the "second law of thermodynamics" that have been discredited for decades. This isn't the first time you've tried to dump creationist nonsense into science threads; it's so common there are actually websites devoted to answering all the pseudo-scientific jargon and dishonest talking points you creationists recycle endlessly.

217 Atweber  Fri, Nov 14, 2008 10:03:37am

What's with all this banning? It seems bit obsessive. You may as well ban me also.

218 Marvo76  Fri, Nov 14, 2008 10:04:45am

Charles, the second law argument was posed to me by someone else a while back, I find that coming here, I learn "the other side" of the argument. Please understand, I am not out to "bait" anyone, but truely want to participate in the debate and learn from what I find. I turely enjoy the spirited debates on here and spent 3 years trying to hit a registry window to paticipate in this privledge. I thank you for hosting this forum....

219 Charles  Fri, Nov 14, 2008 10:07:46am

re: #217 Atweber

What's with all this banning? It seems bit obsessive. You may as well ban me also.

OK.

220 Marvo76  Fri, Nov 14, 2008 10:19:20am

for the record also, I am not a creationist, I find that arguments for an old earth are overwhelming in fossil records, however certain questions have been raised to cause me to seek answers. I am however a Christian and as such the timing of an old earth is not as relevant as the question of how life began, by chance or by design, timing being in the creator's hands. Does this study bring us any closer to understanding how it all came together? Or does it pose as many questions as it answers?

221 Charles  Fri, Nov 14, 2008 10:31:45am

re: #220 Marvo76

for the record also, I am not a creationist, I find that arguments for an old earth are overwhelming in fossil records, however certain questions have been raised to cause me to seek answers.

I guess you think I've forgotten these comments you posted previously:

[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com...]

[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com...]

[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com...]

[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com...]

[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com...]

[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com...]

[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com...]

And there are more. One creationist talking point after another.

222 Basho  Fri, Nov 14, 2008 10:54:43am

re: #220 Marvo76

Or does it pose as many questions as it answers?

More questions is a great thing. Nobody has all the answers.

223 Marvo76  Fri, Nov 14, 2008 10:55:23am

I stand by those posts ( I just reviewed them all) while some might be considered talking points, Some were based on news accounts (apes in spain being given rights, degrees in CA not accepted, though the minerwells post was done tounge-in-cheek) I did indeed follow the links sent and learned much more, on the fourth link.
I do stand by the embryo pictures I had in my text book that were later proved wrong, I have seen both the original pictures and actual embryo pics of the different species and will not back down on that one.
As for the last link I again followed a link and was shown evidence which satisfied me that there is an identifiable progression in that set of fossils, (had my ass handed to me LOL) My statement that fossil records for and old earth are overwhelming, (at least more than 6000 years old) does still have questions about individual events such as the grand canyon forming over millions of years when evidence of a "great lake" (also known by geologists as Hopi lake) show that a catastrophic event could have carved it in weeks rather than eons. With the canyon formed on Mt. St. Helens as an example, and the overflow tubes at a dam being torn out by hydrolic flow in a matter of hours. This does not make me a creationist, it makes me a curious individual with two different competing theories/lines of thinking raising questions and seeking answers.

224 Jimmah  Fri, Nov 14, 2008 11:00:20am

Another day, another creationist putting on the 'innocent seeker of knowledge' act.

225 Yashmak  Fri, Nov 14, 2008 11:18:47am

re: #215 Marvo76

This is similar to my question, how did it become so complex by accident?

While genetic science is learning ever more about the mechanics and chronology of this all, the question I think you're really interested in, is why everything happened the way it has happened. Science neither offers, or TRIES to offer, an explanation for that. That's where your faith comes in. God fired off the spark, or it happened by chance. Science cannot determine that.

What science CAN determine, is that the literalist creation story is bunk, as is any attempt to classify Intelligent Design as science.

As for your note about the Grand Canyon. . .water (like electricity) follows the course of least resistance, and would rather flow over rock than carve it away. Dump a bucket of water on a sidewalk, all of a sudden. Does it carry away sidewalk material any faster than the same amount of water slowly flowing across the sidewalk? Perhaps minutely more. Point is, there's no way the Grand Canyon was formed in a few weeks. Mt. St. Helens cannot be used as an example of this happening, because the geology there is profoundly different than that found at the Grand Canyon, and the scale of effect is several orders of magnitude smaller than what would be necessary to acheive the affect this 'several week formation of the Grand Canyon' would have required.

226 Basho  Fri, Nov 14, 2008 11:32:13am

Creationists seem to have time to read all the books by Behe and all the books that say Darwinism is responsible for the holocaust and all the ID magazines and websites... but can't take the time to read a single biology text.

227 Charles  Fri, Nov 14, 2008 11:39:18am

re: #223 Marvo76

I stand by those posts ( I just reviewed them all) while some might be considered talking points, Some were based on news accounts (apes in spain being given rights, degrees in CA not accepted, though the minerwells post was done tounge-in-cheek) I did indeed follow the links sent and learned much more, on the fourth link.
I do stand by the embryo pictures I had in my text book that were later proved wrong, I have seen both the original pictures and actual embryo pics of the different species and will not back down on that one.
As for the last link I again followed a link and was shown evidence which satisfied me that there is an identifiable progression in that set of fossils, (had my ass handed to me LOL) My statement that fossil records for and old earth are overwhelming, (at least more than 6000 years old) does still have questions about individual events such as the grand canyon forming over millions of years when evidence of a "great lake" (also known by geologists as Hopi lake) show that a catastrophic event could have carved it in weeks rather than eons. With the canyon formed on Mt. St. Helens as an example, and the overflow tubes at a dam being torn out by hydrolic flow in a matter of hours. This does not make me a creationist, it makes me a curious individual with two different competing theories/lines of thinking raising questions and seeking answers.

You respond to the charge that you're posting creationist talking points by posting more creationist talking points.

[Link: www.creationscience.com...]

[Link: www.creationism.org...]

228 Jimmah  Fri, Nov 14, 2008 11:45:05am

I think Marvo is away recharging his database.

229 Basho  Fri, Nov 14, 2008 11:48:38am

re: #228 Jimmah

Hahaha that's hilarious I favorited that thanks :D I've been cranky and needed the good laugh.

230 Mr Secul  Fri, Nov 14, 2008 12:21:07pm

re: #214 Marvo76

ahhh since a question asked in good faith, by one who is trying to better one's knowledge, is met with sarcasim, name calling, and belittlement, I must assume you are one of my "betters". Did you read further and see that I rephrased my question in a different light? My understanding of the 2nd law was thru reading a text some time ago, while I do have a fairly good memory I did not grasp the concept as well as you might. Therefore I asked the question, was rebuffed, and rehrased in order to better clarify what I was trying to convey. Perhaps your mind is like a steel trap, being locked in the closed position, I however, keep mine open in order to compare different viewpoints/conjectures/theories/studies which may have changed or been found incomplete/wanting. I wish you a good day and hope that find a way to curb your didain for those who you find "beneath" your lofty status, it must be lonely there at the top....

Oh you're such a martyr. Honest question my ass.

If you genuinely wanted to know then you could have goggled. Search the page for Applications to living systems.

What text did you read? Where did you read it? A creationist website by any chance?

If you want to learn stuff then stay away from those places. They are full of people who want to lie to you and mislead you. They are doubly dangerous for people who want to hear their lies. They know exactly what you want to hear and they have no shame in lying to you.

If you are genuine in your search for knowledge then you will compare and contrast what you read on the creationist sites with what you read on Pandas Thumb or even wikipedia.

With Internet access and google you have no excuse for not fact checking before you post. You just need to do some work.

Look at what the creationists say then look at what everybody else says. It will soon become clear that the creationists are lying to you and you will know them for what they are.

231 Salamantis  Fri, Nov 14, 2008 2:07:11pm

re: #214 Marvo76

ahhh since a question asked in good faith, by one who is trying to better one's knowledge, is met with sarcasim, name calling, and belittlement, I must assume you are one of my "betters". Did you read further and see that I rephrased my question in a different light? My understanding of the 2nd law was thru reading a text some time ago, while I do have a fairly good memory I did not grasp the concept as well as you might. Therefore I asked the question, was rebuffed, and rehrased in order to better clarify what I was trying to convey. Perhaps your mind is like a steel trap, being locked in the closed position, I however, keep mine open in order to compare different viewpoints/conjectures/theories/studies which may have changed or been found incomplete/wanting. I wish you a good day and hope that find a way to curb your didain for those who you find "beneath" your lofty status, it must be lonely there at the top....

Is your mind equally open to flat earth theory, ptolemaic geocentrism, alchemy, astrology, phlogiston, phrenology, and the doctrine of signatures?

232 Salamantis  Fri, Nov 14, 2008 2:11:52pm

re: #215 Marvo76

This is similar to my question, how did it become so complex by accident? I have a hard time believeing that lightning hit a pool of chemicals and life evolved. Yet we are ridiculed if dare to question that it was indeed random chance...I would like to see a one celled animal created by man from base chemicals, that can reproduce itself to at least 7 generations holding true to its form or adapting to conditions based on the fomr's original design. Perhaps one day someone can show us this, but for now genetic manipulation of already exiting materials is all science can do to show us that man is God....and that random chance is what created us.

First of all, the moment scientists succeed in creating life out of whole cloth, the creationists will come back with "See? It's designed, too!" Even if all the scientists do is closely recreate the circumstances under which it first arose.

Second of all, for the umpteenth time, while genetic mutation is random, environmental selection is NONrandom, and both processes are components of the evolutionary paradigm.

233 Salamantis  Fri, Nov 14, 2008 2:16:02pm

re: #221 Charles

I guess you think I've forgotten these comments you posted previously:

[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com...]

[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com...]

[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com...]

[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com...]

[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com...]

[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com...]

[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com...]

And there are more. One creationist talking point after another.

And every one of them conclusively and irretrieveably refuted, discredited and debunked.

234 Salamantis  Fri, Nov 14, 2008 2:17:27pm

re: #218 Marvo76

Charles, the second law argument was posed to me by someone else a while back, I find that coming here, I learn "the other side" of the argument. Please understand, I am not out to "bait" anyone, but truely want to participate in the debate and learn from what I find. I turely enjoy the spirited debates on here and spent 3 years trying to hit a registry window to paticipate in this privledge. I thank you for hosting this forum....

Charles' post #221 exposes and reveals you for the cynically lying creationist propagandist you are.

235 Marvo76  Fri, Nov 14, 2008 2:18:00pm

Part of the evidence on the grand canyon is that the lake that drained was measured in cubic MILES of water, The force of which could send boulders the size of greyhound buses down strem bashing thier way to lower ground. They also discovered the failure point of the breach. They also postulate that the flow was towards San Diego where there is an extremely thick layer of silt that is very similar to the composition of the grand canvon parent rock. I saw nothing in there not plausable, in fact I believe discovery channel had a program about it recently on, they mentioned another "catastrophic failure" in the Northwest or badlands (can't recall which right now) I can send you a list of the sites I visit but Creationist sites are not on the list, sorry. (at least if they are, they aren't overt about it)
Finally I am not out for martyrdom, I just don't google, I try not to use their services as I do not support them or some of the things they represent. It isn't much, but hey why feed the beast that may devour you (LOL) If I see an interesting article I will chase it down and find more about it or keep my eyes open for more info while browsing.
I had never heard of panda's thumb, but will check it out for sure.

236 Salamantis  Fri, Nov 14, 2008 2:21:05pm

re: #223 Marvo76

I stand by those posts ( I just reviewed them all) while some might be considered talking points, Some were based on news accounts (apes in spain being given rights, degrees in CA not accepted, though the minerwells post was done tounge-in-cheek) I did indeed follow the links sent and learned much more, on the fourth link.
I do stand by the embryo pictures I had in my text book that were later proved wrong, I have seen both the original pictures and actual embryo pics of the different species and will not back down on that one.
As for the last link I again followed a link and was shown evidence which satisfied me that there is an identifiable progression in that set of fossils, (had my ass handed to me LOL) My statement that fossil records for and old earth are overwhelming, (at least more than 6000 years old) does still have questions about individual events such as the grand canyon forming over millions of years when evidence of a "great lake" (also known by geologists as Hopi lake) show that a catastrophic event could have carved it in weeks rather than eons. With the canyon formed on Mt. St. Helens as an example, and the overflow tubes at a dam being torn out by hydrolic flow in a matter of hours. This does not make me a creationist, it makes me a curious individual with two different competing theories/lines of thinking raising questions and seeking answers.

Those pathetic creationist canard have also been conclusively discredited and debunked.

There are NOT two competing theories; there is only one empirically supported understanding, and then there is a religious parable written by tent-dwelling shepherds thousands of years ago who didn't know bupkus about science.

237 Salamantis  Fri, Nov 14, 2008 2:29:11pm

re: #235 Marvo76

Part of the evidence on the grand canyon is that the lake that drained was measured in cubic MILES of water, The force of which could send boulders the size of greyhound buses down strem bashing thier way to lower ground. They also discovered the failure point of the breach. They also postulate that the flow was towards San Diego where there is an extremely thick layer of silt that is very similar to the composition of the grand canvon parent rock. I saw nothing in there not plausable, in fact I believe discovery channel had a program about it recently on, they mentioned another "catastrophic failure" in the Northwest or badlands (can't recall which right now) I can send you a list of the sites I visit but Creationist sites are not on the list, sorry. (at least if they are, they aren't overt about it)
Finally I am not out for martyrdom, I just don't google, I try not to use their services as I do not support them or some of the things they represent. It isn't much, but hey why feed the beast that may devour you (LOL) If I see an interesting article I will chase it down and find more about it or keep my eyes open for more info while browsing.
I had never heard of panda's thumb, but will check it out for sure.

Putting aside the undeniable fact that it took many millions of years for the Grand Canyon to be cut a mile deep, there are different strata revealed by that erosion all the way down from the peak to the base, many of which contain differing fossils - earlier ones in the lower strata, more recent ones in the upper strata. Just how long do you think it took for all of that stuff to be sedimentally laid down or otherwise form in the first place? A few thousand years? Geez, whatta maroon...

238 Charles  Fri, Nov 14, 2008 2:31:01pm
239 Salamantis  Fri, Nov 14, 2008 2:32:13pm

Spend some time here, and enlighten yourself:

[Link: www.talkorigins.org...]

240 Marvo76  Fri, Nov 14, 2008 2:32:41pm

Panda's thumb is now saved on my favorites list, interesting reading to say the least!

241 Yashmak  Fri, Nov 14, 2008 2:47:21pm
Part of the evidence on the grand canyon is that the lake that drained was measured in cubic MILES of water, The force of which could send boulders the size of greyhound buses down strem bashing thier way to lower ground. They also discovered the failure point of the breach. They also postulate that the flow was towards San Diego where there is an extremely thick layer of silt that is very similar to the composition of the grand canvon parent rock.

- Marvo76

Well, if that's the evidence they're using to support this ridiculous alternative to the amply documented scientific evidence, then Yosemite valley should be dozens of miles deep. Boulders the size of sky scrapers were ground into the base of that valley by a massive glacier, and under far more force than boulders rolling along with a current could ever generate. . .and it still took tens of thousands of years for that valley to form.

I mean, seriously, put some thought into it.

242 Yashmak  Fri, Nov 14, 2008 3:25:46pm

Here's another one for ya Marvo.

The Amazon river discharges 219000 cubic meters/second on average, all year round.

That's 5.5 cubic miles of water EACH DAY, 7 days a week, 365 days a year. The bottom of it isn't even on hard bedrock, it's mud. If what these guys were claiming made any sense at all, the Amazon river would have entirely eroded away most of what is now Brazil.

243 Richard Romano  Fri, Nov 14, 2008 3:35:16pm
far more complex than anyone dreamed—and far more mysterious

Oh Charles, what you said!

244 ASU86PE  Fri, Nov 14, 2008 6:04:58pm

re: #203 Salamantis Sorry, I went to work.

We have a habit of figuring things out over time. No duh! Or are there other beings on your earth? Welcome to reality. I seek knowledge in the real world but I also know that the realities of life are not all inert.

not from 6 days of creation a few thousand years ago.I missed that in my statements. Read it for what I wrote not your narrow-minded opinion of Christians.

I have yet to put down anyone as quickly as you are willing to at this instance.

245 Charles  Fri, Nov 14, 2008 6:46:08pm

re: #243 Richard Romano

Oh Charles, what you said!

Well, since you're a creationist, I'm sure you're taking that statement very differently than I meant it.

It's not unusual at all for scientific research to reveal that previous theories didn't adequately describe the phenomena under observation. This is one of the beauties of science; it shows us what we don't know, and points the way toward further research.

Which doesn't translate to: God did it. It means there's more to learn. It doesn't mean "we'll never know, so it must be supernatural."

246 Salamantis  Fri, Nov 14, 2008 6:59:34pm

re: #244 ASU86PE

Sorry, I went to work.

We have a habit of figuring things out over time. No duh! Or are there other beings on your earth? Welcome to reality. I seek knowledge in the real world but I also know that the realities of life are not all inert.

No, they aren't; in fact, the mechanism of evolution is quite dynamic. And I simply note that people have a habit of figuring things out over time to contrast that historical fact with the untethered convictions of those who claim that everything was all figured out and stuck in a book millennia ago.

not from 6 days of creation a few thousand years ago.I missed that in my statements. Read it for what I wrote not your narrow-minded opinion of Christians.

I have yet to put down anyone as quickly as you are willing to at this instance.

My opinion is of fundamentalist biblical literalists, and they are indeed narrow-minded; in fact, their minds are so narrow that they can be circumscribed in the pages of a single book. To note this fact is not to engage in a putdown so much as to recognize an obtaining reality.

Some people might not like to be called what they are, but the truth, by definition, can never be an insult.

247 ASU86PE  Sat, Nov 15, 2008 12:15:50am

re: #246 Salamantis


So, by dislodging time from creation, you lord over an argument to an end that presumes eventual eccentricities. Thus the eccentricities become mutations, mutations become characteristics, characteristics become features, and features become a new species. Is that about right? That's rather Plato-istic. You seek the narrow sensual truth.

Whereas, a Christian is somewhat Socratic; "He who sees (only) with his eyes is blind."

248 Salamantis  Sat, Nov 15, 2008 4:26:00am

re: #247 ASU86PE

So, by dislodging time from creation, you lord over an argument to an end that presumes eventual eccentricities. Thus the eccentricities become mutations, mutations become characteristics, characteristics become features, and features become a new species. Is that about right? That's rather Plato-istic. You seek the narrow sensual truth.

Whereas, a Christian is somewhat Socratic; "He who sees (only) with his eyes is blind."

Actually, creationist literalists are the ones who willfully blind themselves to tsunamis of empirical evidence from genetics, paleontology, geology, biology, botany, zoology, and many other scientific disciplines in order to cleave to cherished fables written by ancient itinerant shepherds.

249 ASU86PE  Sat, Nov 15, 2008 7:54:23am

re: #248 Salamantis
First, let me apologize for the back-handed inference to you in my last response. I meant no such thing. I used a personal inference without merit. My Bad.

Secondly, the separation of the studies, genetics, paleontology, geology, biology, botany, zoology, and many other scientific disciplines are Christian; Gregor Mendel's to be precise, a Christian priest.

Of course, there's other narrow minded Christians in science, like Lister, Pasteur, Maxwell, Newton, Franklin, Jefferson, Washington, Bell, Edison, Einstein, etal. For crying out loud, even Darwin was a Christian, as well as Goddard, Von Braun, Copernicus, Kepler, Descartes, Leibniz, and Pascal.

It's only been since the last few years that the self-congratulating scientist, like Sagan (what did he invent again? ... zip), Gore, etc., have been in vogue that we stopped hearing about the work of Christians and only heard of the unaffiliated; the new Dark Ages of PC science - like Plato's over-educated princes - now rule the thought culture. When it becomes more about objective thinking and less about subjective persecution of a persons' faith of thought - I'm in - but I do not see it happening soon; at least not in this era.

250 Charles  Sat, Nov 15, 2008 9:06:12am

re: #249 ASU86PE

It's only been since the last few years that the self-congratulating scientist, like Sagan (what did he invent again? ... zip)...

What an ignorant comment, about a man who achieved more in his life than most people can even dream of.

251 Salamantis  Sat, Nov 15, 2008 10:29:38am

re: #249 ASU86PE

First, let me apologize for the back-handed inference to you in my last response. I meant no such thing. I used a personal inference without merit. My Bad.

Secondly, the separation of the studies, genetics, paleontology, geology, biology, botany, zoology, and many other scientific disciplines are Christian; Gregor Mendel's to be precise, a Christian priest.

I find it surpassingly strange that a creationist would invoke Gregor Mendel, who was responsible for discovering the inheritance mechanism by means of which evolution proceeds, complementing Darwin's work.

Of course, there's other narrow minded Christians in science, like Lister, Pasteur, Maxwell, Newton, Franklin, Jefferson, Washington, Bell, Edison, Einstein, etal. For crying out loud, even Darwin was a Christian, as well as Goddard, Von Braun, Copernicus, Kepler, Descartes, Leibniz, and Pascal.

Einstein was an ethnic Jew and a philosophical atheist. Most of the others weren't even around when Darwin published Origin of Species. And Von Braun was no creationist. Nor did either Goddard or Von Braun work in the life sciences. And neither did many of the others you list.

It's only been since the last few years that the self-congratulating scientist, like Sagan (what did he invent again? ... zip), Gore, etc., have been in vogue that we stopped hearing about the work of Christians and only heard of the unaffiliated; the new Dark Ages of PC science - like Plato's over-educated princes - now rule the thought culture. When it becomes more about objective thinking and less about subjective persecution of a persons' faith of thought - I'm in - but I do not see it happening soon; at least not in this era.

I second Charles' comment re: Carl Sagan, and remind you that its dependence upon empirical evidence constrains science to be all about objectivity rather than faith - a constraint under which dogmatic religion does not labor. Of course, having to affirm empirically falsifiable millenia-old dogma concerning the world does impose its own constraints, which render religion, in the cases where it affirms such provable empirical falsehoods, empirical-reality-denying, and as such, quite irrelevent to the actual world.

252 ASU86PE  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 9:00:35am

re: #251 Salamantis

So, SEX is love? NO. Life is more than processes; it takes thought prior to action. Again, I'm more Decartian-Socratic about life. And Lister destroyed the "spontaneous life" theory while still bettering human life and "creating" (oops, there's that word again) another branch of science; "germ generation". What else is a Christian to do? Just create through "good science" better things for mankind instead of being close-minded to any and all thought as the PC princes are so inclined to do.

253 ASU86PE  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 12:17:25pm

re: #250 Charles "a man who achieved"

God bless he and his.

P.S. No one's arguing that critical thought should be squelched on my side. However, I did notice three dings down at my initial support for others and their expessions of thought. Too bad.

254 Salamantis  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 12:42:02pm

re: #252 ASU86PE

So, SEX is love? NO. Life is more than processes; it takes thought prior to action. Again, I'm more Decartian-Socratic about life. And Lister destroyed the "spontaneous life" theory while still bettering human life and "creating" (oops, there's that word again) another branch of science; "germ generation". What else is a Christian to do? Just create through "good science" better things for mankind instead of being close-minded to any and all thought as the PC princes are so inclined to do.

Where the hell did "So, SEX is love? NO.' come from. it is an absolute non sequiter, haing utterly nothing to do with my post #251 to which is purportedly supposed to be replying.

Lister figured out in 1867 that sterilizing wounds with antiseptics like carbolic acid cut down on bacterial infections; while important, it has not a damn thing to do with evolutionary theory. In fact, Darwin had only put out Origin of Species 8 years earlier.

To attempt to equate contemporary Origins Of Life theory (OOL) with the ancient belief in spontaneous generation (horsehairs morphing into worms, river logs morphing into crocodiles) is either to commit a mistake born of ignorance or to attempt a deception born of duplicity.

And the word creation is perfectly fine; people, including scientists, create things all the time, for instance, much better explanations for the diversity of terrestrial life than religions, which tend to stick to the same ancient texts and view innovations with jaundiced eyes, can ever hope to proffer.

As far as your embrace of Descarte's Ghost in the Machine, do you embrace Rousseau's Noble Savage and Locke's Blank Slate as well? If this is indeed the case, you might be interested in reading Steven Pinker's contention that these three misguided notions have hamstrung human understanding for centuries:

[Link: pinker.wjh.harvard.edu...]


This entry has been archived.
Comments are closed.

^ back to top ^

log in
Name:
Pass:

Register Forgot Your Password? My Account Re-send Confirmation (To log in, cookies must be enabled in your browser!)

► LGF Headlines

► Top 10 Comments

► Bottom Comments

► Recent Comments

► Tools/Info

► LGF Hits

► Slideshows

► Resources

► Never Forget

► Statistics

► Tag Cloud

► Contact

You must have Javascript enabled to use the contact form.
Your email:

Subject:

Message:


Messages may be published in our weblog, unless you request otherwise.
Tech Note:
Using the Contact Form

► News/Opinion

Barnes & Noble Deal of the Day 125x125
More Partners

Compare Electricity Prices in your area. Texas Electricity is deregulated; you have the right to choose Texas Electric Rates from among many Texas Electric Companies.

More than just liveable, but pleasant.


All-New BN Kids Store! Inspiring curious minds everyday.