common designer vs common descent?

[rmwilliamsll]

Which is the "better" explanation for the nested hierarchical structures we find all living creatures are part of--common designer or common descent?

i think everyone has heard my swapped modules to yield a chimera idea that if they existed in nature would be the end of nested hierarchies and sufficient proof that ToE is wrong.

likewise, i've posted my idea of a proposed genetic code kinds barrier widely enough that everyone here has heard of it, this also being a sufficient proof of the kinds barrier and the impossibility of common descent.

i'd like to look at another neat and interesting counterexample to swapped modules vs nested hierarchies--the w-herv that has been recruited as a placental attachment protein.

this will get you into the literature plus is interesting not like research papers *grin*
http://sciencepolitics.blogspot.com/2005/04/did-virus-make-you-smart.html

The paper quoted above proposes that placental mammals have co-opted one (or a small group of) HERV in building a connection between placenta and uterus in a way that does not compromise immunological isolation between mother and embryo. In a sense, this HERV allows the early embryo to implant into the wall of the uterus. Anti-HIV drug AZT, which is an inhibitor of reverse transcription prevents implantation of the fertilized egg, presumably by blocking the expression of the HERV.

what i am curious about, is that HERV's are swapped modules, kindof. They swap not functional genes but just dna fragments (plus themselves) so that you don't see an eye protein jumping from octopus to human, let alone a complex structure. the interesting thing is what can happen to the HERV+extraneous DNA grabbed from the last cycle of incorporation into the host genome.

what happens is that the material is recruited for another totally different function. it's understandable, the operon is not being transferred but just snippets of DNA.

so nested hierarchies are not entirely isolated but what is exchanged is just dna fragments.
so still no designer swapped modules and the swapping that is being done fits nicely into common descent rather than common designer theory.

nice, fun.

i found several more nice papers on HERV-W but http://minds.wisconsin.edu/bitstream/1793/343/1/ERV+2.pdf
is particularly useful and short with pictures. *grin* the interesting observation is that the protein is being used for much the same function, to hook together cells, in the virus and in the placental tissue.
worthwhile read.

 

[Pats]

i think everyone has heard my swapped modules to yield a chimera idea that if they existed in nature would be the end of nested hierarchies and sufficient proof that ToE is wrong.

likewise, i've posted my idea of a proposed genetic code kinds barrier widely enough that everyone here has heard of it, this also being a sufficient proof of the kinds barrier and the impossibility of common descent.

Hey, I'm a little newer here. Could you post links to these posts?

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Hey, I'm a little newer here. Could you post links to these posts?

chimera:
a blend between different creatures, satyrs, griffins, sphinx etc.

nested hierarchy:
any new structure or new protein must have antecedents in it's immediate ancestors. The material for evolution exist only in the ancestors, it doesn't hop from species to species. (not until the rise of human beings doing it) the whole chimera creation in the laboratory is applicable here, why didn't the intelligent designer do this?

swapped modules:
the way human designers design, reusing big pieces in new projects. see software design for best examples. the point is that that life discovered the same principles over and over again, each with only its genetic line for raw material, there is no evidence of a designer creating a really good eye and swapping that eye module into every creature line that needed it.

if a YECists could produce a true natural chimera species this would refute the idea of common descent. for example, octopus eyes in a vertebrate.

my proposed kinds barrier, to show that such a thing is possible, is each kind would have a different triplet code to tRNA genetic code. This would not allow any evolution between kinds. the problem to me is that YECists propose kind barrier but never talk about specifics, well here is a specific that would destroy common descent and require a supernatural event at each kinds creation. Yet we don't see any barrier of this type. But rather see a consistent homology at the DNA level as evidenced by HERV, especially their ability to carry pieces of DNA from very divergent species, around for us.

 

[Remus]

nested hierarchy:
any new structure or new protein must have antecedents in it's immediate ancestors. The material for evolution exist only in the ancestors, it doesn't hop from species to species. (not until the rise of human beings doing it) the whole chimera creation in the laboratory is applicable here, why didn't the intelligent designer do this?

Why would He?

swapped modules:
the way human designers design, reusing big pieces in new projects. see software design for best examples. the point is that that life discovered the same principles over and over again, each with only its genetic line for raw material, there is no evidence of a designer creating a really good eye and swapping that eye module into every creature line that needed it.

It is true that human designers reuse designs. This allows us to build on previous designs to make more complex designs. Although this is the most efficient way for us to build something, the inherent problem with this is we usually end up with something that is less than optimal. If we had the ability to build everything from scratch, we wouldn’t have this problem. Another problem is when someone writes something (like a protocol stack which would be analogous of your eye example) that is meant to be used in many different applications; we end up with something that does the job, but doesn’t fit the design as well as something that was written specifically for that application. This is why you don’t see the exact same design for the different eyes. The fact that you do see the same ‘device’ is very strong evidence for a designer. Since God has the ability to do everything from scratch, He didn’t have to do a ‘one-size-fits-all’ design. Instead, He designed the same ‘device’ many times in different ways. This is much like what a human designer would like to design. If we human designers (at least the creative ones) had the ability, we wouldn’t reuse so much.

if a YECists could produce a true natural chimera species this would refute the idea of common descent. for example, octopus eyes in a vertebrate.

It is true that this would refute common descent, but I'm sure that the excuse would be that it was convergent evolution. Just like the fact that you have many different components like eyes, wings, etc…

 

[KerrMetric]

It is true that this would refute common descent, but I'm sure that the excuse would be that it was convergent evolution. Just like the fact that you have many different components like eyes, wings, etc…

No it could not be construed as convergent evolution.

 

[Remus]

No it could not be construed as convergent evolution.

Oh, I agree... but that wouldn't stop them from trying.

 

[KerrMetric]

Oh, I agree... but that wouldn't stop them from trying.

Yes it would for them to retain credibility. And if there is one thing as a scientist you need to still be such it is credibility. The science community is very good at weeding out the people with no credibility. This explains why creationists are absent from the community.

 

[Remus]

Yes it would for them to retain credibility. And if there is one thing as a scientist you need to still be such it is credibility. The science community is very good at weeding out the people with no credibility. This explains why creationists are absent from the community.

I wouldn't classify it as "very good" since Protsch "forged and manipulated scientific facts over the past 30 years". I'm sure everyone thought he was credible throughout those 30 years though.

 

[KerrMetric]

I wouldn't classify it as "very good" since Protsch "forged and manipulated scientific facts over the past 30 years". I'm sure everyone thought he was credible throughout those 30 years though.

But the community did weed him out and from what I have read he was not someone with a big reputation in the field anyway. A lot of his work was looked at skeptically prior to his disgrace.

 

[Remus]

But the community did weed him out and from what I have read he was not someone with a big reputation in the field anyway. A lot of his work was looked at skeptically prior to his disgrace.

Yeah, they did weed him out... after 30 years. Perhaps my standards are too high, but I wouldn't classify this anywhere close to "very good". He is also described as "high-profile", which sounds like he did have a bit of a reputation.

A lot of his work was looked at skeptically prior to his disgrace.

This part is true.

Frankfurt University's president, Rudolf Steinberg, on Thursday apologized to "all those harmed by" Protsch and acknowledged that the institution's administration had ignored the professor's misconduct for decades despite existing proof for his mistakes.

"A lot of people looked the other way," Rudolf Steinberg, the university's president, told Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung. He added that students and new university employees would be informed about the basics of appropriate scientific research behavior in the future.

http://www.deutsche-welle.de/dw/article/0,1564,1493421,00.html
People knew it, yet they did nothing.

 

[KerrMetric]

People knew it, yet they did nothing.

But the important thing is that the people who did nothing were the administrators. The community was ignoring his work anyway - they have no say on his job status at the university in question.

 

[Remus]

But the important thing is that the people who did nothing were the administrators. The community was ignoring his work anyway - they have no say on his job status at the university in question.

Chris Stringer, a Stone Age specialist and head of human origins at London's Natural History Museum, said: "What was considered a major piece of evidence showing that the Neanderthals once lived in northern Europe has fallen by the wayside. We are having to rewrite prehistory."

"Anthropology now has to revise its picture of modern man between 40,000 and 10,000 B.C.," added Thomas Terberger, an archaeologist at the University of Greifswald.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=42940

This doesn't look like they were ignoring his work.

 

[KerrMetric]

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=42940

This doesn't look like they were ignoring his work.

On the other hand, Professor Chris Stringer of the Department of Palaeontology at London's Natural History Museum, says that Hahnhöfersand Man

was never regarded as a Neanderthal and was briefly important in the 1980s to people like Gunter Brauer, who were arguing for gene flow between Neanderthals and modern humans. However, as anyone who is familiar with the palaeoanthropological literature over the last 20 years would know, the find has been of negligible significance to recent debate. It has to be said that this is also a reflection of Dr. Protsch's low reputation in the field, as anyone familiar with the recent literature would also know (personal correspondence).*​

Seems Stringer isn't in line with the worldnuttydaily piece.





​

 

[Remus]

Ah, I see that Stringer denies making some of these quoted statements, at least according to “personal correspondence” with Robert Todd Carroll of The Skeptic's Dictionary. I'm sure they have it right. Sounds more like damage control to me though. Either way, in all fairness, I'll retract the quotes from Stringer.

So, where does that leave us? If we assume that he didn’t have a good reputation, thus his credibility was in question, why was he able to fake his dating (while others knew about and doing nothing about it) for 30 years? You said:

The science community is very good at weeding out the people with no credibility.

If his credibility was in question, why did it take the scientific community 30 years to “weed him out”?

 

[KerrMetric]

Ah, I see that Stringer denies making some of these quoted statements, at least according to “personal correspondence” with Robert Todd Carroll of The Skeptic's Dictionary. I'm sure they have it right. Sounds more like damage control to me though. Either way, in all fairness, I'll retract the quotes from Stringer.

note In an article dated August 22, 2004, Tony Paterson in the Telegraph quoted Professor Stringer as saying "What was considered a major piece of evidence showing that the Neanderthals once lived in northern Europe has fallen by the wayside. We are having to rewrite prehistory." Stringer denies having made the statement: "I remember talking to the reporter concerned, and from what I remember the words in question were what he said to me, with him asking whether I agreed with the statement." Stringer also says the Paterson quote "is a made-up quote, as I never placed great weight on the significance of the Hahnofersand find in the first place. It was never called a Neanderthal as far as I know, but certain people saw "mixed" features in its morphology. Its removal is certainly not rewriting anything I have ever said about the Neanderthals, let alone rewriting prehistory!" (personal correspondence)

If his credibility was in question, why did it take the scientific community 30 years to “weed him out”?

I don't know the credibility question is 30 years old. From what I see he did not have a good reputation and his work was somewhat of a backwater. The actual faking appears to have really come into play a few years ago.

Like any other discipline, if there isn't much going on in a backwater field it isn't going to come to light easily. If he was a "world leader" at the very forefront of active research I think it would have been found out pretty much right wawy.

 

[Remus]

I don't know the credibility question is 30 years old.

"...institution's administration had ignored the professor's misconduct for decades despite existing proof for his mistakes."
It says "decades"; let's call it 20 years then. Is that fair?

From what I see he did not have a good reputation and his work was somewhat of a backwater.

Do you have any evidence other than some after-the-fact personal correspondence to support this?

The actual faking appears to have really come into play a few years ago.

The man didn't know how to run his dating equipment. The faking had to have been his entire career.

If he was a "world leader" at the very forefront of active research I think it would have been found out pretty much right wawy.

I'm sorry, but I don't share your faith.

 

[KerrMetric]

Do you have any evidence other than some after-the-fact personal correspondence to support this?

There is an easy way to check this and that is to check the citebase reference totals for his work as compared to others in the field with a career of similar length.

I'm sorry, but I don't share your faith.

It's not faith, its experience. I work in the community, though not this specific one, and frauds aren't going to last long unless you are truly in a complete backwater.

 

[Remus]

There is an easy way to check this and that is to check the citebase reference totals for his work as compared to others in the field with a career of similar length.

Is citebase a good measure? From what I understand, they are limited to what they have listed. Is it still true that they mainly have physics listings? And aren't they limited to papers that are online or something like that?

It's not faith, its experience. I work in the community, though not this specific one, and frauds aren't going to last long unless you are truly in a complete backwater.

If we were talking about something like physics, I could buy it, but not anthropology.

 

[KerrMetric]

Is citebase a good measure? From what I understand, they are limited to what they have listed. Is it still true that they mainly have physics listings? And aren't they limited to papers that are online or something like that?

I must admit I am assuming something about the anthropology community here but I assume they have this. I'll ask my wife later, she is a virologist at UCLA and has worked with anthropologists in the past.

If we were talking about something like physics, I could buy it, but not anthropology.

Bingo. My field, the real science. LOL

 

[Remus]

Bingo. My field, the real science. LOL

I have a lot of respect for physicists. I think ya’ll have a good bead on things. *tips hat*