The fruit of evolution model ?

[EnemyPartyII]

Far out... like 20 of us have come in and produced examples specifically citing evolutionary theory as a basis for subsequent scientific discoveries, including a real true to life scientist who told him straight to his face that evolutionary theory was a foundation of his work... and he's STILL trying to deny it?

Far. Out.

 

[lucaspa]

That may be your preferred usage, but it's hardly standard.

According to you, my usage is the standard: " "model" refers to any representation of an aspect of physical reality -- or indeed of any system, even if it's not actually a physical system -- whether the representation is conceptual, mathematical or otherwise."

It's a representation of a theory, not the theory itself.

see, for example, "demographic model" or "Wright-Fisher model" in population genetics, or the Standard Model in particle physics. It is a more general term than "theory" (which is vague term itself).

But look what you are saying. Population genetics is the theory. The "Wright-Fisher Model" is the mathematical representation of the theory.

"Theory" is not vague. It's only vague because you think "hypotheses" are something different. Theories/hypotheses are statements about the physical universe. You can make those statements in the language of mathematics. In general, hypotheses are more specific statements while theories are more general statements, but there is a huge gray area in between where the statement can be either a theory or a hypothesis.

What does it mean for data analysis to operate in the same domain as subjectivity? What domain is it?

Data analysis is not in the same domain as subjectivity. Because scientific data is intersubjective, data analysis is not "subjective". The analysis, like the data, is going to be the same for everyone under approximately the same circumstances.

 

[lucaspa]

Modern medicine is based on ambitious exploration, focusing on repeatable, varifyable evidence... not evolution.

Read my post. Modern medicine is based on evolution.

In response to your question... A clearer understanding of absolute truth! A foundation that is scripturally based vs. faith in man! Your turn...

Who created? What was created? When you answer that, you will realize your "scripturally based vs faith in man" is wrong. What we have is faith in a human interpretation of scripture vs what God is telling us in His Creation. It's human interpretation vs God. I'll believe God. How about you?

 

[lucaspa]

I do not recognize evolution. But if I were you, I would make a similar choice as you did. Use chimps, monkeys etc. Practically, I will make a different choice than you did. I will use dogs, or pigs instead of rats.

I make this choice without any reference to anything about evolution.

What do you make reference to, then? Why would you think dogs or pigs would be better than toads or fish?

I am not discrediting your work. But I think your choice of rat for the work has nothing to do with the theory of evolution. It is just a zoological common sense based on classification.

The classification is based on things like warm blooded and hair. Why would that be related to fracture repair?

Ultimately, as it turns out, the classification system is only possible because evolution is true. Only things related by descent with modification can be classed into a nested hierarchy like the biological classification system is.

Practically, I still think dogs or cats are better samples than rat.

But you are comparing different mammals. What makes you think that mammals have the closest fracture repair to humans? Why not birds? Why not fish?

If you are looking at the practical level, dogs cost $600 each while rats cost $60. What you need to do is justify why dogs would be 10x better scientifically than a rat. How would creationism tell you this is true?

I feel it this way without using any knowledge of evolution.

"Feeling" isn't good enough. What scientific justification do you have? What in creationism would tell you that you are making the right choice?

if you did not test your result on dog, cat, pig or cow, I don't think you should jump it right way to human.

Well, you would be wrong. Again. Other researchers used adult stem cells to treat heart attacks in mice. Guess what? They then jumped to clinical trials in humans. And it is working!

Ever hear of Carticell? It's a treatment using a person's own cartilage cells to treat a defect in the articular cartilage of the knee. It was first tried in rabbits (based on evolution and the practicality that the rabbit has a larger knee than a rat). It then went to human use before being tried on dogs.

 

[lucaspa]

Yes, this is the true situation. This is how earth science works.

No it isn't and doesn't. Geology has made hundreds of predictions of features that should be found if geological theories were true. The predictions made from Flood Geology turned out to be false, for instance. The predictions made from uniformitarianism turned out to be true predictions.

Agassiz made predictions based on his geological theory that glaciers once covered most of Europe. Those predictions turned out to be true.

Petroleum exploration is based upon uniformitarianism and other standard geological theories, not creationist geology.

In the case of the flies, it is possible that those particular fossils might not yet have been found. Lots area of the earth and very few paleontologists. That's a case of a lot of area to be searched and not very many searchers.

BUT, that does not mean that the intermediate fossils are assumed to exist. They are only predicted to exist unless and until they are actually found. So when they are, it is a "new discovery" because those flies have never been seen before. That's what "new" means here.

Juvenissun, please stop lying about how scientists do their work. More accurately, please stop projecting about how creationists work onto how real scientists work.

 

[lucaspa]

Something adapted to some conditions does not mean it is evolving.

Yes, it does. That's part of the definition of evolution: populations changing over generations genetically and the genetics produce new features (adaptations) that allow the population to do well in the new conditions.

I am interested. But I do not understand. Please translate.

In the wild, chimps maintain a high load of simian immunodeficiency virus (SIV) but do not get AIDS. SIV is a virus similar to HIV that can produce AIDS in chimps. But in the wild chimps have lots of SIV in their bloodstream but don't get AIDS.

Evolution comes into play in that, because chimps and humans share a recent common ancestor, they will have similar genes producing similar proteins. If chimps and humans are specially created, there is no reason this would be true.

So, in humans a protein that helps infection with HIV is Intracellular Adhesion Molecule-1 (ICAM-1). Because of evolution, chimps should have this same protein. If chimps and humans are specially created, there is no reason to think chimps would have ICAM-1 or that it would be similar to the ICAM-1 of humans.

The researchers looked at chimp ICAM-1 and demonstrated that it had been subjected to strong natural selection. That is, it differered from the human ICAM-1 far more than could be accounted for by neutral changes and genetic drift.

Next, the researchers went to a human cell culture system where they had one cell line U937 that was not infected with HIV and another cell line ACH2 that was infected with HIV. When put together, the U937 quickly became infected with HIV.

Then the researchers transferred the gene encoding chimp ICAM-1 into U937 cells so that they had a cell line of U937 cells that now produced chimp ICAM-1. They then put these cells together in culture with the ACH2 cells. The U937 cells did become infected with HIV, but they produced 48% less HIV viruses than U937 cells without the chimp ICAM-1. They repeated this with another human cell line, THP1, and saw the same results.

The reseachers hypothesize that chimp ICAM-1 suppresses synthesis of new SIV viruses. That's why chimps can have high levels of SIV but don't go to AIDS -- the ICAM-1 keeps the number of SIV viruses in check and below the level to trigger AIDS.

What they want to do is develop drugs for humans that will do what the chimp ICAM-1 protein does: stop the production of HIV viruses in human cells. That would mean that the humans would still have HIV but would not have AIDS; they would not be sick.

And it is all based on common ancestry -- evolution.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Far out... like 20 of us have come in and produced examples specifically citing evolutionary theory as a basis for subsequent scientific discoveries, including a real true to life scientist who told him straight to his face that evolutionary theory was a foundation of his work... and he's STILL trying to deny it?

Far. Out.

Not surprising in the slightest. In the years I've posted about applied evolution (literally 4-5 years now), I only ever had one single creationist acknowledge that evolution was an applied science. Every single other creationist would either ignore it, deny it, or try to handwave it away. Every single one.

Which is why I think that creationists are zero threat to real science, since they apparently have huge blinders on when it comes to the applied sciences.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

I am interested. But I do not understand. Please translate.

What is the discovery? And how did the concept of evolution lead to this discovery? Notice that the term "adaptive evolution" does not mean evolution leads to the adaptation. It means that we call the adaptation "evolutional". It is not appropriate to add a big hat (evolution) to a common feature (adaptation). Something adapted to some conditions does not mean it is evolving.

I can explain it (and I notice Lucaspa has already taken a crack at that). But before I do so, I want to point something out:

You're already trying to dismiss it. That second part of your post is an attempt to handwave it away, despite the fact you've already admitted to not understanding it.

So my question to you is: should I even bother to explain it? If you're already trying to deny it without understanding it, will it honestly make any difference if you did understand it? And be completely honest.

(And suffice to say, the underlying phylogenetic analysis used to isolate the genes in question was a direct application of common descent. I'm 100% confident in that fact, so it really makes no difference to me whether you accept it or even understand it. It is what it is, regardless of anyone's opinion on the matter.)

 

[crawfish]

Ha ha ... No wonder you are a computer scientist.

In geology, we made all kinds of wrong assumptions. But the result would still be good. Is it wonderful?

Well...I should say consistent results. Blind squirrels find nuts every once in a while.

 

[lucaspa]

Another example on a different aspect of evolution: natural selection as a means to design.

9. FS Santiago, HC Lowe, MM Kavurma, CN Chesterman, A Baker, DG Atkins,LM Khachigian, New DNA enzyme targeting Egr-1 mRNA inhibits vascular smooth muscle proliferation and regrowth after injury. Nature Medicine 5:1264-1269, 1999. Access : New DNA enzyme targeting Egr-1 mRNA inhibits vascular smooth muscle proliferation and regrowth after injury : Nature Medicine

Journal of Clinical Investigation -- Catalytic DNAs as potential therapeutic agents and sequence-specific molecular tools to dissect biological function

A common treatment for clogged arteries in the heart is balloon angioplasty. A deflated balloon is placed, via catheter, at the site where the artery is clogged. The balloon is inflated and this 1) widens the artery and 2) breaks up the clog. However, a major problem is that the cells inthe artery -- particularly the smooth muscle cells -- divide and proliferate and close off the artery again. This is called restenosis.

Egr-1 is a protein that causes the proliferation of the smooth muscle cells. Stop the Egr-1 and you stop restenosis. What the researchers wanted was something that would degrade either Egr-1 or the messenger RNA that codes for Egr-1. However, any enzyme that would chop up the protein Egr-1 or the mRNA is itself destroyed too quickly by the cell to have an effect. What was needed was something that the cell would not degrade.

There are RNA molecules that are also enzymes. They are called ribozymes. There are hundreds/thousands of ribozymes in nature. But there are no DNA molecules in nature that are also enzymes. In this case, tho, a DNA enzyme is what they wanted because, not being in nature, the cell would not have any enzymes that would degrade it. So a DNA enzyme would stick around a long time.

But how to make one? What specific sequence nucleotides would be needed to make a DNA enzyme that would cleave the mRNA for Egr-1? The researches didn't have a clue. A DNA synthesizer can be used to make DNA molecules. They add one nucleotide at a time and the operator knows which nucleotide he is adding, so he knows the sequence. But that didn't help because they didn't know what sequence would cleave Egr-1 mRNA.

So they let natural selection make one. They started out with a million random DNA molecules. They tested these to see if any of them had even the tiniest enzyme activity toward Egr-1 mRNA. They found about 100 that had barely detectable activity. They selected these and then had them randomly mutated and proliferated to make the next generation. Tested this generation for activity. Those that had a bit better activity than the previous generation they kept (selected). You can see what is happening here: the humans set the environment. But it is natural selection that is making the activity to cleave Egr-1 mRNA.

After 10 generations, one of the DNA enzymes had an activity comparable to the naturally occurring enzyme ribonuclease A.

Only after this point did the researchers sequence the DNA in order to try to figure out how it worked. That also shows that they were not the "designers". After all, a watchmaker knows how the watch works before he puts it together; these guys did not know what the parts were until after natural selection had designed it.

This particular DNA enzyme is now in clinical trials. Other DNA enzymes -- also made by natural selection for different targets -- also also in clinical trials.

 

[lucaspa]

Not surprising in the slightest. In the years I've posted about applied evolution (literally 4-5 years now), I only ever had one single creationist acknowledge that evolution was an applied science. Every single other creationist would either ignore it, deny it, or try to handwave it away. Every single one.

Which is why I think that creationists are zero threat to real science, since they apparently have huge blinders on when it comes to the applied sciences.

If you mean by "threat" that creationists will replace evolution with creationism, then no. But they are a huge threat to real science thru the political arena. They would replace teaching evolution with teaching creationism and they would also redefine science in such a way that would destroy it.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

The researchers looked at chimp ICAM-1 and demonstrated that it had been subjected to strong natural selection. That is, it differered from the human ICAM-1 far more than could be accounted for by neutral changes and genetic drift.

And the most important part of this is exactly how they made this determination (studying the relative difference between lineages and measuring Ka/Ks ratios) only make sense in a common descent framework. In fact, I can't think of any fathomable way of conducting this comparative analysis without using common descent as a framework.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

If you mean by "threat" that creationists will replace evolution with creationism, then no. But they are a huge threat to real science thru the political arena. They would replace teaching evolution with teaching creationism and they would also redefine science in such a way that would destroy it.

But honestly, I think that threat is overblown.

The most creationists are able to really influence is evolution at the high school level. And a lot of what they've done is blatantly un-Constitutional to begin with and tends to get struck down.

At the unversity level, creationists are considerably less of a threat. And in the real world (professional academic or industry level) creationists are non-existent.

And even at the political level, a lot of politicians who pander to creationists on the one hand, will turn around an indirectly or directly finance things like the biotech industry which in turn is basically funding the application of evolutionary biology. There is too much at stake (jobs, economy, national and international competition) for politicians to allow creationists to effectively destroy science or stamp out evolution.

The only way for any of that to work would be to get rid of free market capitalism. And that just isn't happening.

 

[lucaspa]

You're already trying to dismiss it. That second part of your post is an attempt to handwave it away, despite the fact you've already admitted to not understanding it.

So my question to you is: should I even bother to explain it? If you're already trying to deny it without understanding it, will it honestly make any difference if you did understand it? And be completely honest.

If you are doing this only for Juvenissun, then I would say save your time and put it to better uses. As you noted, Juve has already indicated he isn't going to listen. In fact, he's handwaving away what evolution is.

However, if you doing it to explain it to others, including the lurkers, then yes.

It is what it is, regardless of anyone's opinion on the matter.

There you go. Separate Juve's particular psychology from the idea. If you are going to explain it, then explain the idea and why the idea is what it is. Don't do it to convince Juve. That's a lost cause.

 

[juvenissun]

What do you make reference to, then? Why would you think dogs or pigs would be better than toads or fish?



The classification is based on things like warm blooded and hair. Why would that be related to fracture repair?

Ultimately, as it turns out, the classification system is only possible because evolution is true. Only things related by descent with modification can be classed into a nested hierarchy like the biological classification system is.



But you are comparing different mammals. What makes you think that mammals have the closest fracture repair to humans? Why not birds? Why not fish?

If you are looking at the practical level, dogs cost $600 each while rats cost $60. What you need to do is justify why dogs would be 10x better scientifically than a rat. How would creationism tell you this is true?



"Feeling" isn't good enough. What scientific justification do you have? What in creationism would tell you that you are making the right choice?



Well, you would be wrong. Again. Other researchers used adult stem cells to treat heart attacks in mice. Guess what? They then jumped to clinical trials in humans. And it is working!

Ever hear of Carticell? It's a treatment using a person's own cartilage cells to treat a defect in the articular cartilage of the knee. It was first tried in rabbits (based on evolution and the practicality that the rabbit has a larger knee than a rat). It then went to human use before being tried on dogs.

Why do you still argue on this trivial idea? For a person who knows nothing about evolution, he will choose chimps to experiment on any human medicine. This is simply because chimps look like human the most. It does not take any idea of evolution to make the choice. To say evolution "guides" you to make the choice is simply not honest. We prefer dog rather than frog based on the same reason. Dog has legs more similar to human legs than frog legs.

By the way, why didn't you use frog (hind) leg? I think it could be better than rat leg. Tell me why not? A frog may cost only $6.

 

[juvenissun]

I can explain it (and I notice Lucaspa has already taken a crack at that). But before I do so, I want to point something out:

You're already trying to dismiss it. That second part of your post is an attempt to handwave it away, despite the fact you've already admitted to not understanding it.

So my question to you is: should I even bother to explain it? If you're already trying to deny it without understanding it, will it honestly make any difference if you did understand it? And be completely honest.

(And suffice to say, the underlying phylogenetic analysis used to isolate the genes in question was a direct application of common descent. I'm 100% confident in that fact, so it really makes no difference to me whether you accept it or even understand it. It is what it is, regardless of anyone's opinion on the matter.)

Wrong attitude.

I deny it based on what I know from the surface of the question. If you tell me more, then I will have to try to deny it again based on your explanation. There is no guarantee that I can do that.

If it is what it is, then you can go away. I do not have to talk to you.

 

[juvenissun]

Well...I should say consistent results. Blind squirrels find nuts every once in a while.

The problem is that we never know.

We change one parameter, we get a result. We change another parameter, we get another result. What funny is that we then can not be sure which result is more true. It comes back as "it depends on ... (more parameters)".

When you adjust 15 parameters and make the result look very true, then people dismiss the whole thing and say: it is nonsense, you can make anything possible on simulation.

 

[juvenissun]

Another example on a different aspect of evolution: natural selection as a means to design.

9. FS Santiago, HC Lowe, MM Kavurma, CN Chesterman, A Baker, DG Atkins,LM Khachigian, New DNA enzyme targeting Egr-1 mRNA inhibits vascular smooth muscle proliferation and regrowth after injury. Nature Medicine 5:1264-1269, 1999. Access : New DNA enzyme targeting Egr-1 mRNA inhibits vascular smooth muscle proliferation and regrowth after injury : Nature Medicine

Journal of Clinical Investigation -- Catalytic DNAs as potential therapeutic agents and sequence-specific molecular tools to dissect biological function

A common treatment for clogged arteries in the heart is balloon angioplasty. A deflated balloon is placed, via catheter, at the site where the artery is clogged. The balloon is inflated and this 1) widens the artery and 2) breaks up the clog. However, a major problem is that the cells inthe artery -- particularly the smooth muscle cells -- divide and proliferate and close off the artery again. This is called restenosis.

Egr-1 is a protein that causes the proliferation of the smooth muscle cells. Stop the Egr-1 and you stop restenosis. What the researchers wanted was something that would degrade either Egr-1 or the messenger RNA that codes for Egr-1. However, any enzyme that would chop up the protein Egr-1 or the mRNA is itself destroyed too quickly by the cell to have an effect. What was needed was something that the cell would not degrade.

There are RNA molecules that are also enzymes. They are called ribozymes. There are hundreds/thousands of ribozymes in nature. But there are no DNA molecules in nature that are also enzymes. In this case, tho, a DNA enzyme is what they wanted because, not being in nature, the cell would not have any enzymes that would degrade it. So a DNA enzyme would stick around a long time.

But how to make one? What specific sequence nucleotides would be needed to make a DNA enzyme that would cleave the mRNA for Egr-1? The researches didn't have a clue. A DNA synthesizer can be used to make DNA molecules. They add one nucleotide at a time and the operator knows which nucleotide he is adding, so he knows the sequence. But that didn't help because they didn't know what sequence would cleave Egr-1 mRNA.

So they let natural selection make one. They started out with a million random DNA molecules. They tested these to see if any of them had even the tiniest enzyme activity toward Egr-1 mRNA. They found about 100 that had barely detectable activity. They selected these and then had them randomly mutated and proliferated to make the next generation. Tested this generation for activity. Those that had a bit better activity than the previous generation they kept (selected). You can see what is happening here: the humans set the environment. But it is natural selection that is making the activity to cleave Egr-1 mRNA.

After 10 generations, one of the DNA enzymes had an activity comparable to the naturally occurring enzyme ribonuclease A.

Only after this point did the researchers sequence the DNA in order to try to figure out how it worked. That also shows that they were not the "designers". After all, a watchmaker knows how the watch works before he puts it together; these guys did not know what the parts were until after natural selection had designed it.

This particular DNA enzyme is now in clinical trials. Other DNA enzymes -- also made by natural selection for different targets -- also also in clinical trials.

Very good story. Thanks. I will think about this example.

 

[juvenissun]

If you are doing this only for Juvenissun, then I would say save your time and put it to better uses. As you noted, Juve has already indicated he isn't going to listen. In fact, he's handwaving away what evolution is.

However, if you doing it to explain it to others, including the lurkers, then yes.



There you go. Separate Juve's particular psychology from the idea. If you are going to explain it, then explain the idea and why the idea is what it is. Don't do it to convince Juve. That's a lost cause.

Frankly, one could not convince me simply because the argument is not good enough. That is the only reason.

 

[juvenissun]

Another example on a different aspect of evolution: natural selection as a means to design.

Very good. I don't know what to say. But, I do know what to ask:

Could you remind me again what is the content of natural selection? Is it a principle of evolution? No example is needed, just describe the principle. I know I can find references. But I want to hear it from you. It should not take more than 50 words. I like you to give me a description which your TE peers would also agree.