the self replicating watch argument

[Tanj]

Right, if there are not any? So then when scientists (non-ID theorists) see this as a type of "motor" because of how the intricate parts interact to bring about the total motor like function, they are mistaken. Or is it because this was first observed by ID scientists, like re-discovering the functionality of alleged Junk DNA (another observation they were first to point out) so they must not be allowed to receive proper credit?

ID scientists were not the first to observer the flagellum, nor did they do any re-discovering of alleged junk DNA, and they were not the first to point it out. ID scientists sit on the side lines and whinge and moan about other people's interpretation of those people's data. If they'd like a smidgin of credibility, they should try generating some of their own.

 

[bhsmte]

Just let me know when they come out with the self replicating television set. Buy one, get one free, I could go for that.

 

[pshun2404]

ID scientists were not the first to observer the flagellum, nor did they do any re-discovering of alleged junk DNA, and they were not the first to point it out. ID scientists sit on the side lines and whinge and moan about other people's interpretation of those people's data. If they'd like a smidgin of credibility, they should try generating some of their own.

Wow! You really missed that one (no offense but you did). When the early ID theorists started referring to these type of bacterial motors way back in the 90s every one called them crazy, incredulous, trying to fit God/Design into natural processes and so on...now the non-Design scientists are talking about them as if this was their revelation. Same with alleged "Junk DNA" being full of function and purpose (they were not "re-discovering" anything), they being Ph.D.s and University and Research professors were laughed at...everyone knew the Junk was a nearly purposeless thowback...but NOW they are discovering the truth of those claims (see the ENCODE project for one which is a consortium of 450 world class Biologists,Geneticists, and Biochemists).

As far as generating some of their own do you mean because you do not see many of their articles published in so-called Peer Reviewed Journals? You will not because anything they submit for publishing in these sources (once ID'd as ID) is selectively excluded...(a technique used to shape public opinion)

 

[Speedwell]

As far as generating some of their own do you mean because you do not see many of their articles published in so-called Peer Reviewed Journals? You will not because anything they submit for publishing in these sources (once ID'd as ID) is selectively excluded...(a technique used to shape public opinion))

Do scientists really care that much about ID? Mostly it's rejected because it is not very good science. Scientists are not afraid of God. They are either indifferent (atheists) or have a God of their own.

 

[bhsmte]

Wow! You really missed that one (no offense but you did). When the early ID theorists started referring to these type of bacterial motors way back in the 90s every one called them crazy, incredulous, trying to fit God/Design into natural processes and so on...now the non-Design scientists are talking about them as if this was their revelation. Same with alleged "Junk DNA" being full of function and purpose (they were not "re-discovering" anything), they being Ph.D.s and University and Research professors were laughed at...everyone knew the Junk was a nearly purposeless thowback...but NOW they are discovering the truth of those claims (see the ENCODE project for one which is a consortium of 450 world class Biologists,Geneticists, and Biochemists).

As far as generating some of their own do you mean because you do not see many of their articles published in so-called Peer Reviewed Journals? You will not because anything they submit for publishing in these sources (once ID'd as ID) is selectively excluded...(a technique used to shape public opinion)

Well, when ID's own star witness at the Dover trial (Behe), had to state under oath, that if ID was science, than astrology would also be considered science, that tells you all you need to know.

 

[pshun2404]

Tanj allow me to present one example of the effect of selective exclusion on the career of a legitimate scientist.

Biologist/Geneticist Dr. Richard Sternberg who has a Ph.D. in Biology (Molecular Evolution) from Florida International University, and a Ph.D. in Systems Science (Theoretical Biology) from Binghamton University, presently a research scientist at the Biologic Institute, and a Research Collaborator at the National Museum of Natural History (Smithsonian in D.C.).


2001-2007, staff scientist at the National Center for Biotechnology Information
2001-2007 Research Associate at the Smithsonian’s National Museum of Natural History while from 2001-2004, he also served as Managing Editor of the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington and served on the Editorial Board of the International Journal of General Systems.
1999, Visiting Associate Professor of Biology at Northern Michigan University, while from 1999-2001 he was a Postdoctoral Fellow in the Department of Invertebrate Zoology, National Museum of Natural History.

He has previously been published in many Peer Reviewd Journals such as Genetica, Evolutionary Theory, Journal of Comparative Biology, Crustacean Research, Journal of Natural History, Journal of Morphology, Journal of Biological Systems, as well as the Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences.

As soon as he started reporting genetic findings that appear to agree with and/or support the perspectives of some IDers he was blackballed (McCarthyism in pedagoguery) and cannot get any of his research published in any of these.

 

[Tanj]

Wow! You really missed that one (no offense but you did).

No offense taken!

When the early ID theorists started referring to these type of bacterial motors way back in the 90s every one called them crazy, incredulous, trying to fit God/Design into natural processes and so on

We still call them "crazy"..within the context you set. Nothing has changed.

now the non-Design scientists are talking about them as if this was their revelation.

It was OUR revelation. ID scientists have revealed absolutely nothing. As I said before, they reinterpet other people's data, and never generate any of their own. They are armchair and self-sidelined.

Same with alleged "Junk DNA" being full of function and purpose (they were not "re-discovering" anything), they being Ph.D.s and University and Research professors were laughed at...everyone knew the Junk was a nearly purposeless thowback...but NOW they are discovering the truth of those claims (see the ENCODE project for one which is a consortium of 450 world class Biologists,Geneticists, and Biochemists).

I am (or was in a previous job) a part of the ENCODE project. Whilst some members went crazy ape bonkers overboard with some hyperbolic press releases, by and large you are completely misrepresenting the issue.

As far as generating some of their own do you mean because you do not see many of their articles published in so-called Peer Reviewed Journals? You will not because anything they submit for publishing in these sources (once ID'd as ID) is selectively excluded...(a technique used to shape public opinion)

As one of and on behalf of the reviewers and editors of these journals, I utterly reject your libel. Please stop repeating these lies.

 

[pshun2404]

I realize this may shock some here, but I am going to yield to your point about the "motor" AND the revelation about Junk DNA not being Junk. I trust you would know better than I about the timing of this language and the discoveries about the functional purpose of much of the alleged Junk DNA. So I will consider myself corrected.

However I still believe what I have read from and about Encode still supports the idea of junk DNA not being junk at all, and yes I still believe that the Peer Review process lets in a lot of bad material before it ever has been confirmed (later retractions only catching a margin) AND that it is selective in coverage and exclusion.

 

[Tanj]

Thanks for that.

Encode shows that much of the genome is biochemically active, which is to say binds factors. There's no evidence that any of these bindings in the "junk DNA" bits serve any function, and whilst it is true that there's less junk DNA now than there was before, nevertheless there remain large stretches of DNA with no evidence of selection or function.

And by the way, for the last 5 years i have been trying to publish some work showing that Lamarckian evolution exists, in direct opposition to current "Darwinian" dogma for want of a better phrase. Here's the things I haven't done the last 4 times this work was rejected

1) whinge about it on some rubbish website
2) Make a movie about it
3) Claim its all part of a vast conspiracy to prevent the truth from getting out.
4) Cry about discrimination.

 

[pshun2404]

Though I never really gave the machine like qualities of flagella much thought until this thread, and as Bear rightly pointed out this specific part assemblage is not a good analogy because they do not self-replicate, the problem with "origins" concepts is no one can possibly know for sure and so it becomes a belief based choice. One is actually no better than the other and those who hold any of the views are not "idiots", "antiquated", "stupid" "crazy", etc., simply because they hold that view.

I do not believe non-living matter has any inherent power to become living creatures on its own, maybe you do. I can respect that. Sadly some on each of the two extremes cannot, they are too dogmatic and do not (possibly are unable) to allow any dissention from their perceived high ground. I remain non-dogmatic as to either extreme. I use to argue for the other side now I see reason to believe that many of what I had accepted as established truths are actually not so established after all.

As far as Junk DNA a lot of it does have function and in my opinion does have a role in selection.

While most of these non-coding areas have no function other than being part of that which makes an organism what it is (say a chicken as opposed to a dog), in higher primates at least we do know now that many of these areas play a role, for example, in producing other non-coding molecules (like tRNA and even Ribosomal RNA). Other areas of once considered "Junk" DNA are now known to play a role similar to switches that influence where and when other genes express.

So what use to be considered as having NO function now is known to have function. So theoretically it is possible, even logical, that other areas of the alleged Junk do have function but these are simply still unknown. And some also see them as being involved with or having purpose in selection in terms of preserving or reducing certain biological traits.

So in my opinion, unknown is more honest than just being deemed a non-functioning archaic remnant.

 

[pshun2404]

Thanks for that.

Encode shows that much of the genome is biochemically active, which is to say binds factors. There's no evidence that any of these bindings in the "junk DNA" bits serve any function, and whilst it is true that there's less junk DNA now than there was before, nevertheless there remain large stretches of DNA with no evidence of selection or function.

And by the way, for the last 5 years i have been trying to publish some work showing that Lamarckian evolution exists, in direct opposition to current "Darwinian" dogma for want of a better phrase. Here's the things I haven't done the last 4 times this work was rejected

1) whinge about it on some rubbish website
2) Make a movie about it
3) Claim its all part of a vast conspiracy to prevent the truth from getting out.
4) Cry about discrimination.

Are you talking about "acquired characteristics"? I can agree there is some evidence for this but as history has shown that some of the assumptions that follow can have political ramifications more dangerous than the subject implies in and of itself. Care to share just a point or two? I would be intrigued as to your perspective.

 

[pshun2404]

As for your big 4 I agree with 1 and 3 these are unnecessary and absurd, but as for 2, Steins movie for example was simply about freedom of expression in academic media. Hearing and analyzing arguments and opinions against an accepted view assumed true by a majority deserve to be heard and viewed as well as their reasons for holding that opinion.

In the scientific community this is not uncommon but the alternatives are rarely presented to students. Like Gould's rebuttal of the tree concept in favor of the bush that shows trimming now and again (I think it is quite creative, yet different, yet based on the same evidence) or like where Venter and Woese disagree with Dawkins about the concept of a Universal Common ancestor (they seeing that the evidence may just as readily point to multiple "common source" life forms).

As for 4 I hear no one crying, but discrimination is certainly there in some cases (like the one I indicated).

 

[pshun2404]

For me the larger problem is in the attempt to censor. In the educational periodical Focus Quarterly (fall 2010), a featured an article by David Horowitz titled, “Education or Indoctrination” appears which argues that when teachers or professors impose their opinion, political persuasions, or when the State hinders the discussion of certain ideas and arguments into the study material (whether Social Studies, History, or Science), that ethically, and if practicing true intellectual integrity, educators should carefully separate opinion and interpretation from the actual facts, and ought to also present material discussing views which oppose that view in order to allow the students to maintain and develop their own intellectual objectivity.

But apparently this is not always the case. He points out the expressed intent of one Norma Cantu, a former official in the Department of Education during the Clinton administration, who said that “she hoped her students were radicalized” by her courses, “and trusted that other faculty shared the same aim.” This attitude demonstrates an intentional indoctrination process that should have no place in real education. Do you agree?

Horowitz points out that the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) “Declaration of Principles on Academic Freedom and Academic Tenure” deckares, “It is not the function of a faculty member in a democracy to indoctrinate his/her students with ready-made conclusions on controversial subjects. The faculty member is expected to train students to think for themselves and to provide them access to those materials, which they need if they are to think intelligently” but also notes that not all schools (even Universities) follow this rule.

He concludes “Indoctrination—as opposed to education—takes place when opinion is taught as scientific fact; when syllabi provide no room for alternative views that might actually be correct; and when assigned readings contain no texts that challenge the instructor's point of view. Indoctrination is the attempt to impose an orthodoxy on students."

I can supply many such examples, that our alleged “orthodoxy” or acceptable view has been "shaped", and we generationally have been victimized by a partial education mixed with indoctrination in a way that has served to promote and continue an unconscious reinforcement of a number of things, even a subtle institutionalized racism.

As an autodidact in the field of the application of propaganda technique, and the shaping of public opinion, I have spent many years looking into this, and picking the problem apart. The only way we can stop it is to become the counter-educators in our children’s lives, and in our communities.

As responsible educators and parents it is up to us to offer counter opinion and support for those opinions on every level, and in every community. We must reveal these subtleties whenever we see them, and whenever and where ever we can, and now that we have worldwide info sharing, make it known in every medium at our disposal.

 

[pshun2404]

This is still happening now as we speak. The NCAC (National Coalition Against Censorship) who’s motto is “Freedom to Explore, Freedom to Think, Freedom to Create” along with The Comic Book Legal Defense Fund, has demanded censorship in a South Dakota court of Law.

In the spirit of the AAUP, a bill is being debated (S.B. 55) which reads “No teacher may be prohibited from helping students understand, analyze, critique, or review in an objective scientific manner the strengths and weaknesses of scientific information presented in courses being taught which are aligned with the content standards established pursuant to § 13-3-48.”

In their proactive propaganda campaign to censor teachers and mold what we are to think, they repeatedly refer to the bill as comparable to denying the holocaust. YET it is THEY who are demanding that the State Senate legislate “restraints” on all teachers attempting to question “content” in the State developed curriculum, demanding that all teachers “follow the script”!!! Follow the Script? Really?

The problem is that once you legislate censorship, or certain speech, or the free expression and open minded exchange of ideas, you open a slippery slope to full blown tyranny. Soon a group will come along not allowing these words or ideas expressed in public forum, then texts will have to be strictly government controlled, to assure these words or ideas are selectively excluded (like Stalin did in Soviet Russia), then the press will be held liable for printing or indicating these alternative viewpoints, and the government will have to approve all press coverage and public opinion shared therein. Finally, groups who use these words, or argue or express these ideas, will be relegated to the criteria of “other”, “inferior”, or even “bad”...bad for students, and bad for society...but they are not.

Now I know this sounds rather Hitlerian, but that’s because it is (be on guard).

 

[Speedwell]

This is still happening now as we speak. The NCAC (National Coalition Against Censorship) who’s motto is “Freedom to Explore, Freedom to Think, Freedom to Create” along with The Comic Book Legal Defense Fund, has demanded censorship in a South Dakota court of Law.

In the spirit of the AAUP, a bill is being debated (S.B. 55) which reads “No teacher may be prohibited from helping students understand, analyze, critique, or review in an objective scientific manner the strengths and weaknesses of scientific information presented in courses being taught which are aligned with the content standards established pursuant to § 13-3-48.”

In their proactive propaganda campaign to censor teachers and mold what we are to think, they repeatedly refer to the bill as comparable to denying the holocaust. YET it is THEY who are demanding that the State Senate legislate “restraints” on all teachers attempting to question “content” in the State developed curriculum, demanding that all teachers “follow the script”!!! Follow the Script? Really?

The problem is that once you legislate censorship, or certain speech, or the free expression and open minded exchange of ideas, you open a slippery slope to full blown tyranny. Soon a group will come along not allowing these words or ideas expressed in public forum, then texts will have to be strictly government controlled, to assure these words or ideas are selectively excluded (like Stalin did in Soviet Russia), then the press will be held liable for printing or indicating these alternative viewpoints, and the government will have to approve all press coverage and public opinion shared therein. Finally, groups who use these words, or argue or express these ideas, will be relegated to the criteria of “other”, “inferior”, or even “bad”...bad for students, and bad for society...but they are not.

Now I know this sounds rather Hitlerian, but that’s because it is (be on guard).

Yes, that bill was put forward by a legislator who previously failed to get a bill passed which would have overtly allowed the teaching of biblical creationism is science class. He thinks it will allow teachers to shove Evangelical Protestantism up the noses of their students--in an objective scientific manner, of course.

 

[pshun2404]

Yes, that bill was put forward by a legislator who previously failed to get a bill passed which would have overtly allowed the teaching of biblical creationism is science class. He thinks it will allow teachers to shove Evangelical Protestantism up the noses of their students--in an objective scientific manner, of course.

The principle approach should none the less be the objective of all educators at all levels. Would you disagree with the statement made by the AAUP?

 

[Speedwell]

The principle approach should none the less be the objective of all educators at all levels. Would you disagree with the statement made by the AAUP?

Which, if followed strictly would put biblical creationism out of business.

 

[xianghua]

a good evidence that support the claim that most of the genome is functional can be see by the correlation between the genome size and the amount of suppose "junk":

A meta-analysis of the genomic and transcriptomic composition of complex life. - PubMed - NCBI

 

[Speedwell]

a good evidence that support the claim that most of the genome is functional can be see by the correlation between the genome size and the amount of suppose "junk":

A meta-analysis of the genomic and transcriptomic composition of complex life. - PubMed - NCBI

Right. And all of the liberal atheistic Bible-hating scientists believe devoutly in the uselessness of "Junk" DNA (at least, according to creationists that's what they believe). They are wrong, so the theory of evolution must be a fraud. QED. That's how the argument is supposed to go, isn't it?

 

[pshun2404]

Which, if followed strictly would put biblical creationism out of business.

Which should never be taught as science...