Promiscuous Domains and Motifs Are Better Explained by Common Design than Common Descent, (Sal’s module Hypothesis)

Dr. Winston Ewert put forward his module hypothesis, but I put forward an alternate module hypothesis at the domain and motif level of proteins. It is based actually on papers by evolutionists who have pointed out that the problem of “Promiscuous Domains” remains an unsolved problem in evolutionary biology.

When I put Promiscuous Domains on the table in the Common Design vs. Common Descent thread, the TSZ Darwinists ignored the problem and then declared victory. I viewed their non-response as evidence they didn’t understand the problem and/or preferred to ignore it.

Perhaps pictures are worth ten thousand words. From the NIH, that great source inspiration for the Intelligent Design community, we have the CDART database viewer.

From the CDART viewer, I provide a few of the thousands of diagrams that show the promiscuity of protein domains. The diagrams below show the classical zinc finger ZF-C2H2 “ZF” domain and the Plextrin Homology “PH” domains. Note how the location of domains is “shuffled” to different locations in different proteins. It’s as if proteins are made by different lego-like parts in different order and position. My preliminary look into small 4-amino acid motifs that are the target of phosphorylating kinases suggests the the problem of promiscuity goes all the way down to small motif levels.

Such promiscuity is more consistent with common design than common descent.

Click to Enlarge Classical ZF-C2H2 Zinc Finger Page 5
zf 5

Click to Enlarge Classical ZF-C2H2 Zinc Finger Page 157
cf 157

Click to see all CDART Classical ZF-C2H2 Zinc Finger Architectures

Plextrin Homology Page 1
ph 1

Click to Enlarge Plextrin Homology Page 5
ph 5

Click to see all CDART Plextrin Homology Architectures

1,004 Replies to “Promiscuous Domains and Motifs Are Better Explained by Common Design than Common Descent, (Sal’s module Hypothesis)”

  1. fifthmonarchyman
    Ignored
    says:

    John Harshman: And it kind of dodges the whole baby-killing question, doesn’t it?

    I’m not sure what “baby-killing” has to do with common decent.

    But you certainly get a gold star in well poisoning.

    😉

    peace

  2. stcordova
    Ignored
    says:

    Corneel:
    I think I’ll juxtapose these for comic effect:

    Congrats. This will be the new textbook example of a double standard for years to come.

    I don’t claim that ID is a mechanistic theory like evolutionary biology falsely claims evolutionary theory is a mechanistic theory. “It just happened” isn’t a mechanistic theory. “God did it” isn’t a mechanistic theory either. However, the falsehood is representing evolutionary theory as a mechanistic theory consistent with ordinary expectation.

  3. fifthmonarchyman
    Ignored
    says:

    John Harshman: Seriously? You would claim that it’s more obvious to link gray foxes and gray squirrels than it is to link red foxes and gray foxes, or fox squirrels and gray squirrels?

    Have you not been paying attention.

    It’s much more obvious to link those animals if you place a higher value on color and climbing habit than on anatomical measurements.

    John Harshman: You previously had not mentioned habitat, so it’s nice that you now seem to have three characters rather than two.

    Actually I did mention habitat previously. You just focused on color.

    I could include other characteristics as well like the fact that grey squirrels bark like grey foxes and grey foxes don’t tend to howl like red foxes are known to do as far as I know.

    Diet is also something to consider grey foxes generally eat more vegetable matter than other foxes and grey squirrels are generally more carnivorous than fox squirrels.

    Then there is the fact that grey squirrels and are more likely to be crepuscular than “fox” squirrels. (interesting name is it not)

    I also mentioned the fact that grey foxes are liable to be harassed by the larger red foxes and grey squirrels are liable to be harassed by the larger “fox” squirrels.

    Then there is observation that grey foxes are more likely to den in hollow trees and even in the canopy while red foxes almost always den below ground.

    I’m sure there are other similarities as well If I thought for a little bit.

    It’s all about how you weight the data.

    John Harshman: In phylogenetics, noise tends to cancel noise, leaving any signal to show through.

    Noise is in the eye of the beholder. Give a characteristic a weighting of 90 and it’s signal give it a weighting of .9 and it’s noise.

    John Harshman: Then again, nobody who has ever observed them in the wild would argue that they should be classified together.

    I’m suggesting they be classified together when it comes to the characteristics I’m talking about and I have observed them in the wild. In fact it was while observing a grey fox climbing that it occurred to me that it moved a lot like a squirrel.

    Now of course I would group them differently if I was weighting other characteristics more highly. It’s just that possibility that lets me know that all these sorts of groupings by humans are ultimately subjective.

    Think about it for a minute. Folks have been observing animals closely for thousands of years

    If your chosen groupings were objective we would expect that it would have been conceived of long before Carolus Linnaeus did it in 1735, and it would have been instantly accepted at that time .

    Instead what we find is a messy process where the new classification system was opposed by folks like comte de buffon who thought that putting together a nested hierarchy was the wrong approach altogether.

    peace

  4. John Harshman John Harshman
    Ignored
    says:

    fifthmonarchyman: Aslan did not aspire to universal popularity. He is not that sort of animal.

    Bet that gave you a warm, tingly feeling too. I see you ignored the part about baby-murder and such.

    Aslan is not good because he is the king. He is good because he is Aslan. Only a good Lion can be king

    I don’t think a clear reading of the text can support that interpretation. Did you get it from revelation? And Aslan isn’t really a lion, you know. He only looks like a lion in Narnia. Really, he’s Jesus. I can’t believe we’re talking about hermeneutics of the Narnia books.

  5. John Harshman John Harshman
    Ignored
    says:

    fifthmonarchyman: I’m not sure what “baby-killing” has to do with common decent.

    But you certainly get a gold star in well poisoning.

    It has more to do with common decency than common decent.

  6. stcordova
    Ignored
    says:

    Until I have a conference with my colleague who is a Topisomerase researcher, I will for the time being slow down posting the Top2 PTM, metal binding, active site diagrams until I can resolve the cross linking issue.

    This will give me an opportunity to analyze zinc finger domains in KRAB containing ZNF proteins.

  7. John Harshman John Harshman
    Ignored
    says:

    fifthmonarchyman: Have you not been paying attention.

    It’s much more obvious to link those animals if you place a higher value on color and climbing habit than on anatomical measurements.

    That’s not what you actually said. I will not accuse you of dishonesty.

    Actually I did mention habitat previously. You just focused on color.

    I think you’re confusing habitat with habit. You had mentioned the latter previously.

    I could include other characteristics as well like the fact that grey squirrels bark like grey foxes and grey foxes don’t tend to howl like red foxes are known to do as far as I know.

    Diet is also something to consider grey foxes generally eat more vegetable matter than other foxes and grey squirrels are generally more carnivorous than fox squirrels.
    Then there is the fact that grey squirrels and are more likely to be crepuscular than “fox” squirrels. (interesting name is it not)

    I also mentioned the fact that grey foxes are liable to be harassed by the larger red foxes and grey squirrels are liable to be harassed by the larger “fox” squirrels.

    Then there is observation that grey foxes are more likely to den in hollow trees and even in the canopy while red foxes almost always den below ground.

    I’m sure there are other similarities as well If I thought for a little bit.

    Note that you are choosing character specifically to fit a pre-conceived classification. That’s why it’s not a real nested hierarchy. Also, have you heard of a thing called “paragraphs”?

    It’s all about how you weight the data.

    Noise is in the eye of the beholder. Give a characteristic a weighting of 90 and it’s signal give it a weighting of .9 and it’s noise.

    Notice that you’re the only person talking about weighting. I’m not proposing different weights for characters at all.

    I’m suggesting they be classified together when it comes to the characteristics I’m talking about and I have observed them in the wild. In fact it was while observing a grey fox climbing that it occurred to me that it moved a lot like a squirrel.

    Doubling down?

    Think about it for a minute. Folks have been observing animals closely for thousands of years

    If your chosen groupings were objective we would expect that it would have been conceived of long before Carolus Linnaeus did it in 1735, and it would have been instantly accepted at that time .

    “Objective” doesn’t mean “obvious”. And of course foxes were grouped separately from squirrels many thousands of years ago. That’s why we have a single word for each.

    Instead what we find is a messy process where the new classification system was opposed by folks like comte de buffon who thought that putting together a nested hierarchy was the wrong approach altogether.

    Not familiar with Buffon’s views on classification. Why are they relevant?

  8. newton
    Ignored
    says:

    Fifth : Instead what we find is a messy process where the new classification system was opposed by folks like comte de buffon who thought that putting together a nested hierarchy was the wrong approach altogether.

    Look an elephant!!!

    Thought the divine created objective nested hierarchies, could they be the wrong approach altogether?

  9. newton
    Ignored
    says:

    stcordova: I don’t claim that ID is a mechanistic theory like evolutionary biology falsely claims evolutionary theory is a mechanistic theory. “It just happened” isn’t a mechanistic theory. “God did it” isn’t a mechanistic theory either. However, the falsehood is representing evolutionary theory as a mechanistic theory consistent with ordinary expectation.

    So nothing is better than something that might not meet somebody’s ordinary expectations? Weird.

    The thing is at some point the divine would have to create / manipulate matter,organisms exist in the material world , at that point intrusive design is a mechanistic theory.

    It would be like saying , everything that comes between the blueprints and the finished building is irrelevant to how the building came to be.

  10. fifthmonarchyman
    Ignored
    says:

    newton: Thought the divine created objective nested hierarchies, could they be the wrong approach altogether?

    I think I’ve made it clear that I tentatively think that current approach is the best one.

    The deference between John Harshman and I is the difference between “tentatively concluded” and “objectively discovered”

    peace

  11. fifthmonarchyman
    Ignored
    says:

    John Harshman: It has more to do with common decency than common decent.

    I’m not sure how given your worldview you are in a position to make blanket statements about what constitutes common decency.

    Are you bothered by the fact that there are 125,000 abortions per day in the USA? Between 40 and 50 million a year in the world

    What exactly have you done to prevent them?

    peace

  12. Corneel Corneel
    Ignored
    says:

    newton: The thing is at some point the divine would have to create / manipulate matter,organisms exist in the material world , at that point intrusive design is a mechanistic theory.

    It would be like saying , everything that comes between the blueprints and the finished building is irrelevant to how the building came to be.

    Precisely right. Of course Intelligent Design needs to deal with the mechanistic aspects at some point. So far ID proponents have merely put off that task or tried to shift the burden of proof to its opponents.

  13. Corneel Corneel
    Ignored
    says:

    colewd: Can you make some specific challenges here ?

    Certainly.

    I challenge you to explain to Sal that, if its proponents aspire ID / common design to be a superior explanation, they need to deal with the mechanistic aspects of biological design, and not contend themselves with “Godiddit-And-I-Don’t-Care-How”.

  14. Corneel Corneel
    Ignored
    says:

    fifthmonarchyman: In fact that ever decreasing level of uncertainty seems to be what makes for relationship for us temporal creatures.

    A level of uncertainty? That seems like a dramatic deviation from your usual black-and-white universe. Wouldn’t you, to be consistent, have to argue that all things that aren’t completely certain are equally uncertain? After all, they are mutually exclusive terms. You can’t be 80% certain and 20% uncertain. Any smidgen of uncertainty undermines complete certainty, right?

  15. Entropy Entropy
    Ignored
    says:

    stcordova:
    I don’t claim that ID is a mechanistic theory like evolutionary biology falsely claims evolutionary theory is a mechanistic theory.

    But you laugh at your cartoon of evolutionary theory, yet you happily accept the bullshit of ID. So, even if your misconceptions about evolution were correct, your rejection of one for the other would still be a double standard.

    stcordova:
    “It just happened” isn’t a mechanistic theory.

    Of course not. Fortunately, that’s not what evolutionary theory is about. But if it was, I would not be right there with you accepting something as ludicrous and hypocritical as ID.

    stcordova:
    “God did it” isn’t a mechanistic theory either.

    You’ve got that one right. It’s not a scientific position either. It’s wishful thinking at best.

    stcordova:
    However, the falsehood is representing evolutionary theory as a mechanistic theory consistent with ordinary expectation.

    The falsehood is representing ID as if it was about science, when it’s a mere attempt to disguise your religious beliefs behind smoke and mirrors. Pretending it to be science. Your double standards are worse than merely rejection of evolution based on your lack of reading comprehension abilities, and accepting ID on no basis other than your religious beliefs. You also reject evolution because you describe it as a false claim, yet you agree with the hypocritical presentation of your religious beliefs as if they were scientific. You’re part of the hypocritical movement yourself.

    I’d explain the mechanistic aspects of evolutionary theory, but it would be too much to expect if you read the second sentence of this comment. Besides, they’ve been explained to you a thousand times. I’d also explain that no scientists has ever said that evolution is consistent with ordinary expectations. If it was, there would be no research on evolutionary histories and mechanisms. But, again, I doubt you can read, let alone sustain some level of reading comprehension beyond “oh, this is so complex!”

  16. stcordova
    Ignored
    says:

    The following is an alignment of 13 zinc fingers in the human ZNF136 KRAB protein.
    https://www.uniprot.org/uniprot/P52737

    Note that each finger is 23 residues in length. In fact on the protein the fingers are spaced apart by exactly 8 residues each time.

    Such precise repeat of a motif arising by chance point mutations on a pre-existing strand are very remote. At best maybe some sort of duplication, maybe tandem repeat, but then the problem arises of duplicating the zinc finger according to proper boundaries of the domain, and note, zinc fingers appear in tandem in lots of places, so why a propensity for tandem zinc finger repeats at the correct zincfinger boundaries?

    And note, they aren’t exactly tandem repeats, however the Zinc Figner structure where the 2 Cs and 2Hs are beautifully preserved in the right location.

  17. stcordova
    Ignored
    says:

    As mentioned before, the multiple zinc fingers create a structure that conceptually looks like a comb that attaches to specific locations on DNA. In the diagram below, the bubble with the comb marked “KRAB-ZFP” has mutliple zinc fingers that are conceptually shown like a comb structure.

  18. John Harshman John Harshman
    Ignored
    says:

    fifthmonarchyman: What exactly have you done to prevent them?

    What has God done to prevent them? That’s more to the point.

  19. John Harshman John Harshman
    Ignored
    says:

    stcordova: At best maybe some sort of duplication, maybe tandem repeat, but then the problem arises of duplicating the zinc finger according to proper boundaries of the domain, and note, zinc fingers appear in tandem in lots of places, so why a propensity for tandem zinc finger repeats at the correct zincfinger boundaries?

    You have hit on the correct explanation. So why repeats only at the correct boundaries? Simple: other duplications happened, but they weren’t favored by selection. Or suppose a duplication of a 3-finger sequence produced 2 1/2 more fingers happened and was favored by selection, but the extra 1/2 finger gradually degraded by small deletions until it was gone. Your inability to imagine that sort of thing is not a fatal blow to evolutionary biology.

  20. Entropy Entropy
    Ignored
    says:

    stcordova:
    The following is an alignment of 13 zinc fingers in the human ZNF136 KRAB protein.
    https://www.uniprot.org/uniprot/P52737
    Note that each finger is 23 residues in length.In fact on the protein the fingers are spaced apart by exactly 8 residues each time.

    It looks like 6 residues to me, but you’re the genius here.

    stcordova:
    Such precise repeat of a motif arising by chance point mutations on a pre-existing strand are very remote.

    Which is why nobody has ever proposed such a scenario.

    stcordova:
    At best maybe some sort of duplication, maybe tandem repeat,

    Not at best. That’s the only way. Tandem duplications. These, by the way, are all natural phenomena that produce diversity, which is part and parcel with evolutionary theory.

    stcordova:
    but then the problem arises of duplicating the zinc finger according to proper boundaries of the domain,

    Or maybe it’s enough if one pair duplicating at the right points for them to work together well in DNA recognition, and thus get naturally selected from the fact of producing some phenotypic effect. After just one pair, producing tandem duplications at the “right length” is but a question of replication slippage, which will happen at the right positions for no other reason than DNA/DNA base complementarity. This is, actually, the reason why our genomes gain and lose loads and loads of repeated pieces even within a single individual. All very well documented phenomena.

    stcordova:
    and note, zinc fingers appear in tandem in lots of places, so why a propensity for tandem zinc finger repeats at the correct zincfinger boundaries?

    Because those at the incorrect zinc finger boundaries would be selected against (purifying selection), rather than selected for (positive selection).

    stcordova:
    And note, they aren’t exactly tandem repeats,

    You said the opposite above. I think that what you mean to say is that they’re not exact copies of each other.

    stcordova:
    however the Zinc Figner structure where the 2 Cs and 2Hs are beautifully preserved in the right location.

    Of course. Otherwise they would be selected against (purifying selection), rather than selected for (positive selection).

    Fucking simple.

  21. stcordova
    Ignored
    says:

    John Harshman:

    You have hit on the correct explanation. So why repeats only at the correct boundaries? Simple: other duplications happened, but they weren’t favored by selection.

    Most molecular evolution is neutral. You can’t just ad hoc invoke it. By that same logic the Alu repeats were selected for, for that matter the tons of tandem and dispersed repeats throughout the genome!

  22. stcordova
    Ignored
    says:

    A few years ago I posted this OP on DNA as a Random Access Memory.

    http://theskepticalzone.com/wp/epigenetic-memory-changes-during-embryogenesis/

    Below is a diagram of the changes in the RAM during embryogenesis. Each box shows the pattern of bits being flipped on an off. The it turns out the KRAB-Zinc Finger proteins are important to changing the pattern of bits.

    The TSZ Darwinists here criticized me for calling the epigenetic marks RAM, until I, yes me who is supposedly illiterate and ignorant according to my detractors, pointed out in the stem cells handbook of 2013, that other researchers call it RAM!

    It appears the Zinc Fingers are architected to make this possible. Now it may be easy to assume the Zinc Fingers are bind exclusively to DNA, but wiki says zinc fingers can bind RNA and proteins as well!

    So what is the evolutionary conundrum here. DNA changes, but this entails a correpsonding coordinated change within the zinc fingers! That doesn’t sound like random mutation.

    Furthermore, as Salthe pointed out:

    Now, at the same time, note that when asked which traits are most likely to be
    able to evolve, evolutionary biologists, again citing Fisher’s theorem, will reply, “those that have more variability in fitness”. That is to say, traits that have been most important in the lives of organisms up to this moment will be least likely to be able to evolve further!

    So, that’s why I mostly dismiss Entropy’s “explanations” that invoke selection as an explanation since Salthe rightly pointed out the problem of making variation on traits under selection.

    Entropy is left to saying “please read what I [Entropy] write.” I don’t have much time for reading such drivel, so I mostly ignore what he says unless he states something I actually don’t already know.

  23. John Harshman John Harshman
    Ignored
    says:

    stcordova: Most molecular evolution is neutral.You can’t just ad hoc invoke it.By that same logic the Alu repeats were selected for, for that matter the tons of tandem and dispersed repeats throughout the genome!

    You really should take more care when you type. I can’t tell what “it” I “can’t just ad hoc invoke”, but I think you might mean selection. Do you understand that protein-coding exons are more constrained by selection than are junk sequences? This is not a far-fetched notion. As for Alu repeats, you will note that they tend to happen in junk DNA, and that the mechanism of replication and insertion tends to produce a fair proportion of fragmentary repeats. Your objection, if it can even be understood, is nonsensical.

  24. John Harshman John Harshman
    Ignored
    says:

    stcordova,

    Argument by pretty colors again.

  25. stcordova
    Ignored
    says:

    Do you understand that protein-coding exons are more constrained by selection than are junk sequences?

    Yes, and if they are constrained by selection, they are less evolvable, according to Salthe. If proteins are constrained by selection, then why would you expect random tandem repeats to emerge. For the tandem repeat to be selected FOR, such as a new duplicated zinc finger, the zinc finger needs a target to make a system functionally advantageous.

    The alternative is to invoke a neutral walk, which then has the problems of accounting for coordinated function.

    I think your proposed solution hasn’t been carefully thought out. I am providing pretty pictures and specific case studies to show some of the standard evolutionary talking points and “explanations” lack mechanistic validity if one is invoking ordinary processes.

  26. Entropy Entropy
    Ignored
    says:

    stcordova:
    Yes, and if they are constrained by selection, they are less evolvable, according to Salthe.

    Only if they’re under purifying selection. But copies of the genes coding for those proteins would not be under purifying selection. Thus more evolvable.

    stcordova:
    If proteins are constrained by selection, then why would you expect random tandem repeats to emerge.

    Because it’s not those emerging random repeats that are under purifying selection.

    stcordova:
    For the tandem repeat to be selected FOR, such as a new duplicated zinc finger, the zinc finger needs a target to make a system functionally advantageous.

    Eukaryotic genomes are pretty large. thus, potential targets are not that hard to be found. Also, zinc fingers bind small DNA sequences, which would make them easy to evolve.

    stcordova:
    The alternative is to invoke a neutral walk, which then has the problems of accounting for coordinated function.

    Not a problem, since there can be plenty of neutral places to bind, and useful places to bind

    stcordova:
    I think your proposed solution hasn’t been carefully thought out.

    More like you cannot think of positive scenarios, yet those exist, and are easy to understand. Your problems with them are religious in nature, not scientific.

    stcordova:
    I am providing pretty pictures and specific case studies to show some of the standard evolutionary talking points and “explanations” lack mechanistic validity if one is invoking ordinary processes.

    Where ordinary processes are those you are willing to accept, rather than those that scientists have observed to occur.

  27. fifthmonarchyman
    Ignored
    says:

    John Harshman: I think you’re confusing habitat with habit. You had mentioned the latter previously.

    Nope by habitat I mean forest as apposed to grass land or savanna.

    John Harshman: Note that you are choosing character specifically to fit a pre-conceived classification.

    No I’m not, I am noticing similarities in character and choosing a grouping based on that. I certainly did not come into the process with a preconceived classification.

    We are spending a lot of time with my particular grouping but a similar one could be done with killer wales and great white sharks or with bats an nightjars. You find these sorts of obvious non-Linnaean groupings everywhere in nature.

    For you to simply dismiss them all as special pleading rings very hollow

    peace

  28. fifthmonarchyman
    Ignored
    says:

    Corneel: Wouldn’t you, to be consistent, have to argue that all things that aren’t completely certain are equally uncertain?

    First of all the decreasing uncertainty that I’m talking about in relationships is in the overall picture and not in individual facts.

    I begin a relationship being uncertain about 100 things and after a while I’m uncertain in 85 things.

    That seems to me to be just another way of describing the process of getting to know someone.

    Secondly I think that you are confusing uncertainty with objectivity they are not synonymous.

    Something could be objective while at the same time being uncertain all that is required is a lack of bias.

    Also something can be certain while at the same time being subjective. I can be certain that tomatoes taste better than artichokes but that would just be my subjective opinion.

    You can’t be is a 80% biased and 20% objective. It’s not logically possible. But I can be 80% certain about something

    Do you see the difference now?

    peace

  29. fifthmonarchyman
    Ignored
    says:

    fifthmonarchyman,

    Fyi

    It was very early this morning on the way to the office and I misquoted the article on abortions

    I said “This corresponds to approximately 125,000 abortions per day in the USA.” but that figure was for the entire globe.

    In the USA it’s more like 3,000 abortions per day

    sorry if I misled anyone.

    peace

  30. fifthmonarchyman
    Ignored
    says:

    John Harshman: What has God done to prevent them? That’s more to the point.

    What would you have him do exactly?
    Remove free will?
    Turn up the fear of hell a few notches?
    Place his law on the hearts of humanity so that they know killing is wrong?

    Do you complain that God has not done enough when you haven’t done anything.

    People who claim to be atheists and then complain that objective evil exists in the world really crack me up.

    The fact that they can’t see the obvious self defeating nature of their argument is simply priceless.

    peace

  31. Entropy Entropy
    Ignored
    says:

    stcordova: Entropy is left to saying “please read what I [Entropy] write.” I don’t have much time for reading such drivel, so I mostly ignore what he says unless he states something I actually don’t already know.

    Sorry that I’ve been trying to explain things to you. I didn’t know you cared so little. After all, you’re posting in a public forum, then pretending to give “answers” that came only to show that you didn’t read the explanations, or worse, that you lack the literacy to understand them. I will let you ridicule yourself from now on. No advice against it any more.

    Now, saying that you already know about selection seems rather odd, since you keep going for “random versus magical-being-in-the-sky.” It also looks like you don’t know that there’s different kinds of selection, and that your excuse to forget about selection is some quotation that ignores that evolutionary paths occur regardless of whether some genes are “stuck” in some function, since organisms have more than just one gene (interesting that you wouldn’t know this), and plenty of genes are less constrained than, say, essential genes (interesting that you didn’t know this either). Even constrained genes have margins of variability (interesting that you didn’t know this either), that allow for further functions to evolve, and, if they didn’t, copies of genes would be more evolvable (interesting that you didn’t know this either). Plenty of options.

    So that guy you quote convinced you because you have a narrow view of what’s available for an organism’s evolution. And that narrow view is due to your ignorance and inability to reason, not on scientific grounds.

    So, as you wish, keep ridiculing yourself by making those amazingly stupid displays of ignorance and illiteracy. As for me, I won’t give you the benefit of the doubt again. I’ll remain perplexed at your willingness to ridicule yourself, at your hypocrisy and illiteracy. But that’s ok. It’s your choice to be such an exemplar for ID-creationism. The most illiterate, irrational, and uneducable you look the better.

  32. dazz dazz
    Ignored
    says:

    fifthmonarchyman: What would you have him do exactly?

    Existing would be a start.

    😉

  33. Corneel Corneel
    Ignored
    says:

    fifthmonarchyman: First of all the decreasing uncertainty that I’m talking about in relationships is in the overall picture and not in individual facts.

    I begin a relationship being uncertain about 100 things and after a while I’m uncertain in 85 things.

    Aha. So you were not talking about decreasing the level of uncertainty but about decreasing the number of things you are completely uncertain of. Sort of like a quantum theory of certainty. That statement is more consistent with the previous stuff you said allright.

    fifthmonarchyman: Something could be objective while at the same time being uncertain all that is required is a lack of bias.

    Also something can be certain while at the same time being subjective. I can be certain that tomatoes taste better than artichokes but that would just be my subjective opinion.

    You can’t be is a 80% biased and 20% objective. It’s not logically possible. But I can be 80% certain about something

    Do you see the difference now?

    Yes. So you are for example 100% certain that your left foot has five toes, but you don’t know this objectively, because you aren’t 100% certain what independent observers mean by “toes”.

    I think this is crystal clear and not even a bit kooky in the slightest.

  34. OMagain
    Ignored
    says:

    stcordova: I am providing pretty pictures and specific case studies to show some of the standard evolutionary talking points and “explanations” lack mechanistic validity if one is invoking ordinary processes.

    Unfortunately your replacement “explanation” is simply that god did it. What is it that you expect to happen next? Shall the biology textbooks be re-written with the single line “god did it”?

    FMM,
    You made a comment asking does anybody have any challenges to what Sal is claiming?

    Perhaps it would be illustrative (for you) if you restate in your own words what you think Sal has demonstrated, and therefore what it is that people should be addressing?

  35. OMagain
    Ignored
    says:

    FMM,

    Death and sickness is the way the Designer tells his creation “you are mere mortals, you are not God!”

    Given the rate of advance of medical technology it’s likely that death and sickness will be “cured” fairly soon. And as our understanding of physics increases perhaps in the very long term even the heat death of the universe won’t be a challenge (e.g. in theory an infinite number of thoughts can still be thought over ever extended periods of time in that phase) to life.

    Following your logic, we’ve then become god.

    There are trees that seem to have no cap on their longevity, and some other organisms too. Presumably those are more god-like then others then.

    What a crock of shit.

  36. petrushka
    Ignored
    says:

    I have seen arguments that when a single celled organism splits, the original dies. I don’t find that to be coherent.

    Life is all kin, all descendant from early promiscuous life. Cells die, but life does not.

    Eventually, yes. But not yet witnessed.

  37. Entropy Entropy
    Ignored
    says:

    OMagain: You made a comment asking does anybody have any challenges to what Sal is claiming?

    The challenge is to get Salvador to understand that his “challenges” are no such thing.

  38. stcordova
    Ignored
    says:

    OMagain:

    Given the rate of advance of medical technology it’s likely that death and sickness will be “cured” fairly soon.

    HAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Now who is believing in imaginary things?

    Well, yeah we have “immortalized” cells in test tubes like the HeLa line, but that was a cancer cell. That’s not much of a life, imho.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HeLa

    HeLa /ˈhiːlɑː/ (also Hela or hela) is an immortal cell line used in scientific research. It is the oldest and most commonly used human cell line.[1] The line was derived from cervical cancer cells taken on February 8, 1951[2] from Henrietta Lacks, a patient who died of cancer on October 4, 1951. The cell line was found to be remarkably durable and prolific which warrants its extensive use in scientific research.[3][4]

    The cells from Lacks’s cancerous cervical tumor were taken without her knowledge or consent.[5] Cell biologist George Otto Gey found that they could be kept alive,[6] and isolated one specific cell, multiplied it, and developed a cell line. (Before this, cells cultured from other human cells would only survive for a few days; scientists spent more time trying to keep the cells alive than performing actual research on them. Cells from Lacks’s tumor behaved differently.) As was custom for Gey’s lab assistant, she labeled the culture ‘HeLa’, the first two letters of the patient’s first and last name; this became the name of the cell line.

    These were the first human cells grown in a lab that were naturally “immortal”, meaning that they do not die after a set number of cell divisions (i.e. cellular senescence).[7] These cells could be used for conducting a multitude of medical experiments — if the cells died, they could simply be discarded and the experiment attempted again on fresh cells from the culture. This represented an enormous boon to medical and biological research, as previously stocks of living cells were limited and took significant effort to culture.[4]

    The stable growth of HeLa enabled a researcher at the University of Minnesota hospital to successfully grow polio virus, enabling the development of a vaccine,[8] and by 1952, Jonas Salk developed a vaccine for polio using these cells.[4][9] To test Salk’s new vaccine, the cells were put into mass production in the first-ever cell production factory.[10]

    Well, if the Lord returns soon, then death will be cured for those whom He has forgiven. But I don’t think you were referring to that possibility.

    Now I did some paper research on immortalized embryonic stems cells which weren’t cancerous.

    But an immortal creatures is a long way from an immortal stem cell.

  39. fifthmonarchyman
    Ignored
    says:

    Corneel: Yes. So you are for example 100% certain that your left foot has five toes, but you don’t know this objectively, because you aren’t 100% certain what independent observers mean by “toes”.

    The number of toes on my left foot are an extreme example but you can get the idea even there.

    It really is about perspective.

    What qualifies as a toe as apposed to a nub or a claw or a protrusion. I have a perspective but I’m definitely biased. For example I would not say my toes are categorically the same as the digits on a bears lower appendage.

    I might think that my first digit qualifies as a toe but I think it’s really quite different than the rest as is my smallest digit. Are they all the same thing??

    Then there is the question of what makes a foot. Does an ape have a foot or a paw? What about a bear? Does he have four feet or two feet and two hands.

    We can do the same thing with numbers. My smaller digits very rarely function as separate entities. Are they four separate toes or simply a singular but lobed forward extension of my foot.

    Again it’s all about perspective. Everyone sees the world in slightly different ways. There is simply no way for a finite individual to step completely out of his personal perspective to see the world in a privileged God like way.

    We in the twenty first century west might understand our feet and toes one way can we really say that every person that has ever existed or may every exist see them in the same exact way? If not can we really say that ours is the objective perspective while there is not??

    Corneel: I think this is crystal clear and not even a bit kooky in the slightest.

    Your understated sarcasm is my favorite part about your particular biased perspective on the world. 😉

    peace

  40. fifthmonarchyman
    Ignored
    says:

    OMagain: Given the rate of advance of medical technology it’s likely that death and sickness will be “cured” fairly soon.

    And it’s the Christians who supposedly have an irrational faith.

    peace

  41. fifthmonarchyman
    Ignored
    says:

    OMagain: Given the rate of advance of medical technology it’s likely that death and sickness will be “cured” fairly soon.

    Given his rate of acceleration from a standing start it’s likely that Usain Bolt will surpass the speed of light fairly soon and go back in time.

    peace

  42. fifthmonarchyman
    Ignored
    says:

    OMagain: Perhaps it would be illustrative (for you) if you restate in your own words what you think Sal has demonstrated, and therefore what it is that people should be addressing?

    I don’t think that Sal has demonstrated anything. he has made claims that are being dismissed rather than addressed

    He is arguing that certain phenomena make more sense from a perspective of common design rather than common decent.

    It seems to me he is saying in effect that “lego like” proteins make sense if you want the ability to build many very different kinds structures efficiently.

    On the other hand there is no compelling reason to start with legos if you are only interested in passing on the most useful randomly arising feature to the next generation.

    peace

  43. Corneel Corneel
    Ignored
    says:

    fifthmonarchyman: The number of toes on my left foot are an extreme example but you can get the idea even there.

    It really is about perspective.

    That is not in dispute. The problem lies in you using that as an excuse to equate all viewpoints; everything is equally uncertain and equaly subjective to you, whereas there are degrees of certainty and degrees of subjectivity. Zack and John covered that stuff already, so I have no interest in rehashing it, but I did feel the need to seize the rare grayshaded bloom in the black-and-white desert. Too bad you trampled it again.

    fifthmonarchyman: Your understated sarcasm is my favorite part about your particular biased perspective on the world. 😉

    And your ability to appreciate that looks good on you. Cheers, Fifth.

  44. Alan Fox Alan Fox
    Ignored
    says:

    fifthmonarchyman: What qualifies as a toe as apposed to a nub or a claw or a protrusion. I have a perspective but I’m definitely biased. For example I would not say my toes are categorically the same as the digits on a bears lower appendage.

    I might think that my first digit qualifies as a toe but I think it’s really quite different than the rest as is my smallest digit. Are they all the same thing??

    Then there is the question of what makes a foot. Does an ape have a foot or a paw? What about a bear? Does he have four feet or two feet and two hands.

    We can do the same thing with numbers. My smaller digits very rarely function as separate entities. Are they four separate toes or simply a singular but lobed forward extension of my foot.

    You are asking yourself evolutionary (even, for you, revolutionary) questions here.

    Shame you can’t make that final connection as to how paws and hands (and pandas’ thumbs) might have similarities that hint* at a hierarchy of relatedness.

    *I’m toning it down from “scream”. 🙂

    Pentadactyl limb.

  45. OMagain
    Ignored
    says:

    Funny how Noah can live for nearly 1000 years and yet when I suggest that technology can ultimately extend lifespan near indefinitely that’s vastly amusing.

  46. OMagain
    Ignored
    says:

    Alan Fox: Shame you can’t make that final connection as to how paws and hands (and pandas’ thumbs) might have similarities that hint* at a hierarchy of relatedness.

    I’m going to guess FMM has never wondered where the name for that site comes from: https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/books/97/11/09/home/gould-panda.html

    As I warned you FMM, the longer you talk to people who know what they are talking about the more you will learn. Despite yourself.

  47. Entropy Entropy
    Ignored
    says:

    stcordova:
    Now who is believing in imaginary things?

    You are. OMagain was just a tad optimistic.

    stcordova:
    Well, if the Lord returns soon, then death will be cured for those whom He has forgiven. But I don’t think you were referring to that possibility.

    See? It’s you who believes in imaginary things. Though sometimes I doubt that you really believe this, since you’re so quick to ridicule yourself while pretending to represent the view from someone who believes in this supposed “Lord.” A Lord of charlatans maybe.

    stcordova:
    Now I did some paper research on immortalized embryonic stems cells which weren’t cancerous.

    But an immortal creatures is a long way from an immortal stem cell.

    Yet you did “some paper research” on the latter rather than the former.

    Haaaaaaaahahahahahahaaaaaaaa!!

  48. phoodoo
    Ignored
    says:

    Entropy: And that narrow view is due to your ignorance and inability to reason, not on scientific grounds.

    So, as you wish, keep ridiculing yourself by making those amazingly stupid displays of ignorance and illiteracy. As for me, I won’t give you the benefit of the doubt again. I’ll remain perplexed at your willingness to ridicule yourself, at your hypocrisy and illiteracy. But that’s ok. It’s your choice to be such an exemplar for ID-creationism. The most illiterate, irrational, and uneducable you look the better.

    At least you didn’t say he was out of his mind.

    That really gets Alan’s ire.

  49. Entropy Entropy
    Ignored
    says:

    phoodoo,

    He doesn’t have a mind to be out of (or in) in the first place.

  50. Entropy Entropy
    Ignored
    says:

    stcordova: The TSZ Darwinists here criticized me for calling the epigenetic marks RAM, until I, yes me who is supposedly illiterate and ignorant according to my detractors, pointed out in the stem cells handbook of 2013, that other researchers call it RAM!

    Other people use RAM metaphor! I is smart as other people! I is no ignorant. I is no illiterate!

    Should I point out that “less likely to evolve” is not a synonym to “it will never ever evolve”? Should I point out that there’s more than one gene in an organism? That not all genes are under the very same degree of purifying selection? That genes get copied and copies have more freedom for changes to occur? That tandem duplications happen all too easily? That evolution is not just about point mutations? Of course I should not need to, unless, of course, the person who’s making claims against selection as a mechanism was showing signs of, ahem, ignorance and illiteracy.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.