Blowing Up Darwin

[Leo123]

You science denying religious extremists are laughable. If you're having trouble finding sources for peer review, you can find any number of science oriented publications or you can look at the curriculum of most any research university with a biology program.

Can we really trust peer reviews?

In May, behavioral ecologist and ecotoxicologist Michael Bertram received some disconcerting news: His identity had been used, apparently by another researcher, to produce dozens of fake peer reviews

Loading…

www.science.org

Publishing: The peer-review scam​

Publishing: The peer-review scam - Nature

When a handful of authors were caught reviewing their own papers, it exposed weaknesses in modern publishing systems. Editors are trying to plug the holes.

www.nature.com

Peer review is like trusting ABC news to 'fact check' Trump.

 

[scruffy]

Here's a map of Hox and PHox gene expression in a rat.

Here's how a PHox mutation plays out in a human brain

You'll note image D-P2, which clearly shows a malformation of both temporal poles.

And image E-P4, which shows a significant deviation in the midbrain.

These following are all from the SMCHD1 gene:

So now you've seen examples of both "missing" stuff, and "extra" stuff.

These are all naturally occurring mutations.

It is conceivable that some of these types of mutations may confer a selection advantage.

For example, here is a brain that is enlarged in the occipital area, which might confer enhanced visual skills.

Unfortunately, the cerebellum and limbic system are diminished in this same brain, resulting in reduced dexterity and paucity of emotion.

Human Hox genes are extraordinarily complex. Here's what they look like:

Here's the high level map:

 

[scruffy]

Now you're ready for the bigger picture.

Not only the shape of the body and limbs, but the IDENTITY OF CELLS is programmed by these short and small Hox genes (sometimes called "transcription factors").

In humans there are not just 9 or 13 such genes, there are two dozen FAMILIES of them.

Here is the evolutionary picture:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0361923005002145

Here is how a human nerve cell figures out which neurotransmitter to use:

Maintenance of neurotransmitter identity by Hox proteins through a homeostatic mechanism - Nature Communications

To remain functional throughout life, neuronal cells must maintain the ability to synthesize and release specific neurotransmitters. Here, the authors show that this ability critically depends on the activity of Hox proteins.

www.nature.com

The Hox genes are propagated through stem cells during embryogenesis

https://www.cell.com/stem-cell-reports/fulltext/S2213-6711(24)00288-1

For example, during limb development there is a switch from proximal to distal Hox families.

"Meis1/2 serve as a co-factors for Hox proteins, responding to both FGF and retinoic acid gradients to pattern the developing limb and specify anterior-posterior identity, respectively".

This is how shape is determined, and how species are determined.

"The switch from early to late transcriptional waves for Hoxd13 is facilitated by enhancers ... in telomeric gene deserts in two TADs that reside outside the Hox gene clusters".

(TAD's are topologically associated domains, the feedback mechanisms determine the 3-dimensional shape of the body parts).

THEREFORE - mutations result in changes in body and organ shape, which is what we see. Some mutations are helpful, most are not.

Here is the kicker: the entire set of Hox families arises through GENE DUPLICATION. Their sequences are mostly identical except for very small segments that determine their unique functions.

Here is early evolution:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0012160613001334

Here is later evolution:

Did homeobox gene duplications contribute to the Cambrian explosion? - Zoological Letters

The Cambrian explosion describes an apparently rapid increase in the diversity of bilaterian animals around 540–515 million years ago. Bilaterian animals explore the world in three-dimensions deploying forward-facing sense organs, a brain, and an anterior mouth; they possess muscle blocks...

zoologicalletters.biomedcentral.com

https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1904602116

Now you know how organisms evolve, and how they acquire structure and function.

A new Hox event is TWO mutations: one duplication, and one substitution, in that order. A duplication on its own is usually deleterious (like trisomy in humans), but a duplication WITH a substitution is very likely a new species.

 

[scruffy]

Can we really trust peer reviews?

Congratulations. If you've read through all this and you understand it, you've passed your Cell Biology 401 class and you're ready for independent graduate study.

If you doubt the veracity of the science perhaps you're not yet ready for graduate work, and in that case we recommend you re-take some of the labs so you can convince yourself the results are real.


AI Overview

CRISPR is a genome editing technique that can be used to modify DNA in cells, plants, and animals. The basic steps for using CRISPR are:

1. Design: Choose the gene to cut and design a guide RNA (gRNA) to target a specific DNA sequence.
2. Deliver: Introduce the CRISPR reagents into the cells.
3. • Repair: Allow the cells to undergo editing.
   • Analyze: Determine the editing results.

Here are some more details about using CRISPR:

• • Cas9 protein: The Cas9 protein cleaves the DNA.
    
  • Guide RNA: The gRNA distinguishes the DNA sequence to be modified.
    
  • Cut and paste: CRISPR functions as a cut and paste tool for DNA editing.
    
  • Applications: CRISPR has many applications, including:
    
    • • Medical science: CRISPR is used in therapeutics. For example, a CRISPR-Cas9 gene therapy drug was used to treat a rare form of blindness.
        
      • Agriculture: CRISPR can be used to improve the nutritional value, shelf life, and disease resistance of crops.
        
  • Gene editing: CRISPR can be used to create gene editing in plants, animals, and humans.
    
  • Nuclease-deficient endonucleases: By modifying the Cas9 and/or Cpf1 proteins, they can be programmed to activate or repress gene expression

 

[Leo123]

Congratulations. If you've read through all this and you understand it, you've passed your Cell Biology 401 class and you're ready for independent graduate study.

If you doubt the veracity of the science perhaps you're not yet ready for graduate work, and in that case we recommend you re-take some of the labs so you can convince yourself the results are real.


AI Overview

CRISPR is a genome editing technique that can be used to modify DNA in cells, plants, and animals. The basic steps for using CRISPR are:

1. Design: Choose the gene to cut and design a guide RNA (gRNA) to target a specific DNA sequence.
2. Deliver: Introduce the CRISPR reagents into the cells.
3. • Repair: Allow the cells to undergo editing.
   • Analyze: Determine the editing results.

Here are some more details about using CRISPR:

• • Cas9 protein: The Cas9 protein cleaves the DNA.
  • Guide RNA: The gRNA distinguishes the DNA sequence to be modified.
  • Cut and paste: CRISPR functions as a cut and paste tool for DNA editing.
  • Applications: CRISPR has many applications, including:
    • • Medical science: CRISPR is used in therapeutics. For example, a CRISPR-Cas9 gene therapy drug was used to treat a rare form of blindness.
      • Agriculture: CRISPR can be used to improve the nutritional value, shelf life, and disease resistance of crops.
  • Gene editing: CRISPR can be used to create gene editing in plants, animals, and humans.
  • Nuclease-deficient endonucleases: By modifying the Cas9 and/or Cpf1 proteins, they can be programmed to activate or repress gene expression

Despite your voluminous cut and paste, none of it deals with how the first life came to be from only elements.

 

[scruffy]

Despite your voluminous cut and paste, none of it deals with how the first life came to be from only elements.

Start your own thread.

This one is about Darwin and biological evolution.

 

[Leo123]

Start your own thread.

This one is about Darwin and biological evolution.

This one is about Blowing Up Darwin and Pierce Morgan's interview with Dr. Stephen Meyer. It's about this:

"Tucker Carlson, on Joe Rogan: “Evolution as articulated by Darwin is kinda not true. There is no evidence for it….if all life originated from a single organism, there would be a fossil record of that….and there is not.”

Frankly, you have been posting biological information, how certain cells work, how elements seem to organize themselves, yadda. yadda. yadda. You have derailed the intent of this thread by ignoring the subject and prattling on about how you are a scientist, biologist with a glaringly arrogant manner. This is NOT about current biological processes, it's about questioning Darwin and the origin of life.

 

[hondo 50]

a Darwin blow up doll?

 

[scruffy]

This one is about Blowing Up Darwin and Pierce Morgan's interview with Dr. Stephen Meyer. It's about this:

"Tucker Carlson, on Joe Rogan: “Evolution as articulated by Darwin is kinda not true. There is no evidence for it….if all life originated from a single organism, there would be a fossil record of that….and there is not.”

You've been called out TWENTY TIMES on this bullshit already.

Is there something wrong with you?

Do you have brown matter between your ears?

WTF is wrong with you?

/slap!

Frankly, you have been posting biological information, how certain cells work, how elements seem to organize themselves, yadda. yadda. yadda. You have derailed the intent of this thread by ignoring the subject and prattling on about how you are a scientist, biologist with a glaringly arrogant manner. This is NOT about current biological processes, it's about questioning Darwin and the origin of life.

You fucking moron!

For the FORTY FIFTH TIME

===> DARWIN HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ORIGIN OF LIFE <===

Can you please stop being a complete and total asshole?

If not, shut the fuck up and get out of here!

Jesus H Christ

What a putz.

 

[scruffy]

Let's review.

The title of Darwin's book is the origin of SPECIES.

Not the origin of life.

We've already determined the OP was being dishonest in her presentation.

The modern science of speciation has been presented to you, IN PICTURES. With links to corroborate them.

Let's review the salient facts:

Darwin died in 1882.

The first Hox gene was discovered in 1954.

The first summary paper was written in 1978.

The first gene map was created in the early 80's.

Darwin knew nothing about transcription factors. But his observations led to their discovery.

We now have a complete map of the human transcription factors. We know how many of them work. The pictures SHOW you how they work. And we have begun the process of deciphering the underlying dynamics.

THAT is the origin of SPECIES.

Case closed.

 

[Hollie]

Can we really trust peer reviews?

In May, behavioral ecologist and ecotoxicologist Michael Bertram received some disconcerting news: His identity had been used, apparently by another researcher, to produce dozens of fake peer reviews

Loading…

www.science.org

Publishing: The peer-review scam​

http://[URL]https://www.nature.com/articles/515480a

[/URL]

Peer review is like trusting ABC news to 'fact check' Trump.

Your own link identifies a ''handful of authors''.

Can we really trust peer reviews?

In May, behavioral ecologist and ecotoxicologist Michael Bertram received some disconcerting news: His identity had been used, apparently by another researcher, to produce dozens of fake peer reviews

Loading…

www.science.org

Publishing: The peer-review scam​

Publishing: The peer-review scam - Nature

When a handful of authors were caught reviewing their own papers, it exposed weaknesses in modern publishing systems. Editors are trying to plug the holes.

www.nature.com

Peer review is like trusting ABC news to 'fact check' Trump.

Your link identifies "a handful of authors".

Evilutionist atheist scientists do actual research and publish their work for peer review.

Has AIG published anything in the journal Nature?

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

So you still preach that the Sun orbits the Earth. How dumb are you?

There are several people around this forum who typify the scientism cult, Fort Fun Indiana is one of them. He rarely argues scientifically but prefers to simply attack those of us who are better communicators and thinkers than he is.

Many time he's been asked direct scientific questions and refused to answer, instead he sees questions as an opportunity for ad-hominem which is really all he ever does, he's utterly boring and I've never had a stimulating exchange with him as I have with other atheists, he just doesn't have much to say.

My advice is therefore to stop replying and simply react to his posts with or similar, just laugh at him. I did this yesterday and after a few minutes of him desperately seeking attention he just went quiet, trying to actually reason with him is pointless, just laugh at the windbag, he'll soon fade away.

Our friend Hollie is very similar, angry, accusative, bad mannered, frankly if people's replies are not honest decent efforts to debate and they just name call, just laugh, they are an utter waste of time and unless they improve, I will be just laughing at them going forward (they will not like being ignored, not taken seriously - but it's all their own fault).

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Let's review.

The title of Darwin's book is the origin of SPECIES.

Not the origin of life.

We've already determined the OP was being dishonest in her presentation.

The modern science of speciation has been presented to you, IN PICTURES. With links to corroborate them.

Let's review the salient facts:

Darwin died in 1882.

The first Hox gene was discovered in 1954.

The first summary paper was written in 1978.

The first gene map was created in the early 80's.

Darwin knew nothing about transcription factors. But his observations led to their discovery.

We now have a complete map of the human transcription factors. We know how many of them work. The pictures SHOW you how they work. And we have begun the process of deciphering the underlying dynamics.

THAT is the origin of SPECIES.

Case closed.

Case dismissed more like:



Some call this peer review by the way, you might have heard of it.

 

[Hollie]

There are several people around this forum who typify the scientism cult, Fort Fun Indiana is one of them. He rarely argues scientifically but prefers to simply attack those of us who are better communicators and thinkers than he is.

Many time he's been asked direct scientific questions and refused to answer, instead he sees questions as an opportunity for ad-hominem which is really all he ever does, he's utterly boring and I've never had a stimulating exchange with him as I have with other atheists, he just doesn't have much to say.

My advice is therefore to stop replying and simply react to his posts with or similar, just laugh at him. I did this yesterday and after a few minutes of him desperately seeking attention he just went quiet, trying to actually reason with him is pointless, just laugh at the windbag, he'll soon fade away.

Our friend Hollie is very similar, angry, accusative, bad mannered, frankly if people's replies are not honest decent efforts to debate and they just name call, just laugh, they are an utter waste of time and unless they improve, I will be just laughing at them going forward (they will not like being ignored, not taken seriously - but it's all their own fault).

That was quite a whining tirad, in an attempt to placate your hurt feelings.

This attention seeking of yours is pathetic.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

I've been debating evolution for decades, ever since I abandoned my own atheist beliefs in my late twenties, so that's about forty years.

A strong line of attack that often elicits strawmen reactions, is to focus the discussion on those observations that are inconsistent with the empirical expectations of Darwinism.

I say this because the evolution cult generally argues it's case by dwelling exclusively on observations that are consistent with evolution and ignoring problematic observations that are irreconcilable with it.

As I explained to many creation skeptics over the years, a theory is never proven instead we establish confidence in it as repeated experiments are performed that match the theory's predictions. Evolution cultists will go on and on and on about how all of the tests show that evolution is a "fact" what they avoid talking about is that a theory becomes falsified when a single inconsistent observation is found.

General relativity is one of the most heavily tested theories in the sciences, it has more experimental support at a very very high level of mathematical precision than evolution, yet no theoretical physicist would ever say it is a "fact".

So lets stop defending evolution and instead face the music, face those observations that are irreconcilable with the "theory" (it isn't even a theory either so far as science goes).

Here's David Berlinski reacting to Lawrence Krauss in a short clip, as you'll see Krauss ends up on the back foot, back pedaling.



He says that asking of an intelligence designed the universe is an entirely reasonable question and reasonable people should be able to ponder such questions without fear of ad-hominem attacks and hysterical ranting and raving about "religion".

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Here's a short piece from Berlinksi where he critiques this aspect of evolution, exposing the lofty claim to be a "theory" as - at best - misleading.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Until my late twenties I was a staunch atheist, unkind in fact. I was known for mercilessly humiliating creationists in discussions at parties and so on. I was very well schooled, had (and still have) many decent books on evolution and Darwin (but even back then I always said and still do, that Darwin was a very good scientist).

I learned a lot from Dr. Bronowski and his excellent evolution series The Ascent of Man, which still stands head and shoulders above anything from Dawkins or Attenborough.

So personally there's absolutely nothing that some of the fuming atheists here can say to me, that I have not myself once said !

I know the arguments, was attacking creationists before some of you were even born, in a nutshell I'm your worst nightmare and that's why some of you end up resorting to ad-hominem, you can't intellectually get the upper hand, all you can do is complain and fume about "religion" and other irrelevancies.

Here's episode 1 of The Ascent of Man, any evolution advocates who have never seen these don't know what their missing (I do not agree with everything Bronowski says of course but have immense respect for him and the TV show).

 

[Hollie]

Berlinski. Another Disco'tute hack.

Here's a short piece from Berlinksi where he critiques this aspect of evolution, exposing the lofty claim to be a "theory" as - at best - misleading.

I'm sure you don't see the absurdity of flailing your pom poms for a hack from the Cult of the Disco'tute.

As you get your science from ID'iot creationer ministries and youtube videos, your "standards" for gullibility and ignorance literally scream themselves out.





24: David Berlinski
Berlinski is one of the movers and shakers of the contemporary creationist movement, associated with the Discovery Institute and one of their most frequent and famous debaters. A delusional, pompous narcissist with an ego to fit a medieval pope. Also a name-dropper (most of his talks concern important people he has talked to). A comment on one of his lunatic self-aggrandizing rants can be found here (sums up this guy pretty well):

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Look

Newton proposed his theory of universal gravitation in 1686 and it soon became the bedrock of astronomy and terrestrial physics and engineering.

By the late 19th century though, a problem had arisen with the observed motion of Mercury. Prior to this Newton's gravitation theory was more or less accepted as "fact" just as many regard evolution today as a "fact".

Newton's theory had been tested, verified checked and cross checked for over three hundred years and never found to be in error until the Mercury orbit problem began to undermine it.

How did scientists react? They did not rise to defend the theory, they did not attack those few who questioned it, they did not turn physics into a religion by condemning all critics of the "God" Newton, they did not ridicule those experimenters who cast doubt on Newton.

They accepted reality, they acted like scientists should and searched for the truth, accepted that the theory was in fact wrong even though it was called a "fact" for three hundred years, they did not let their emotions drive them.

Contrast this with evolution today; it is called a "fact" too and any attempt to express doubt, examine difficult observational issues and so on, is not met by rational and scientific honesty but by an almost religious fanaticism that is hostile to skepticism and ruthless in its attack on free and rational thought.

The militant atheists are a religion themselves, yet they can't see the wood for the trees. Such people claim to reject and disparage "religion" yet they share the very same attitudes that some theistic religions do of intolerance for ideas that do not fit in with their personal definition of absolute truth. They are the source of truth and they cannot be questioned without the skeptics being attacked and silenced by all manner of pseudo scientific arguments.

A casual scroll through this thread from the beginning clearly demonstrates the truth of what I'm saying here.

 

[Hollie]

Look

View attachment 1055196

Newton proposed his theory of universal gravitation in 1686 and it soon became the bedrock of astronomy and terrestrial physics and engineering.

By the late 19th century though, a problem had arisen with the observed motion of Mercury. Prior to this Newton's gravitation theory was more or less accepted as "fact" just as many regard evolution today as a "fact".

Newton's theory had been tested, verified checked and cross checked for over three hundred years and never found to be in error until the Mercury orbit problem began to undermine it.

How did scientists react? They did not rise to defend the theory, they did not attack those few who questioned it, they did not turn physics into a religion by condemning all critics of Newton, they did not ridicule those experimenters who cast doubt on Newton.

They accepted reality, they acted like scientists should and searched for the truth, accepted that the theory was in fact wrong even though it was called a "fact" for three hundred years, they did not let their emotions drive them.

Contrast this with evolution today; it is called a "fact" too and any attempt to express doubt, examine difficult observational issues and so on, is not met by rational and scientific honesty but by an almost religious fanaticism that is hostile to skepticism and ruthless in its attack on free and rational thought.

The militant atheists are a religion themselves, yet they can't see the wood for the trees. Such people claim to reject and disparage "religion" yet they share the very same attitudes that some theistic religions do of intolerance for ideas that do not fit in with their personal definition of absolute truth. They are the source of truth and they cannot be questioned without the skeptics being attacked and silenced by all manner of pseudo scientific arguments.

Click to expand...

The militant ID'iot creationists don't propose theories. The entirety of ID'iot creationism amounts to attacks on valid theories and supported principles of science. ID'iot creationists certainly could do research but don't, for obvious reasons: supernatural intervention by the gawds is not testable or demonstrable. So, they're left to screech out " the gawds did it".