Discovery may lead to a review of the theory of evolution

empirex

Banned
Joined
May 7, 2009
Messages
2,518
@Techne

Didn't you know evolution is a fact, until it changes, as it has over and over, and then that's the way it always has been... until it changes again.

Now some might say that is the characteristic of a good theory, one that is continually changing and adapting.
Yes, to a point. But the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis, or Phyletic Gradualism has been added and subtracted to so much it is no longer sustainable in any form, it's a sinking ship developing more holes on a continual basis than can be contained. The deeper we dig into the complexity (an often used term, but so understated) that underpins the building blocks of life, the more it screams design.

How does the story go... "Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved." -- Francis Crick. Yes, if you predetermine the outcome, you will always find the answers you seek.

Why do they have to do this?
Phillip E Johnson lays it out quite effectively when he said: "because otherwise the facts which are staring them in the face and trying to get their attention might break through."
 
Last edited:

Lycanthrope

Honorary Master
Joined
Oct 26, 2006
Messages
13,316
@Techne

Didn't you know evolution is a fact, until it changes, as it has over and over, and then that's the way it always has been... until it changes again.

Now some might say that is the characteristic of a good theory, one that is continually changing and adapting.
Yes, to a point. But the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis, or Phyletic Gradualism has been added and subtracted to so much it is no longer sustainable in any form, it's a sinking ship developing more holes on a continual basis than can be contained. The deeper we dig into the complexity (an often used term, but so understated) that underpins the building blocks of life.

How does the story go... "Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved." -- Francis Crick. Yes, if you predetermine the outcome, you will always find the answers you seek.

Why do they have to do this?
Phillip E Johnson lays it out quite effectively when he said: "because otherwise the facts which are staring them in the face and trying to get their attention might break through."

Why is this turning into a religious agenda?

A growing understanding of evolution has nothing to do with your beliefs; so why try to push them where they are not wanted or needed?

Also, the irony of what you wrote at the end of your post is clearly lost on you.
 

empirex

Banned
Joined
May 7, 2009
Messages
2,518
Why is this turning into a religious agenda?

A growing understanding of evolution has nothing to do with your beliefs; so why try to push them where they are not wanted or needed?

Also, the irony of what you wrote at the end of your post is clearly lost on you.

Are you drunk? I never mentioned religion :wtf: I was talking about predetermination.
 

Lycanthrope

Honorary Master
Joined
Oct 26, 2006
Messages
13,316
Are you drunk? I never mentioned religion :wtf:

How does the story go... "Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved." -- Francis Crick. Yes, if you predetermine the outcome, you will always find the answers you seek.

Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't mean religion, I meant intelligent design.

Or how was that quote and your insistence that "alternate possibilities" be considered meant to be interpreted?

I'm afraid I'm terrible when it comes to interpreting ambiguity and discerning the intentions of a poster arguing to discredit the merits of a scientific field based on their personal prejudice towards that field.
 

buyeye

Executive Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2010
Messages
5,166
I think the point empirex is making is that just because something is accepted by the scientific community and people make money from it does not make it fact.

I'll give you an example medicine which is a science up until the 20century used methods like bleeding diagnosed hysteria and homosexuality as disorders.Even though this was well accepted and people made money from it .It is undeniable that they were absolutely wrong.

I did not say that theism had all the answers but I will be willing to listen until I hear something that make more sense.
 

empirex

Banned
Joined
May 7, 2009
Messages
2,518
Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't mean religion, I meant intelligent design.

Or how was that quote and your insistence that "alternate possibilities" be considered meant to be interpreted?

I'm afraid I'm terrible when it comes to interpreting ambiguity and discerning the intentions of a poster arguing to discredit the merits of a scientific field based on their personal prejudice towards that field.

You know that the person I quoted was Francis Crick, an evolutionary biologist right? I brought the quote of one of the discoverers of the structure of DNA to the party, you found it necessary to bring religion into the debate.

Of course I am suggesting alternate possibilities; in fact I think evolution is a crock, the biggest hoax in the history of science, a cultural ideology that has grown in popular culture, yet continually failed in the realm of science. I don't need religion to see that.

But anyway, probably off-topic.
 

Lycanthrope

Honorary Master
Joined
Oct 26, 2006
Messages
13,316
I think the point empirex is making is that just because something is accepted by the scientific community and people make money from it does not make it fact.

I'll give you an example medicine which is a science up until the 20century used methods like bleeding diagnosed hysteria and homosexuality as disorders.Even though this was well accepted and people made money from it .It is undeniable that they were absolutely wrong.

I did not say that theism had all the answers but I will be willing to listen until I hear something that make more sense.

Everyone is, of course, entitled to their opinions.

To me, religion is primitive science: the way people were best able to understand and come to terms with the world and phenomena around them. So when you mention blood-letting and misdiagnosis, I see a priest/tribal shaman/whatever explaining the world to the best of his knowledge and experience to his congregation.

Progress is achieved through understanding what can be observed and not stamping a big "Entity X did it!" label on it and forgetting about it. That's not understanding something, that's dismissing it.

So yes, science proceeds through "blowing holes" in itself and patching them back up--this is how we learn.

I think that certain people are afraid that at the end of science's journey of discovery, "God" will be disproven. And, of course, then what will they believe in? I think the apprehension they have toward the scientific method is a sort of primitive fear.

But hey, that's just my opinion.

Regardless, this is Natural Sciences, not PD, so I'm out of here.

You know that the person I quoted was Francis Crick, an evolutionary biologist right? I brought the quote of one of the discoverers of the structure of DNA to the party, you found it necessary to bring religion into the debate.

Of course I am suggesting alternate possibilities; in fact I think evolution is a crock, the biggest hoax in the history of science, a cultural ideology that has grown in popular culture, yet continually failed in the realm of science. I don't need religion to see that.

But anyway, probably off-topic.

Then I interpreted your post correctly and responded to it correctly.
 

Techne

Honorary Master
Joined
Sep 28, 2008
Messages
12,851
@Techne

Didn't you know evolution is a fact, until it changes, as it has over and over, and then that's the way it always has been... until it changes again.

Now some might say that is the characteristic of a good theory, one that is continually changing and adapting.
Yes, to a point. But the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis, or Phyletic Gradualism has been added and subtracted to so much it is no longer sustainable in any form, it's a sinking ship developing more holes on a continual basis than can be contained. The deeper we dig into the complexity (an often used term, but so understated) that underpins the building blocks of life, the more it screams design.

How does the story go... "Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved." -- Francis Crick. Yes, if you predetermine the outcome, you will always find the answers you seek.

Why do they have to do this?
Phillip E Johnson lays it out quite effectively when he said: "because otherwise the facts which are staring them in the face and trying to get their attention might break through."
I am curious. Let's for argument sake consider the following scenario.
1) The Modern Evolutionary Synthesis, or Phyletic Gradualism has been debunked.
2) Irreducible complexity or Complex Specified Information has been demonstrated to be true for some biological structures.
3) Therefore, Intelligent Design is true for some biological structures.

Now what? What further can you conclude from this? Where do you see this kind of result end up?
 
Last edited:

Techne

Honorary Master
Joined
Sep 28, 2008
Messages
12,851
I think that certain people are afraid that at the end of science's journey of discovery, "God" will be disproven. And, of course, then what will they believe in? I think the apprehension they have toward the scientific method is a sort of primitive fear.
Well, those people would have an irrational fear. Empirical science cannot determine whether God does or does not exist. To think it can is actually quite ignorant.
 

buyeye

Executive Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2010
Messages
5,166
This very off the topic but it's in response to lycans post.

It's funny you should mention limited understanding of early century man as I previously mentioned in the PD section about the bible was written by people of limited knowlegde .

I mean even 18 century man did not even contamplate the subatomic world .Now this general knowlegde taught to children but there is still distinct similarities that answer some very important questiona be it in outdated language .

But like you said this is not the PD section
 

Lycanthrope

Honorary Master
Joined
Oct 26, 2006
Messages
13,316
I am curious. let's for argument sake consider the following scenario.
1) The Modern Evolutionary Synthesis, or Phyletic Gradualism has been debunked.
2) Irreducible complexity or Complex Specified Information has been demonstrated to be true for some biological structures.
3) Therefore, Intelligent Design is true for some biological structures.

Now what? What further can you conclude from this? Where do you see this kind of result end up?

This is still skirting the edges of PD talk, but I think it would be fascinating.

It would still take more than that for me to plaster a godbeing label on it, however, precisely because that argument seems flawed to begin with.

All the same, it would open up a realm of possibility.

Well, those people would have an irrational fear. Empirical science cannot determine whether God does or does not exist. To think it can is actually quite ignorant.

I agree. But that is the only thing I can imagine such people would have against scientific discovery, especially into our origins. Why else be apprehensive toward it at best and downright hostile toward it at worst?
 

Techne

Honorary Master
Joined
Sep 28, 2008
Messages
12,851
This is still skirting the edges of PD talk, but I think it would be fascinating.

It would still take more than that for me to plaster a godbeing label on it, however, precisely because that argument seems flawed to begin with.

All the same, it would open up a realm of possibility.
Well, ID cannot get you to theism. The best it can get you to is perhaps some sort of deism or some kind of cosmic tinkerer or aliens or ET etc.

I agree. But that is the only thing I can imagine such people would have against scientific discovery, especially into our origins. Why else be apprehensive toward it at best and downright hostile toward it at worst?
Well, one way to remedy this is to continually inform people that empirical science cannot and will not ever prove or disprove the existence of God or the soul etc. Together with this, people need to be informed that empirical science is not the only way of attaining valid and valuable knowledge.
 

empirex

Banned
Joined
May 7, 2009
Messages
2,518
I am curious. Let's for argument sake consider the following scenario.
1) The Modern Evolutionary Synthesis, or Phyletic Gradualism has been debunked.
2) Irreducible complexity or Complex Specified Information has been demonstrated to be true for some biological structures.
3) Therefore, Intelligent Design is true for some biological structures.

Now what? What further can you conclude from this? Where do you see this kind of result end up?

A very interesting question, and one I haven't pondered too much to be honest.

But to really address the question with any meaning we would need to flesh out your hypothetical.
1. Are we referring to just the MES and neo-Darwinism.
2&3. What specific biological structures are we referring to.

Perhaps we should move this to another thread though, as I was actually far more interested in the Epigenetics aspect of your thread.
My bad for going off-topic :eek: after 12:00 this sometimes happens

computer-gremlins.jpg
 

unskinnybob

Expert Member
Joined
May 30, 2007
Messages
3,788
Any of the sheeple make the link to creationism yet or is Techne stalling till page 50?
 

Swa

Honorary Master
Joined
May 4, 2012
Messages
31,217
You know that the person I quoted was Francis Crick, an evolutionary biologist right? I brought the quote of one of the discoverers of the structure of DNA to the party, you found it necessary to bring religion into the debate.
Be careful with that one. It's known as a "quote mine" despite the fact that there doesn't exist such a thing. :rolleyes:

To me, religion is primitive science: the way people were best able to understand and come to terms with the world and phenomena around them. So when you mention blood-letting and misdiagnosis, I see a priest/tribal shaman/whatever explaining the world to the best of his knowledge and experience to his congregation.
And yet this was actual medicine performed by real doctors not just priests and shamen. The same medicine you rely on to save your life if you're in an accident. The only difference is the method has changed. Older methods were much less sophisticated and hence limited. With todays methods we frown on blood-letting but yet we use leaches to save limbs and poison people to cure disease. If we have ancestors in 100 years they will frown on these methods as well.

If the method of science has changed over time then the current method may be just as wrong as that of previous generations who regarded their method as the correct one but previous ones as wrong. Indeed every science uses it's own methods based on knowledge available at the time and what works for one can't be shoved on another.

What Techne said is right. If todays science is proved incorrect and ID gets put in its place what have we accomplished? For all we know the designers could be extraterrestrial aliens so all we would have gained is knowledge. The insistence that one field of science is the correct one therefor only functions as an impediment to science.

Any of the sheeple make the link to creationism yet or is Techne stalling till page 50?
Any of the trolls suggest a link to creationism should be made yet? Funny how on some religious forums there can be perfect scientific debate without religion entering into it but on others the non-believers will drag it into the conversation every chance they get...
 

Lycanthrope

Honorary Master
Joined
Oct 26, 2006
Messages
13,316
And yet this was actual medicine performed by real doctors not just priests and shamen. The same medicine you rely on to save your life if you're in an accident. The only difference is the method has changed. Older methods were much less sophisticated and hence limited. With todays methods we frown on blood-letting but yet we use leaches to save limbs and poison people to cure disease. If we have ancestors in 100 years they will frown on these methods as well.

If the method of science has changed over time then the current method may be just as wrong as that of previous generations who regarded their method as the correct one but previous ones as wrong. Indeed every science uses it's own methods based on knowledge available at the time and what works for one can't be shoved on another.

Except of course that blood-letting was largely based on superstition and belief. No different to trepanning (drilling holes into heads) to let out demons, really.

You might question leeches to save limbs and poisoning people to cure disease (I assume you mean chemotherapy, again, I have to rely on interpreting based on context) but when it has verifiable and, above all, understandable, testable results and is the best method we have, then it is that method we use and it becomes justified.

Your argument essentially boils down to "Science might be wrong, therefore it can't be trusted." That's an irrational line of reasoning.

What Techne said is right. If todays science is proved incorrect and ID gets put in its place what have we accomplished? For all we know the designers could be extraterrestrial aliens so all we would have gained is knowledge. The insistence that one field of science is the correct one therefor only functions as an impediment to science.

There is no "insistence" anywhere. There are multiple branches of science and many scientists doing research from different angles.

There is nothing wrong with researching something with an idea in mind, but if that idea pervades your objectivity, then you are no longer... well... objective. Which is what science is about.

Any of the trolls suggest a link to creationism should be made yet? Funny how on some religious forums there can be perfect scientific debate without religion entering into it but on others the non-believers will drag it into the conversation every chance they get...

"Non-believers?" You mean of intelligent design or religion or both?

You are, of course, welcome to patronise "some religious forums" instead. From what I can see, you began to froth about "dogmatic scientists" and alluding to some unknown agenda that you've only recently made apparent. I wouldn't call the "non-believers" (of which, I assume, I am a part) trolls when you've so kindly aided in provocation.
 

empirex

Banned
Joined
May 7, 2009
Messages
2,518
Be careful with that one. It's known as a "quote mine" despite the fact that there doesn't exist such a thing. :rolleyes:

It's only a "quote-mine" if the original quote is taken out of context in order to twist the words to suit an alternate agenda. That is not what I done :)
 

Techne

Honorary Master
Joined
Sep 28, 2008
Messages
12,851
Any of the trolls suggest a link to creationism should be made yet? Funny how on some religious forums there can be perfect scientific debate without religion entering into it but on others the non-believers will drag it into the conversation every chance they get...
It is an interesting phenomena. Maybe some non-religious folk are starting to view religion the same way many religious people view it. That is, religio as the pursuit of moral and intellectual excellence. Perhaps the just can't help themselves to drag it into every discussion...

A very interesting question, and one I haven't pondered too much to be honest.

But to really address the question with any meaning we would need to flesh out your hypothetical.
1. Are we referring to just the MES and neo-Darwinism.
2&3. What specific biological structures are we referring to.

Perhaps we should move this to another thread though, as I was actually far more interested in the Epigenetics aspect of your thread.
My bad for going off-topic :eek: after 12:00 this sometimes happens

computer-gremlins.jpg
Lol at the gremlin :D. We can discuss this further via PM or over at www.sciforums.com.

In the meantime more epigentics.

There are nucleotide bases, not just the usual 4 (ACGT).
Researchers Identify Seventh and Eighth Bases of DNA

And a new technique allows to gain more information about the sixth:
New Technique Reveals Unseen Information in DNA Code
ScienceDaily (May 17, 2012) — Imagine reading an entire book, but then realizing that your glasses did not allow you to distinguish "g" from "q." What details did you miss?

120517132059.jpg

This image shows the differences in atomic structure of the 5-methylcytosine (5-mC) molecule (left) from the 5-hydroxymethylcytosine (5-hmC) molecule in DNA against a background of sequences of DNA bases. Researchers at the University of Chicago, the Ludwig Institute for Cancer Research at the University of California, San Diego, and Emory University presented the first map of the 5-hmC genome at single base resolution. DNA modifications in 5-hmC play key roles in processes fundamental to life. (Credit: Chuan He)

Geneticists faced a similar problem with the recent discovery of a "sixth nucleotide" in the DNA alphabet. Two modifications of cytosine, one of the four bases that make up DNA, look almost the same but mean different things. But scientists lacked a way of reading DNA, letter by letter, and detecting precisely where these modifications are found in particular tissues or cell types.

Now, a team of scientists from the University of Chicago, the Ludwig Institute for Cancer Research, the University of California, San Diego and Emory University has developed and tested a technique to accomplish this task. The results are published May 17 in the online edition of the journal Cell.

The team used the technique to map 5-methylcytosine (5-mC) and 5-hydroxymethylcytosine (5-hmC) in DNA from human and mouse embryonic stem cells, revealing new information about their patterns of distribution. These studies have revealed that these DNA modifications play major roles in fundamental life processes such as cell differentiation, cancer and brain function.

"They regulate gene expression and have a broad impact on stem cell development, various human diseases such as cancer, and potentially on neurodegenerative disease. They may even shape the development of the human brain," said Chuan He, professor in chemistry at UChicago.

Scientists have been examining the patterns of 5-mC for decades, as part of the field of epigenetics: the study of the information that lies "on top" of the DNA sequence. However, researchers only recognized that 5-hmC was present at significant levels in our DNA a few years ago. 5-mC is generally found on genes that are turned off, and helps silence genes that aren't supposed to be turned on. In contrast, 5-hmC appears to be enriched on active genes, especially in brain cells. Also, defects in the Tet enzymes that convert 5-mC into 5-hmC can drive leukemia formation, hinting that changes in 5-hmC are important in cancer.

The Cell paper describes a method called TAB-Seq that directly measures 5-hmC, and presents the first map of the entire genome of 5-hmC at single-base resolution. He and three of his students conceived and developed the technique at UChicago. A patent is pending on their invention; UChicago is working with Chicago-based Wisegene to further develop the technology.

Researchers in epigenetics expect TAB-Seq to have a major impact on their work.
"This is a major breakthrough in that TAB-Seq allows precise mapping of all 5-hydroxymethylcytosine sites in a mammalian genome using well-established, next-generation DNA sequencing methods," said Joseph Ecker, a professor at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies, who was not involved in the Cell study. "The study showed very clearly that deriving useful knowledge about this poorly understood epigenetic regulator requires determination of the exact locations of 5hmC with base-level accuracy. I expect that their new method will immediately become widely adopted."

The other two laboratories of the team, Bing Ren's Ludwig Institute for Cancer Research/UCSD group applied TAB-Seq to human embryonic stem cells, while Peng Jin's group at Emory University applied the method to mouse embryonic stem cells.

Previous studies had shown that 5-hmC was found on genes that are turned on. Now, the additional resolution and subsequent research on mouse and human embryonic stem cells reveals that it is found most often on the stretches of DNA that control a gene's activity, called enhancers, in comparison with the parts of genes that are actually read out into RNA.

"We learned using this new technique that this modification is most abundant in the areas of the genome known as enhancers, which regulate the expression of genes. This potential regulatory role of hmC may explain its importance in embryonic stem cells, and why its disruption may result in the development of leukemia," said Gary Hon, a postdoctoral fellow in the laboratory of Bing Ren, who carried out the genome-wide analysis of 5hmC in the human embryonic stem cells at the Ludwig Institute for Cancer Research at UCSD.
Another difference with 5-mC is that 5-hmC is usually on only one side of the DNA. In contrast, 5-mC is most often found symmetrically. Overall, 5-hmC is around 14 times less abundant than 5-mC. Even at sites where 5-hmC is the most abundant, it is still present at about one fifth the frequency as 5-mC, the team found using the new technique.

Previous research has found that 5-hmC is 10 times more abundant in brain than in stem cells, so it may have an especially important role there. Jin's laboratory is using the new technique to finely map 5-hmC in the developing brain.

"To really see the kinds of functions 5-hmC can have, we need to look at how it appears and disappears over time, during processes like brain development. This technique will allow us, and other investigators, to dive in and get that information at high resolution," said Jin, an associate professor of human genetics at Emory
 
Top