Are You Intelligently Designed?

Oct 23, 2012 Full story: The Capital-Journal 409

Sometimes, when I'm discussing or debating issues with online atheists, agnostics, and evolutionists, the huge topic of Intelligent Design comes up, and they ask me to explain the Intelligent Design hypothesis to them.

Full Story

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#364 Feb 4, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
Hmm, I am developing a hypothesis, it may be untestable. It seems that a strange substance that for the purpose of my hypothesis I am going to label "the stupid" builds up in Shubee everyday. It is poisonous to the system, so much like defecation he must find a way to void it from his system.
It seems that Shubee comes here, and to other sites too probably, to get rid of his "the stupid" by writing idiotic posts.
So, first off does my hypothesis sound reasonable? Second, does anyone have any idea of how we can test this? I was thinking if we could get access to where he is living we could strap him up in a straitjacket and see what happens to him as the stupid builds up. Would he soon become a babbling idiot, I mean even more of a babbling idiot?
You input is kindly requested.
In the thread with Russel i formulated that it seems to me that more of the crea kind are not just backward on science or information in general, and not just ignorant, but even pride themselves on being stupid.

Mind it does not backfire Sub. DSC also has a bad case of being allergic to stupid. Others that also just can't take it any more kind of go to recovery colonies. Certain threads were a healthy dose of smarts can be absorbed.

Probably the do not know them in the village, nor at any institutional level.
We can keep him tied to the computer!
But otherwise we could subscribe him in one of those reality shows, where families change parent. Or the kid goes to live with another family with entirely different ideas...an exchange.

Usually the only thing that get's to parents is kids.
Level 6

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#365 Feb 4, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, we can learn from the behavior of domestic chicks, if our heads are not stuck up our backsides in a daydream of pretense that theoretical mathematics can tell us everything we need to know about the universe we live in, from the top down, rather than getting out there and learning how the world actually works through empirical research. You have never grasped the inductive dimension of science.
Empirical support is the final arbiter, and thus senior to the maths.
Dawkins has had more useful things to say about the development of life on earth in any one of his books or papers than you will manage in a lifetime.
And of course, you give no refutation of an experiment which demonstrated that fitness can recover over generations which is something even you agreed that Sanford's hypothesis ruled out.
Sanford is falsified.
If worms are immune to Sanford's genomic degeneration theorem, then mathematical logic dictates that you need to check all other lifeforms as well. Also, you need to test the more reasonable hypothesis that exceptional diets for worms and other species can reverse many genetic diseases.
http://everythingimportant.org/cancer

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#366 Feb 4, 2013
....all other lifeforms as well...
Great idea, at least we will finally get the list complete.

The rest as to how the actual bottom up approach is relevant to phylogenic comparison method and homologues in paticular and in vitro testing on cells, i'll leave for you to read again.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

#367 Feb 4, 2013
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text>If worms are immune to Sanford's genomic degeneration theorem, then mathematical logic dictates that you need to check all other lifeforms as well. Also, you need to test the more reasonable hypothesis that exceptional diets for worms and other species can reverse many genetic diseases.
http://everythingimportant.org/cancer
False, obviously.

Your only defense would be to prove why worms would be a special case. I don't know how you are going to do that since they have the same modus operandi as other living organisms, the same mechanisms that Sanford insists can lead only to one-way deterioration.

Once Sanford's theory is falsified by empirical experiment, its falsified. End of story.

Level 6

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#368 Feb 5, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
False, obviously.
Your only defense would be to prove why worms would be a special case. I don't know how you are going to do that since they have the same modus operandi as other living organisms, the same mechanisms that Sanford insists can lead only to one-way deterioration.
Once Sanford's theory is falsified by empirical experiment, its falsified. End of story.
Poppycock. The abstract of the article states: "The vast majority of mutations with effects on fitness are known to be deleterious in a given environment, and their accumulation results in mean population fitness decline." I accept that as an empirically verified axiom. And the article is very sketchy in its claims for "competitive conditions" in the experiment. Furthermore, it's an established fact that a healthy diet can prevent disease in persons with a genetic disposition to get cancer and many other ailments. Sanford doesn't deny this.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#369 Feb 5, 2013
BIG CLUE:[...] GIVEN ENVIRONMENT [...]

got to love the mod.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#370 Feb 5, 2013
I find it rather worrying that those quoted in science-daily do not entirely seem to understand the process. Given that the actual gene involved is IAPP, and it is about it's splicing B-ACE.
It seems to me like they are about to cure a symptom.

How will degradation or the enzym BACE act on the type II diabetes-linked islet amyloid polypeptide in form morphologically a similar species?(30)
---
Some articles/factsheet.
As in exploring Alzheimer, diabetes II and glucose-regulation.
Given the function of the hormone IAPP.
http://www.wikigenes.org/e/gene/e/3375.html

Knock out mice and rats are not people, but IAPP infusion causes anorexia in rats.
And there is a different way to reduce ghrelin and IAPP in rats.
http://ajpregu.physiology.org/content/271/6/R ...
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16002530

BUT

Abstract
The AT-rich cis-motif A elements of the insulin gene promoter contribute to directing the gene's expression to pancreatic beta&#946;-cells, bound by a homeodomain-containing transcription factor, PDX-1/IPF1/STF-1/IDX-1. The islet amyloid polypeptide (IAPP; amylin) gene, which is also expressed in limited tissues such as pancreatic beta&#946;- and eta&#948;-cells, contained similar AT-rich sequences in its regulatory sequences. To understand the molecular basis of IAPP gene regulation, we evaluated the possible physiological significance of the motif in human IAPP gene regulation. All of the three typical A element-like sequences that matched the CT-box consensus (AT-1,-207/-202; AT-2,-154/-142; and AT-3,-88/-83) were shown to bind specifically to a nuclear factor in the beta&#946;-cell-derived MIN6 cells, which was subsequently identified immunologically as the insulin gene transcription factor PDX-1. When the promoter activity was examined in MIN6 cells, the disruption of AT-1 or AT-3 but not of AT-2 caused a marked reduction in the IAPP gene promoter. Thus, despite the observation that all the three A element-like regions could bind to PDX-1, the AT-2 site may not be involved in mediating the PDX-1 actionin vivo.These observations suggest the involvement of PDX-1 in human IAPP gene regulation, which seems to be mediated through at least two A element-like cis-motifs in the gene promoter.

&#9734;Abbreviations: IAPP, islet amyloid polypeptide; bp, base pair(s); PCR, polymerase chain reaction.
1Recipient of a fellowship and grant from the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science for Japanese Junior Scientists.
kajimoto@medone.med.osaka-u.ac .jp.
Copyright 1996 Academic Press. All rights reserved.

Transcriptional regulation of the IAPP gene in pancreatic beta&#946;-cells2004, Biochimica et Biophysica Acta (BBA)- Gene Structure and Expression
Louisa M.A. Shepherd , Susan C. Campbell , Wendy M. Macfarlane PDF (339 K).

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#371 Feb 5, 2013
cont.

Alzheimer and Diab. II are basicly about a proteine-lipid interaction.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15182369

APP undergoes rapid anterograde transport in neurons. During its transport, APP was found to interact with kinesin-I and functions as a kinesin-I membrane receptor to mediate axonal transport of beta&#946;-secretase (BACE1) and PS1 [26,27]. However, another study failed to verify the interaction between APP and kinesin-I and the co-transport of BACE1 and PS1 with APP [28]. We recently found that APP and its derived membrane-associated form, CTFs, can regulate cell surface delivery of PS1/gamma&#947;-secretase but not BACE1 [29]. In addition, APP was found to be a major component of herpes simplex viral particles and likely mediates fast anterograde transport of these particles [30,31]. Another study showed that increased doses of APP markedly decreased retrograde transport of nerve growth factor and resulted in degeneration of forebrain cholinergic neurons in a mouse model of Down's Syndrome [32]. APP was also found to interact with high-affinity choline transporter (CHT) through the C-terminal domain and APP deficiency affected CHT endocytosis [33]. Overall, most studies suggest that APP plays some role in regulating protein trafficking.

Molecular Brain APP Processing in Alzheimer.
The APP gene is found on chromosome 21.
http://www.molecularbrain.com/content/4/1/3
beta ACE stands for splicing APP.

--- So the point would be acidification.
I would simply stay away from High Fructose Corn Sugar and all corn-sirup products. Made from corn/mais, and added to just about all pre-prepared food and sweets, cereals a.s.o.
They have the same detrimental effect on the brain.->acidification that interrupts neural growth and connectivity.
And makes the body fat real fast.

If you wanted to duplicate the effects of DIAB.II and Alzheimer, you could not find a better way.

IF APP is frankly a regulating mechanism (closely related hormonal enzym to insulin, that can in high dosage give rats anorexia.), it will try to counteract all the excess, but in doing so attracts co-location of proteins with fiber-proteins, or the toxic phase just before that.
And the key is probably hiding in the RNA.

So we also find methylation.
And hormonal Alzheimer caused by an epigenetic, phenotypical disturbance that the body is not capable of dealing with.
Or environmental cocktails of toxins.

PGC-1
A proliferator-activated receptor gamma coactivator-1
Short name: PGC-1 beta
or PPAR-gamma activator-1 beta
or PPARGC-1-beta

ALTERNATIVE MAME(S): PGC-1 RELATED ESTROGEN RECEPTOR
PGC-1- alpha has the same effect, but is also sold as a proteine to enhance muscles or stimulate bone repair.

(And i'm making this post to find out if it is allready i some form on the market. The quantities used in studies are franly over the top. And only in purified injectables. Or as IGF from antlers.)

So it's estrogen, the pill, or rather a combination, a boost so to say, but sold as a fancy gen, or expensive protein and I'll bet even more expensive medication.

So you can look for the protein pgc-1-alpha and it's price and take estrogen, and leave those HFCS High Fructose Corn/mais Sugars alone and add more f.i. lentils or linseed (cheap option) or nuts(ALA, just as good and precursor to the good fish oils) and fish to your diet.
Green tea EGCG, like exercise, boosts SIRT-1 a precursor to PGC-1-alpha.
SIRT usually degrades quickly but less quick with green tea extract.
And do loose weight.

'Irisin' is a term you might also find related to this topic. But googling is not effective. It relates to messenger RNA involved in the PGC-1A process.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#372 Feb 5, 2013
Forgot my barings.
A bit of repetition won't hurt.
What PGC-1-alpha mainly does in make more mitochondria.
I talked to an importer annex knowledgable distributor of fittness and bodybuilding 'stuff' and end up having to look for any products, anywhere on the market.
CAMP and locking on to a nucleate receptor (N.B. type 2 !*)seem to be also involved. So more research.

* Some severe magic seems to be involved, or rather a high complexity.
And you can forget about a nice creamy shake.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

#373 Feb 6, 2013
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text>Poppycock. The abstract of the article states: "The vast majority of mutations with effects on fitness are known to be deleterious in a given environment, and their accumulation results in mean population fitness decline."
That is perfectly ordinary evolutionary thinking, and you miss the point. How can they accumulate? By eliminating natural selection. How can they be overcome? By reintroducing natural selection.

That is the whole point. Fitness recovered in 80 generations when natural selection was reintroduced.

Sanford is falsified, because according to him that cannot happen.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#374 Feb 6, 2013
I was looking into substance P given it's involvement also in cancer. On wiki thus.
Well that get's one also to worms as in nematodes.
And cryptobiosis and other forms of biosis.

Shubee, it makes a very interesting read.

Had Sanford started with nematodes he would never have formulated his theory as he did.
Level 6

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#375 Feb 6, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
That is perfectly ordinary evolutionary thinking, and you miss the point. How can they accumulate? By eliminating natural selection. How can they be overcome? By reintroducing natural selection.
Youre laboring under a terrible misperception. Natural selection isnt some magic voodoo that repairs damaged DNA.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

#377 Feb 7, 2013
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text>Youre laboring under a terrible misperception. Natural selection isnt some magic voodoo that repairs damaged DNA.
You are laboring under another misperception - that the only way to improve fitness is to repair damaged DNA.

In fact that is seldom the case - statistically, a reversal of a DNA mutation is very unlikely.

Fitness is restored by other novel mutations that confer benefits, not by reversal...

Your assumption that reversal would be the only way tracks right back to one of Sanford's most glaring errors, the assumption that there was ever a "perfect genome" and that all changes from that genome are necessarily bad. There was never a perfect genome.

If you understand the maths, you can understand that there will be an equilibrium point, between "perfect" and "non-functional", that will be reached. The more "perfect", the less likely that a random change is beneficial. But, the more imperfect (closer to non-functional), the MORE chance that a random change is likely to be beneficial.

That one just leaped off the page when I read Sanford. It is a mistake only someone who assumed "The Fall" could make.
Level 6

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#378 Feb 7, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
You are laboring under another misperception - that the only way to improve fitness is to repair damaged DNA.
Either the experiment documented a highly improbable event, which wouldn't be easily repeatable, or worms can easily overcome the genetic defects they had. Which is it?

I accept the existence of miracles. However, if worms can easily recover from extremely harmful genetic defects, then what we're really talking about is a family of creatures with a remarkably robust if not magical quality.

I see no way to dispute Sanford's law of inevitable extinction. It's a law of averages. Stanford's thesis is entirely mathematical and is based on an undeniable empirical result:

"The vast majority of mutations with effects on fitness are known to be deleterious in a given environment, and their accumulation results in mean population fitness decline."

Note: the worms in the experiment didn't acquire super abilities like genius IQ and X-ray vision.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#379 Feb 7, 2013
Sanford discussed and falsified.
letters to creationists.
http://letterstocreationists.wordpress.com/st...
(it might allready have been posted)
'
And i would also read up on homology.

At a crtain point a species might be hardier for it got more thrown at it, so evolved stronger defences or parasitism.
But this was about the general principles Sanford though he had proven.

He took small animals because he could not experiment on humans or other large vertebrates with more variety in the genomic matter.
Bias was therefore introduced allready by Sanford himself.

A hardier species would balance this out.(Grand gesture)
Level 6

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#380 Feb 7, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
If you understand the maths, you can understand that there will be an equilibrium point, between "perfect" and "non-functional", that will be reached. The more "perfect", the less likely that a random change is beneficial. But, the more imperfect (closer to non-functional), the MORE chance that a random change is likely to be beneficial.
There isn't the slightest bit of math in your profoundly non-mathematical and absurd statement.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#381 Feb 7, 2013
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text>There isn't the slightest bit of math in your profoundly non-mathematical and absurd statement.
Thank you for betraying that you were lying about being a "math teacher."

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

#382 Feb 8, 2013
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text>Either the experiment documented a highly improbable event, which wouldn't be easily repeatable, or worms can easily overcome the genetic defects they had. Which is it?
I accept the existence of miracles. However, if worms can easily recover from extremely harmful genetic defects, then what we're really talking about is a family of creatures with a remarkably robust if not magical quality.
I see no way to dispute Sanford's law of inevitable extinction. It's a law of averages. Stanford's thesis is entirely mathematical and is based on an undeniable empirical result:
"The vast majority of mutations with effects on fitness are known to be deleterious in a given environment, and their accumulation results in mean population fitness decline."
Note: the worms in the experiment didn't acquire super abilities like genius IQ and X-ray vision.
You have clearly reached your wit's end trying to evade reality here.

A species with the same fundamental structures that all complex creatures have, by recovering fitness over generations, falsifies Sanford's hypothesis.

You bring special pleading to new depths by begging that these nematodes be treated as a special case, not for any empirically sound reason, but just so that you can continue believing in, as you once put it, "Sanford's thought experiment".

Face the truth. For once.

Genetic Entropy is falsified and in Feynmann's words, no matter how beautiful you think your theory is, its falsified. Throw it in the bin and try something else. Ever heard of the Theory of Evolution?

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

#383 Feb 8, 2013
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text>There isn't the slightest bit of math in your profoundly non-mathematical and absurd statement.
Of course there is. Well, unless you are one of these math boffins who try to regard stats as "not maths".

If there is a singular perfect genome, the odds that any change can improve it is zero.

If there is a genome below "perfection", and just barely functional, there will be non-zero odds that a change to that genome may improve it.

Even you can see that there will be an equilibrium point, based on the percentage of beneficial to deleterious mutations, along with the percentage chance of the organism's survival, and we could without difficulty set up a model that shows the equilibrium point with these several factors interacting. We can see that below that equilibrium, net effects will improve fitness, while above that equilibrium, net effects will reduce fitness. It would be modeled as some form of Markov chain.

We can also see that if the fitness bar is to high, reproductive success will be insufficient to maintain species survival, and if the rate of beneficial to deleterious mutations is too low, that will also result in extinction. That is Sanford's hypothesis.

We can also see that in the real world, creatures have found equilibrium points in the continued survival range, and that those nematode worms can recover fitness to that equilibrium level even after they have been forced below it in experiments.

You are done.
Level 6

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#384 Feb 9, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
You have clearly reached your wit's end trying to evade reality here.
You're the one that is practicing evasion by not answering my questions.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Evolution Debate Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 10 min HOG_ the Hand of God 120,609
Bobby Jindal: "I'm Not an Evolutionary Biologist" 1 hr The Dude 359
Darwin on the rocks 2 hr The Dude 350
It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 3 hr Dogen 138,169
Monkey VS Man 15 hr Bluenose 14
The Satanic Character of Social Darwinism Sun Chimney1 692
Charles Darwin's credentials and Evolution Sun TurkanaBoy 204

Evolution Debate People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE