tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post1232384776525012009..comments2024-03-27T14:50:47.345-04:00Comments on <center>Sandwalk</center>: Intelligent Design Creationists Attempt to (re)Define Junk DNALarry Moranhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comBlogger61125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-16859779883775878732012-08-12T17:01:16.646-04:002012-08-12T17:01:16.646-04:00Apologies - it was a general sigh, as this discuss...Apologies - it was a general sigh, as this discussion occurs so often (even in the primary literature) that is almost needs to go in an FAQ. It was not meant to single you out.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-37018836895278072392012-08-10T14:28:27.693-04:002012-08-10T14:28:27.693-04:00I read the links. The way I wrote that was wrong. ...I read the links. The way I wrote that was wrong. Only RNA ever "goes back" into DNA and my textbooks and professors simply copied this long running mistake. My criticism is that anonymous couldn't bother to write an abstract of the idea. That anonymous could be bothered to present even a single sentence to explain the point that was being made. Were I busy this week I wouldn't have even followed the links because of that and I'd never have known that I was educated incorrectly.<br /><br />These a huge difference in the politeness of "you've got a bit of a misconception there. Please follow these links" and "snort, haha, yet another unwashed peasant has made a humiliating mistake! link, link." I exaggerate but short the amusement the latter isn't so far from how that reads. I thought I made it perfectly clear that I already think this wasn't a polite way to do that, and I explained precisely the minimum requirements to not just give an impression of politeness but push back the veil of ambiguity that masks the actual intention behind something like a sigh.<br /><br />But this really has nothing to do with the topic. I'm probably being too sensitive for reasons completely unrelated to any of this. <br /><br /><br />I was sarcastic and snarky sure, but I really can't see how you'd think I was arguing that proteins get translated into DNA in any of that. Nonetheless, I will strive to be clearer in my writing, and try to avoid repeatedly giving impressions like that.Shokuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12107696954466417617noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-11906865164470316342012-08-10T11:10:45.160-04:002012-08-10T11:10:45.160-04:00Shoku writes,
Now that particular dogma is shown ...Shoku writes,<br /><br /><i>Now that particular dogma is shown false as soon as you know much about how viruses work and a number of other specialized cases but it still works as a general rule for how cells in general behave without such interruptions.</i><br /><br />This statement strongly suggests that you don't understand the Central Dogma of Molecular Biology. That's why someone supplied you with a link to my posts on the subject.<br /><br />The Central Dogma of Molecular Biology states that one information flows into protein it can't flow back to nucleic acids. It's difficult to see how an understanding of viruses affects that rule. I started studying the molecular biology of viruses back in 1968 and I haven't seen anything that contradicts the Central Dogma.<br /><br />Feel free to post your data.<br /><br />Shoku also said ...<br /><br /><i>You went out of your way to correct me but gave me no reason to actually discover what my mistake was ...</i><br /><br />I thought that providing a link to the correct definition of the Central Dogma was a rather polite way to let you discover your mistakes.<br /><br />Now we have to resort to less polite ways. <br /><br />Put up or shut up.Larry Moranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-90997719062563100992012-08-10T07:01:32.908-04:002012-08-10T07:01:32.908-04:00I will, once you can explain how viruses violate t...I will, once you can explain how viruses violate the Central Dogma of Molecular Biology. Silence means that you didn't read the links, and have the dogma incorrect.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-67901961409054266852012-08-10T06:11:10.904-04:002012-08-10T06:11:10.904-04:00I made some effort to explain exactly that detail ...I made some effort to explain exactly that detail except for the bit where you really have to get at the definitions with tweezers, which seems like the appropriate level of detail for an audience that has never heard the term dogma used in science...<br />I'll try and make sure I convey the full details of blog posts in these much smaller (and often times rushed) comments in the future.<br /><br />Now lets turn the criticism your way. How much lazier can you get than a single word to indicate that you're looking down on someone that was attempting to be helpful and some links to articles about a petty gripe you've got over the usage of a term? You can apparently find reason to complain that someone dares to post here without having read every single blog entry but you can't bother to write up a little description about what your complaint is? Try and actually give people the short version and then let the links give support to your claim. "That's not exactly the central dogma" would have been plenty here but you couldn't take the time so you decided to eat up mine instead? You went out of your way to correct me but gave me no reason to actually discover what my mistake was except my neurotic concern (not a safe assumption, though perhaps somewhat moreso than the base line if you've read many of my posts,) over why you would feel this was important?<br />Try a little harder.Shokuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12107696954466417617noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-8999738099674931492012-08-10T03:20:31.859-04:002012-08-10T03:20:31.859-04:00Sigh...
http://sandwalk.blogspot.de/2007/01/centr...Sigh...<br /><br />http://sandwalk.blogspot.de/2007/01/central-dogma-of-molecular-biology.html<br /><br />http://sandwalk.blogspot.de/2011/05/central-dogma-strawman.htmlAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-65231117046198669572012-08-09T16:49:52.359-04:002012-08-09T16:49:52.359-04:00Actually we do use the term dogma in biology. It&#...Actually we do use the term dogma in biology. It's a bit tongue in cheek but just look up the central dogma of molecular biology.<br />Now that particular dogma is shown false as soon as you know much about how viruses work and a number of other specialized cases but it still works as a general rule for how cells in general behave without such interruptions.Shokuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12107696954466417617noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-10946417863299302662012-08-09T16:40:11.842-04:002012-08-09T16:40:11.842-04:00There's this easy way to recognize what kind o...There's this easy way to recognize what kind of motivations are behind the criticism of scientific dogma.<br />This little form "(dogma) has the shortcomings of (x,y,z) and these cannot be accounted for by small tweaks to the model."<br /><br />The short way to recognize people posing skyhooks (short of when they actually state that they are certain agency is behind it as atheistoclast has,) is when they do not bother to give any elaboration on what those shortcomings are.<br /><br />A person could conceivably listen to such an argument and then just have those details go entirely over their heads but in those cases there would be a fairly clear trail back to the source where it was laid out in full. <br /><br />No, here we essentially see "I'm criticizing dogma x." Why? "Because I know it is wrong. Soon everyone will feel foolish when they realize this as well."<br /><br />However, these people do attempt to point out a shortcoming here and there. In that case then it becomes somewhat more difficult to distinguish what is going on. Provided that you've got a college degree on the material it is trivial to recognize if a particular speaker ever understood the basics of cell biology. More specifically is a "shortcoming" happens to be a topic that was specifically presented to you as an undergraduate but the person in front of you is trying to say that it has implications almost exactly opposite to those you learned-<br />Well they might be right about the conclusions, a lot of these matters get quite complicated, but at the very least you know that modern theories have no problem accommodating that information so these fall outside of that important format I provided. You can at this point try to tease out exactly how they decided that these implications must follow, but again, there's this extremely harsh inability to express the ideas without invoking divine agents.<br /><br />Anybody genuinely versed in the dogma they are opposing ought to be able to just describe what it doesn't and logically can't explain in completely materialistic terms, yet what we see is this intense eagerness to fill any gap they can make with what they believe.<br /><br /><br />Now, I understand that arguing against dogma is frustrating. The system is very resistant to changing these ideas, but it should be. If you've got valid criticism then you need to remain composed and slowly build up more and more support for it until people can see that there's really something to it. Trying to change the system from outside of it is kind of doomed to failure when research takes the kind of money that we spend on it today.<br /><br />But that really kind of gets at the metric we're actually dancing around here: what's the test to see if the dogma is false? What study could you do to show that it doesn't stand up? This would establish actual faults, which is a crucial step before you replace the dogma with something else. Provided that you actually get past that step then you need to come up with tests that show how your proposed replacement handles the established shortcomings of the old model.<br /><br />It is this lack of any interest in doing that, that clues us in to the lack of honesty in these challenges to the dogma. It demonstrates clearly that they prefer the methods of con artists, never knew what they were talking about, and have no interest in the honest pursuit of knowledge.Shokuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12107696954466417617noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-25511912912388883192012-08-09T16:06:25.717-04:002012-08-09T16:06:25.717-04:00Man, I'd feel really embarrassed to deny the f...Man, I'd feel really embarrassed to deny the function of DNA at this point. Yeah, you need a cell with some minimum of stuff in it in order to read the DNA but that minimum of stuff is universal to the point that effects arising from the cell independent of DNA are far too small to account for basically any of the form of life. <br /><br />It's almost like arguing that soon the thinking folk will agree that the circuits in a toy helicopter don't pick up signals from the remote and orchestrate movements but rather that all of these effects arise from ghosts inside of the battery.<br /><br />There is a good question to ask at this point though- do you think that you can get to this agency doing all the fine tuning to arrange you, from the ground up? That you can start from "I don't know or have any idea what does this" and then by looking at the processes you can piece together a rigorous proof that it is agency rather than the emergent properties of chemistry?Shokuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12107696954466417617noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-43134697983507029032012-08-08T18:21:00.160-04:002012-08-08T18:21:00.160-04:00ttc, you're kidding, right?
Just how naive do...ttc, you're kidding, right?<br /><br />Just how naive do you think the non-IDiot people here are? Do you really think that atheistoclast and other religious zealots aren't easily recognizable as religious zealots who argue against science and evolution solely because of their religious beliefs? Do you really think that atheistoclast and the other IDiot creationists are interested in discussing biology/evolution/science from a strictly scientific point of view in order to have a better understanding, and do you really think that IDiot creationists "question" scientists and/or science supporters, and scientific theories/hypotheses/inferences (what you call "dogma"), in a legitimate, respectful, knowledgeable, scientific way? Do you really think that IDiot creationists are just trying to help science figure things out and expand knowledge?<br /><br />And isn't it revealing of your mindset that you used the word "dogma" when referring to biology? If you want to see "dogma" look at your fairy tale religious beliefs. <br /><br />Oh, and where did barefoot hiker say anything about a "biblical fundamentalist"? Lots and lots of people who would not call themselves biblical fundamentalists believe that a guy now called jesus was nailed to some pieces of wood a couple of thousand year ago and/or that discrediting any aspect of a naturalistic claim opens the floodgates entirely to asserting that the alleged crucifixion is the answer (or at least a lot of the answer) to life, the universe, and everything.<br /> <br />And "flying off the handle"? You call that "flying off the handle"? Well, it's clear that you're easily offended by anyone who makes less than complimentary comments about your imaginary sky friend jesus. <br /><br />You obviously also have a problem with "atheists" working in biology. Do you think that the field of biology would be better off if religious beliefs were included in it? If so, whose religious beliefs exactly? harold camping's beliefs? pat robertson's? sarah palin's? mitt romney's? mahmoud ahmadinejad's? ken ham's? casey luskin's? david klinghoffer's? barry arrington's? dense oleary's? gordon e mullings'? pope benedict's? tenzin gyatso's? michelle bachman's? rick santorum's? william dembski's? phillip johnson's? atheistoclast's? michael behe's? Yours? Someone else's?The whole truthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07219999357041824471noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-44538886115941174722012-08-08T11:54:36.382-04:002012-08-08T11:54:36.382-04:00barefoot hiker, I can't get over how questioni...barefoot hiker, I can't get over how questioning any aspect of current dogma in biology leads you guys to flying off the handle that someone doing that has to be a biblical fundamentalist. When atheists like Lewontin and Gould do it someone like Dennett is ready to ascribe a search for "skyhooks" to them instead of addressing the substance of their points. <br /><br />Dogmatic thinking isn't limited to the religious. It's quite common among atheists as well.The Thought Criminalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01381376556757084468noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-41833777878254266532012-08-08T10:58:23.014-04:002012-08-08T10:58:23.014-04:00Richard Lewontin says things a lot like this and g...Richard Lewontin says things a lot like this and gets accused of being a commie. It always seems to get back to that level of abuse when it's skepticism of the supremacy of DNA.The Thought Criminalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01381376556757084468noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-64553849825897056402012-08-08T09:33:33.062-04:002012-08-08T09:33:33.062-04:00What I can't get over is how half of this disc...What I can't get over is how half of this discussion is ultimately predicated on the presumption that discrediting any aspect of a naturalistic claim opens the floodgates entirely to asserting that therefore, nailing a guy to some pieces of wood a couple thousand years ago is the answer to life, the universe, and everything.<br /><br />It's absolutely hilarious when you step back and look at it from its widest perspective.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-9674927385715103402012-08-08T09:33:03.837-04:002012-08-08T09:33:03.837-04:00I believe that genes did not create me - they just...<i>I believe that genes did not create me - they just supplied the tools and parts, and that some other agency actually put me together.</i><br /><br />I can kind of see that. It's like, when construction workers build a big structure, they depend on blueprints etc to tell them what to build. But the blueprints don't build it, they just say what to build.<br /><br />The DNA could be kind of like a library, and cells depend on all sorts of things to tell them what to look up. The library doesn't tell you which book to read, you have to figure that out some other way. Though you might choose to find a book that suggests a reading program, and you might then choose to read the books on its list in the order it suggests.<br /><br />I'm not sure that line of thought leads anywhere useful. But I do think it's a valid way to look at the situation.J Thomashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03201350482758221085noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-82139657283272079332012-08-08T08:21:34.406-04:002012-08-08T08:21:34.406-04:00I do believe that I have been created and intellig...I do believe that I have been created and intelligently designed during my growth from a fertilized egg into a beautiful baby. But is that really what ID is all about? <br /><br />No. ID, like Darwinism, focuses on genetic information and its origination/evolution. They seem to both agree that DNA is omnipotent. I dispute this completely. I believe that genes did <b>not</b> create me - they just supplied the tools and parts, and that some other agency actually put me together. Hence, I am a "vitalist" rather than a "creationist". As such, I look forward to the collapse of the gene-centric paradigm of developmental biology, along with "evo-devo" as a whole, with every sinew of my body. I have wagered a bet with PZ Myers on this over at the PT.<br /><br />But I do think that the genome has itself been "designed" even if natural evolutionary processes, like retrotransposition and viral insertions, have since shaped it.Atheistoclastnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-62943148580615456802012-08-08T07:28:17.072-04:002012-08-08T07:28:17.072-04:00atheistoclast, you continue to play games and pret...<i>atheistoclast, you continue to play games and pretend that you're not a science denying creationist IDiot.</i><br /><br />Actually there's a fairly reasonable chance that he isn't any of the above and that he's conducting an extremely elaborate and enormously successful troll.SteveFnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-52231643366688718332012-08-08T03:04:33.849-04:002012-08-08T03:04:33.849-04:00Allan Miller: You don't get to take shortcuts ...Allan Miller: You don't get to take shortcuts when talking about science because we're really pedantic :bShokuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12107696954466417617noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-77157069209220736652012-08-07T19:28:28.583-04:002012-08-07T19:28:28.583-04:00atheistoclast, you continue to play games and pret...atheistoclast, you continue to play games and pretend that you're not a science denying creationist IDiot. It's obvious that the only reason you study the theory of evolution (but still don't understand it) is to try to find things wrong with it. jonathan wells must be proud of you. <br /><br />Hey atheistoclast, did I say that only "Biblical literalists" are IDiot creationists or that all IDiot creationists are "Biblical literalists" or that only "Biblical literalists" are trying to destroy science and replace it with their dominionist agenda?<br /><br />It is WELL known that so-called "Biblical literalists" have many disagreements about their interpretations of what is said in the bible, and of course there are multiple versions and translations of the bible. Tossing in the word "literalists" is just another one of your diversionary games, in a lame attempt to make it look as though you're not as extreme as "literalists" and therefor are not motivated by the same religious dogma. <br /><br />Even if you don't take every word in the bible literally, that wouldn't make you any less of an IDiot creationist. Since you push "Intelligent Design" it's obvious that you believe in a supernatural designer-creator-god.<br /><br />You've been asked to provide your specific alternative to naturalistic evolutionary processes but you dodge the requests, and it must be because you know that revealing your beliefs would show that you are just another typical god zombie. Like the other IDiots you constantly argue against natural evolutionary theory and processes but you don't present any positive evidence for a testable, verifiable 'design' alternative. And, like the other IDiots, you think that if you can find some tiny thing wrong with naturalistic evolutionary theory your religious beliefs should and will automatically be established as a fact.<br /><br />You IDiots never do anything positive. Everything you do is destructive. You don't add to scientific research or knowledge, you just try to tear it down. If you were really interested in advancing scientific research and knowledge you'd be working WITH science and using productive methods to find the answers to any unanswered questions and to promote and teach productive methods and the answers that have been found. <br /><br />If all the money and effort that is spent by religious zealots to fight against science were instead spent ON science, more discoveries would already have been made.The whole truthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07219999357041824471noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-62317239680696519732012-08-07T16:20:35.796-04:002012-08-07T16:20:35.796-04:00I agree about the bottom up engineering of Eve, bu...I agree about the bottom up engineering of Eve, but there is a persistent rumour that this particular story is an explanation why humans have no baculum, while dogs and sheep have - sort of amusing sexual story for sheperds.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-18168307862244759572012-08-07T15:41:53.649-04:002012-08-07T15:41:53.649-04:00@ J Thomas
Reading Lynch's stuff has the same...@ J Thomas<br /><br />Reading Lynch's stuff has the same effect on me. ;-)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-15893661493168564532012-08-07T15:25:58.400-04:002012-08-07T15:25:58.400-04:00Atheistoclast:
You get associated with them for us...Atheistoclast:<br />You get associated with them for using a lot of their rhetoric. ID has been quite thoroughly exposed as a relabeling of Christian Science (swap out every instance of the word creator with designer and created with designed, and the first textbook for ID is identical to previously rejected creationist propaganda.)<br /><br />There is still another way for us to interpret the situation, but I'm afraid it is rude even by comparison. You might just be stupid and really like the sound of the rhetoric instead of understanding even the most basic strategy behind it.<br /><br />I prefer to give you the benefit of the doubt and go with the (relatively) favorable option. You've got a god agenda to push and you do it the same way as a majority of people, instead of being severely impaired compared to them. Should I (/we) stop making this assumption and go with the worse interpretation of you?Shokuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12107696954466417617noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-32174062336777592952012-08-07T14:59:13.935-04:002012-08-07T14:59:13.935-04:00At home now, without the paper (or net access).
I...At home now, without the paper (or net access).<br /><br />I also think size matter a lot here. If I recall, these are smaller ones discussed in the paper (but I am prepared to eat some crow tomorrow...). Huge deletions are probably rare, but likely to be nasty if the occur near anything useful. <br /><br />-The Other JimAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-32983575280373181312012-08-07T14:18:11.488-04:002012-08-07T14:18:11.488-04:00These "vast regions" of functionality to...These "vast regions" of functionality total to a few percent of the eukaryote genome.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-38540479294095844592012-08-07T13:59:49.181-04:002012-08-07T13:59:49.181-04:00Am I the only one who thinks it's hilariously ...<i>Am I the only one who thinks it's hilariously desperate of the IDiots to argue about all that scientific stuff when they believe that their supernatural "God" magically poofed the first two humans into existence from dust and a rib?</i><br /><br />Nope. It keeps us all entertained.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-49477738394910858672012-08-07T13:49:08.367-04:002012-08-07T13:49:08.367-04:00The Other Jim, thank you for that link. I think I ...The Other Jim, thank you for that link. I think I followed most of it, but it's likely to take me weeks to get the full implications. I'd like to respond before that but I might miss some important points. Maybe tomorrow....J Thomashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03201350482758221085noreply@blogger.com