Disqus - Latest Comments for mafarmerga

Re: http://localhost/fl/vaccines/talk/

mafarmerga — Tue, 27 Apr 2010 22:14:14 -0000

If you get shot it could save my life, or the life of my child or grandchild.

I believe in the reality of herd immunity.

Vaccinate your children

Re: http://localhost/fl/vaccines/talk/

mafarmerga — Tue, 27 Apr 2010 22:12:00 -0000

If you get shot it could save my life. More likely it could save the life of my child, or grandchild.

I remember these diseases. I vote for herd immunity.

Vaccinate your kids.

Re: Ashcroft Cache Creek Journal - Language of life

mafarmerga — Mon, 21 Dec 2009 11:24:53 -0000

One of the most common misunderstandings of evolutionary theory is that it is "totally random" and therefore mathematically impossible. But this leaves out the essential element of "selection" which is a decidely non-random force. This is why apparent complexity can arise from undirected processes.

None of this says anything about the existence of God. Science cannot test for this so it is not within the realm of science to address it. Folks like Richard Dawkins are entitled to their opinions regarding religion but they have no scientific validity to them. Likewise, as mentioned above, atrributuing philosophical positions to Darwin's theory (i.e. the horribly misnamed "Social Darwinism") also distracts from the discussion.

As Peter Olofsson once said:
"...the validity of a scientific theory does not hinge upon how it has been interpreted by German dictators."

Re: The Cambrian Explosion an enigma for Darwinists

mafarmerga — Fri, 11 Dec 2009 10:09:27 -0000

My apologies for citing a paper that is now ten years old. Here is the latest research on precambiran fossils demonstrating evidence that bilaterla animals were indeed present on Earth long before the Cambrian radiation.

Chen, J.-Y., Bottjer, D.J., Li, G., Hadfield, M.G., Gao, F., Cameron, A.R., Zhang, C.-Y., Xian, D.-C., Tafforeau, P., Liao, X., and Yin. Z.-J. 2009. Complex embryos displaying bilaterian characters from Precambrian Doushantuo phosphate deposits, Weng’an, Guizhou, China. PNAS v. 105, no. 45, pp. 19056-19060. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0904805106

Re: The Cambrian Explosion an enigma for Darwinists

mafarmerga — Tue, 08 Dec 2009 17:02:28 -0000

We both know that there is no scientific way to counter the "God did it" argument that you keep falling back on. However....

You asked me and Dr. Rutledge to provide verifiable evidence that is CONSISTENT with evolutionary theory. When we do so (e.g. fossil preCambrian coelomates, TPA or nylonase genes) you quickly dismiss the evidence by either playing the God card or by invoking the untestable assumption that all information MUST have an intelligent creator.

I understand that these are your beliefs, and you are free to hold them dear. However let's just be a little bit honest with each other. Please stop saying there is "No evidence" when in fact there is LOTS of evidence. Granted, you may not want to accept it, or believe that the evidence is flawed in some way, but the scientific approach does not allow you to simply dismiss it without either showing that a) the data is flawed or b) that it does not support the hypothesis.

In these two cases you have done neither of these things. You simply don't believe it.

Re: The Cambrian Explosion an enigma for Darwinists

mafarmerga — Tue, 08 Dec 2009 09:30:58 -0000

Dr. Theo,

Given your example of language and DNA (and even poems) I'm curious how you will come to terms with my example of the TPA gene and how exon shuffling leads to new genes of increasing complexity.

Anxiously awaiting your comments.

Re: The Cambrian Explosion an enigma for Darwinists

mafarmerga — Tue, 08 Dec 2009 09:07:31 -0000

I'll jump in here too and ask Dr. Theo a question. Would you consider a writer who took well established words in the English language and arranged them in such a way that it produced a new and unique poem that had never been written before and that brought forth deep emotions to have created something new? Would you even refer to that poem as an increase in complexity over a simple sentence such as "Run Spot Run"?

Well I have three words for you: Tissue Plasminogen Activator
That is right, the gene that codes for TPA (a unique and complex protein involved in the breakdown of blood clots) is the result of exon shuffling [epidermal growth factor and fibronectin] and exon duplication [plasminogen]. Three differnt genes, on three different chromosomes, brought together to form a NEW gene with a NEW function. An INCREASE in complexity.

You keep asking me for easy to understand examples of why I think you and Dr. Stephen Meyer are wrong when you say that there are no known examples of increases in genetic complexity and yet there are.

I'm not sure why you keep beating that same old drum. Is it to create enough noise to drown me out?

Re: The Cambrian Explosion an enigma for Darwinists

mafarmerga — Sun, 06 Dec 2009 13:27:40 -0000

Dr. Theo,

Much of the idea for identifying the underlying causes of the Cambrian radiation come from this book :

J S Turner. 2007. The Tinkerer’s Accomplice. How Design Emerges from Life Itself.
Harvard University Press. 282 pp.
http://www.esf.edu/efb/turn...

It is a good read and I recommend it. Interestingly Dr. Turner has often been sympathetic to the Intelligent Design movement, even saying nice things about Dr. Meyer's new book:
http://www.stephencmeyer.or...

While I disagree with Dr. Turner in his opinion of "Signature in the Cell" (and I have spelled out my reasons for this on previous posts to Dakota Voice) I think he presents an interesting idea regarding the development of true mesoderm and the subsequent radiation of animals in the Cambrian.

"I thought your use of words like diploblastic and triploblastic was a bit gratuitous and used with the intent of intimidating those readers unfamiliar with the jargon. It would have been nice if you'd taken a moment to define your terms."

Again, I was using terminology that was used by Dr. Turner and that I myself use in my introductory Biology course for non majors. Perhaps some readers were motivated to spend the time to look up those terms, but honestly I was writing for you and Brian Rutledge. I think that you both have a solid knowledge of animal biology/anatomy. I'm willing to bet we are the only three who are left following this thread.

Re: The Cambrian Explosion an enigma for Darwinists

mafarmerga — Sat, 05 Dec 2009 13:50:28 -0000

Dr. Theo writes: "Perhaps you can enlighten us as to a few of the “complex” organisms, Doctor."

Sure thing. You and your readers can check out a paper that is nearly ten years old.
"Precambrian animal diversity: Putative phosphatized embryos from the Doushantuo Formation of China" Chen et al. 2000.

"That does indeed sound pretty authoritative, especially with the use of esoteric terminology unfamiliar to most readers, but is pure speculation and nonsense."

OK, if the ground rules are that I am not allowed to use actual facts, published papers and big words to defend science then there REALLY is no point in having a discussion about the validity of the nonsense put forth in the Darwin's Dilemma film. Is it your position that only creationists should be allowed throw around these terms in a way to coat themselves with the false authority of "expertise" (I'm thinking of folks like David Berlinski here).

"The term "Cambrian explosion" was not coined by creationists."

Agreed. Scientists have a bad habit of trying to use inappropriate terminology in order to reach a broader audience. Cambrian Explosion, Snowball Earth, and Junk DNA are three prime examples of this.

Re: The Cambrian Explosion an enigma for Darwinists

mafarmerga — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 18:49:38 -0000

The Cambrian radiation really does not present many problems for evolution.

First it took place over millions of years (the use of the word "Explosion" is hyperbole). Second, there is a large, and growing database of evidence suggesting fairly complex pre-Cambrian animal life forms, it did not suddenly appear from nothing. Third, the relatively simple modification from a diploblastic body form to a true triploblastic form (with true mesoderm) would have required relatively few genetic changes and could have resulted in a plethora of potential new body forms.

No serious scientist looses any sleep over the nonsense that all of this is some great nightmare.

Re: Students Challenge to Learn All They Can About Evolution

mafarmerga — Fri, 28 Aug 2009 11:56:05 -0000

DCM writes " "Evolutionary theory" is not the same as "science in general" in the first place, partly because of how much it involves the unobservable past."

Uh, sorry, but yes it is. Please note that I clearly stated that modern science is based on a Popperian philosophy of falsifiability. While an experimental approach to science (complete with controls etc.) is certainly one way to falsify a theory, so are obervational or deductive approaches valid. As Haldane would say "Show me a rabbit fossil from the Cambrian and evolutionary theory as we know it would be falsified" The fact that the "experiment" cannot be repeated or even directly observed, is not a reason to exclude evolution from the realm of science.

As for the neutrality of science, again, I feel that if science does not remain neutral on the subject of faith then both science and faith are harmed. People of faith should be arguing for this exclusion as enthusiastically as do the atheists. Can you think of an experiment to prove or disprove the existence of God? To me, a scientist of faith, I think that even contemplating such an experiment constitutes blasphemy. It is in everyone's best interests to keep the two ways of knowing separate from one another.

For these, and many other reasons, I fight hard to exclude the role an intelligent designer may have played out of the realm of science. This is not to say that I deny the existence of such a designer (the spiritual side of me actually allows for it) but we cannot confuse this with science. I think that Ken Miller and Francis Collins would agree with me on this point.

Otherwise we risk turning "God" into a magic word to invoke everytime we can't figure something out. To do so harms both science AND it harms faith.

Re: Students Challenge to Learn All They Can About Evolution

mafarmerga — Wed, 26 Aug 2009 19:46:47 -0000

I find myself in the unusual position of agreeing with Casey Luskin. I too think that students should invest the time and intellectual capital to fully understand the theory of evolution. I suppose we would also agree that those same students should understand the philosophy of intelligent design and to know how it differs from the modern approach to science (as defined by Karl Popper). Only then will they be able to rationally distinguish between the two approaches to understanding the diversity of life on Earth.

However I strongly disagree with the comments of DCM. Evolutionary theory, and science in general, is mute on the matter of theism. In the purest sense of the word science is agnostic, yet is often painted as being an atheistic philosophy in an effort rally the troops against it.

Notable atheists like Richard Dawkins also happen to be evolutionists. But so too is Francis Collins, and as an evangelical Christian who has given his life to the glory of God he would strongly object to being labeled as an atheist. If you object to evolution fine. But if you do so because of your strong theistic leanings then you are guilty of doing something that science never pretends to do.

A most unChristian thing to do.

Re: DNA: Compelling Evidence of Intelligent Design

mafarmerga — Sat, 11 Jul 2009 20:41:14 -0000

Dear Bob and Dr. Theo,

Thanks giving me for the opportunity to explain. I will do my best bearing in mind that Dr. Meyer had a sixty minute presentation and entire book and I will be trying to address your many questions in a few paragraphs. None the less here goes.

First, let’s try to agree on what Dr. Meyer calls “information.” Really he is talking about genetic complexity, the fact that a particular, and specific, string of nucleotides, ATG&Cs, can code for a specific arrangement of amino acids which in turn produce a specific protein which has a specific function. A lot of specifics there, and on first glance it might seem IMPOSSIBLE that a string of nucleotides could ever accomplish this. While I agree with Brian Rutledge that the term “information” can have many meanings, we are critiquing Dr. Meyer here, so I have tried to use his definition.

Now the first strawman that Meyer sets up is that this was all “random” argument. You know, the tornado sweeping through a junkyard and assembling a Boeing 747 bull dung. Everyone, me included, agrees this is nonsense and in fact no credible scientist in over 150 years has ever suggested such a thing. So to set it up as part of his argument to knock down is disingenuous because he implies that scientists have at one time supported this to explain the complexity of the genetic code and genomics. They have not.

The second strawman is that both proteins and genes turned out to be a LOT more complex than we first thought in the 1960’s. In this Dr. Meyer is correct, but note the date. The 1960’s!! Proteins are a lot more complex than originally thought. Same is true for the genetic code. In fact we are still learning how little we really know! But the fact that our knowledge was incomplete in the 1960’s, or even today, is NOT the same as an argument in support of something else. All Dr. Meyer does here is point out that science continually tries to incorporate new ideas and better refine our models. Exactly! Science is ALWAYS changing, so why does Dr. Meyer make it seem like it is a fault? Again, another strawman.

OK, so what DO we know. First, Meyer makes an excellent point, and one that is often overlooked by many scientists, and that is the selection (and therefore evolution) cannot act on the genetic code. It would be like critiquing the writings of an author because one did not like the word “supercilious” rather than the manner in which the author used it. Genes code for things (usually proteins) and it is those proteins, and more specifically the shape and function, of those proteins that determines how well they will work in a given environmental context.

So why do I object to Dr. Meyer’s book and presentations? Mostly because they offer nothing new except to say 1) it can’t be just random, 2) scientists often have incomplete answers, and 3) we MUST therefore conclude that this is beyond the ken of science. The only real, and current challenging idea out there right now is the RNA world hypothesis. Dr. Meyer blithely rejects this saying “there are problems with it as well.” True enough, there are problems. But at its heart it offers a significant challenge to Meyer and his “DNA enigma.” It has been known for a long time that RNA can act as both a biochemical structure itself (see my above comments on selection acting on the structure of things) and as a way of conveying information (as defined by Meyer). RNA can also self replicate in the complete absence of any proteins. The “chicken and egg” dilemma that Meyer renames as his DNA enigma. And it has been known for over 20 years (look into the work of Tom Cech).

Again is this THE way in which it happened? Maybe, maybe not. An honest scientist will always hedge their bets by saying it “could have” or “was likely to” or Almost certainly” but rarely do we speak in the kind of absolutes that Dr. Meyer likes to employ. I think that this appeal to certainty and the “truth” appeals to many people of faith, who are either frightened by or unsettled by uncertainty. But science thrives on it. This is why I get so upset when someone with credentials (e.g. Ph.D. in History) tries to cast this strength of science as a weakness.

And as to having no data to support an RNA or even a pre-RNA world? No, I don’t think so. If Dr. Meyer would only consult a paper that came out at about the same time as his book he would see that such naturally occurring precursors do in fact exist.
http://www.sciencemag.org/c...
and that spontaneous self assembly, while seemingly impossible, is a reality.
http://www.scienceblog.com/...

Bottom line. Dr. Meyer has written a book that is meant to promote his ideological views. Fine, everyone is entitled to that. But in doing so he cast dispersions on my profession of science and he twists (or more blatantly ignores) much of what we do already know and tries to use it as an argument against science.

If it were my intention to something similar I could cite MANY passages in the Bible that are either inconsistent or flat out abhorrent by today’s standards. But my goal is not to attack religion but to defend science.

That is what compels me to speak out against Dr. Meyer and all who promote his twisted view of reality.

Re: DNA: Compelling Evidence of Intelligent Design

mafarmerga — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 21:30:15 -0000

This really is such nonsense. I listened to the 60 min presentation by Dr. Meyer about his new book. He sets up two strawmen (that have not been supported by scientists for nearly 40 years) and using mainly arguments developed by real scientists he dissects them. Then, with the only real, and viable challenge to his ideas (namely the RNA world hypothesis) he dismissed it with a single "there are problems with this as well." OK, care to elaborate Dr. Meyer?

Dr. Meyer is dishonest when he states that scientists have no explanation for the appearance of organization in the DNA code. You are propagating that dishonesty. And by silencing me, and many other scientists of faith who both accept scientific principles for the explanation of most natural phenomena yet also maintain a faith in God, you are helping him to propagate this dishonesty.

I realize this posting will probably only be read by you and will never shared on your blog, but I would be remiss if I did not at least attempt to shed light where others try to maintain darkness.

-Mark

Re: Zogby Poll: Most Americans Believe in Intelligent Design

mafarmerga — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 08:14:03 -0000

"Again, as Dr. Theo pointed out on another thread, "Permutations and transference of genetic code does not constitute new information."

So permutations of the genetic code leading to new functions does NOT constitute new information? Have either of you read Dr. Meyer's book or listened to him comment on this topic? This is exactly how Dr. Meyers DEFINES information. This puts you in the unenviable position of completely disagreeing with the very same expert you so highly lauded just the other day.

Do you ever read the books or reports that you praise and highlight or is this just a mirror site for the Discovery Institute? At least I read this stuff before I comment about it.

BTW the entire Zogby poll is available on line, and it confirms my original statement that a polling of the American people has no bearing on the validity of a scientific theory.

Re: Zogby Poll: Most Americans Believe in Intelligent Design

mafarmerga — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 22:06:18 -0000

Bob wrote:
"So they have a problem with the fact that, according to their theory, organisms must spontaneously gain new and more complex genetic information to transform into new forms…when this has never been observed, and cannot be manufactured or tested in the lab."

A sorry again to correct you but I refer you and your readers to Richard Lenski's long term E. coli experiment. I think that you will see that he has done EXACTLY that. A NEW form, an E. coli that can import and live on citrate. Something that has never existed before an which he has carefully documented in the lab.

Cheers,
Mark

Re: Zogby Poll: Most Americans Believe in Intelligent Design

mafarmerga — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 22:02:13 -0000

Bob you write:

"There is also the problem of how information–coherent, meaningful, complex data that transmits meaning–can come about with no intelligent author. "

But in your last posting about Dr. Meyer's most recent book I pointed out how gene duplication/divergence, microbial symbiosis and epigenetics are ALL well established mechanisms whereby this has been shown to be NOT the case. All contribute to genetic complexity, which according to Dr. Meyers is equal to "information."

Did you tire of our dialog or just run out of ideas (arguments)? I am still here patiently waiting your reply to the long term E. coli experiment, the Flavobacterium nylonase gene, and the Hydrogen Hypothesis. Do you need me to once again post the links?

-Mark

Re: Zogby Poll: Most Americans Believe in Intelligent Design

mafarmerga — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 21:53:25 -0000

The problem I have with surveys like this is that the validity of a scientific theory does not rest on its "acceptance" It rests on its ability to either be supported or refuted by the data.

As I am fond of telling people, when Copernicus publishe his Revolutions of the Heavenly bodies, 99% of learned scholars thought he was wrong. Yet the Earth continued to orbit the sun, not vice versa. And it had been doing so for 4 billion years and will continue to do so until the Sun becomes a Red Giant and consumes us.