“Carl Zimmer”:http://www.corante.com/loom has a good discussion of the discovery that the embryonic stem-cell lines approved by the Bush administration appear to be “contaminated”:http://corante.com/loom/archives/of_stem_cells_and_neanderthals.php with sugars from the substrate they were originally grown in. He has a nice angle on whether the Intelligent Design types who disagree with stem cell research will try to rely on the paper describing the discovery, which demonstrates the problem with the the cell lines by drawing on evidence about molecular evolution.
{ 63 comments }
sennoma 01.24.05 at 6:37 pm
As I understand it, the cells are not expressing the carbohydrate in question but picking it up from the feeder layer and/or serum in the medium and trafficking it to the cell surface (probably due to its similarity to endogenous sugars).
If that’s so, the first pressing question is turnover rate: how long would the cells need to be cultured on a different substrate (such as one derived from a prospective patient) in order to lose the exogenous sugars?
If that turns out to be too long for practical clinical purposes (for instance, longer than the cells can be kept on such substrates) I wonder what is to become of the multi-billion dollar investments in ES cells, particularly in California?
Chris 01.24.05 at 7:38 pm
I don’t get it. Intelligent design isn’t young-earth creationism. ID types believe in evolution. They just think that its path has been at least partially guided by a force other than the standard Darwinian ones (natural selection, sexual selection, etc.). I don’t see why they’d be barred from relying on a paper just because it “draw[s] on evidence about molecular evolution.”
jet 01.24.05 at 8:00 pm
This is horrible news. But I just found out that Flogging Molly has a new cd out, so it kind of evens things out.
Can you imagine the kind of blow this is to all the cripples, sick, and dieing out there?
eudoxis 01.24.05 at 8:26 pm
The cell lines in question are for research purposes and never intended for use in humans. Armed with enough knowledge gained from these lines, practical applications in humans will come from fresh ECS. At that point, federal dollars won’t apply. (Don’t get me wrong, I think the funding of HECS should be increased and extended.) This is important research, but we’ve known of and suspected a number of contaminants in these lines already, and there are potentially many more.
I don’t know if the evolutionary angle will have much impact on the ID crowd. They fondly point to loss-of-function mutations as proof of their theories.
In answer to the question above, “how long would the cells need to be cultured on a different substrate (such as one derived from a prospective patient) in order to lose the exogenous sugars? “, cell division in ECS lines is kept to a minimum because of the danger of senescence and spontaneous differentiation. The number of cell divisions in these lines to date are another reason these lines would never be used in humans.
Ken Miller 01.24.05 at 8:59 pm
Another classic case of: “Since evolution is true, then…”.
Carl Zimmer has failed to establish a causal relationship between the observations and the cited mechanisms. At least he was honest enough to “suggest” that this difference between the humanoid family and the rest of the animal world was the result of a mutational change.
Too bad he didn’t use the opportunity to explore other potential mechanisms. Instead, he just calls on the same tired evolutionary pablum.
Ken Miller 01.24.05 at 9:13 pm
I always hear the proponents of ESC research frenetically touting the potential utility of the research.
I never hear those same folks wrestling with the reality that each one of those lines comes at the expense of another human life.
John 01.24.05 at 9:26 pm
“Carl Zimmer has failed to establish a causal relationship between the observations and the cited mechanisms.”
Do you criticize creationists for depending on inferential reasoning?
“At least he was honest enough to “suggest†that this difference between the humanoid family and the rest of the animal world was the result of a mutational change.”
All of the data are consistent with that conclusion. None of the data are consistent with an intelligent creator.
“Too bad he didn’t use the opportunity to explore other potential mechanisms.”
You have the opportunity to explain how these data are consistent with intelligent design. It’s obvious that you can’t. It’s your job, not his, to devise tests of your hypothesis.
Can you explain why an intelligent designer, working with a digital medium, would create transposable elements? It’s obvious why evolution would create them.
David W. 01.24.05 at 9:30 pm
The reality is that embryonic stem cells are taken from excess in-virto fertilization embryos which are no different than those that often fail to implant in the uterus. There’s no reason to give such things the status of persons, any more than giving such to human sperm or eggs. There’s more to a human life than the instant of conception, and we don’t go around mourning fertilized eggs that weren’t viable.
John 01.24.05 at 9:51 pm
“I never hear those same folks wrestling with the reality that each one of those lines comes at the expense of another human life.”
Why don’t we hear any of you folks arguing that fertility clinics should be banned? They’re making and destroying huge numbers of human embryos.
And Ken, if you claim that each human life begins at conception, why don’t we hear you arguing that a pair of identical twins should be treated as a single person with only a single soul between them?
eudoxis 01.24.05 at 9:51 pm
Ken: “Too bad he didn’t use the opportunity to explore other potential mechanisms. ”
Carl Zimmer is a science writer (and a great one, at that) not a researcher. Ajit Varki led the research that Zimmer is discussing.
The causal thread was established a century and a half ago. The fact that there is a non-functional CMAH gene in humans at all should give creationists like you pause.
eudoxis 01.24.05 at 9:53 pm
Ken: “Too bad he didn’t use the opportunity to explore other potential mechanisms. ”
Carl Zimmer is a science writer (and a great one, at that) not a researcher. Ajit Varki led the research that Zimmer is discussing.
The causal thread was established a century and a half ago. The fact that there is a non-functional CMAH gene in humans at all should give creationists like you pause.
Ajax Bucky 01.24.05 at 9:58 pm
Rational sceptics and sound-thinking academicists have been publicly ridiculing, disdaining, and consistently and logically rebutting the whole panoply of Christian false teaching about the world and its mechanisms since the mid 19th century. And look at all the good that’s done.
Look at the good it did Galileo in his time.
–
The rational mind wants its competitions to be rational ones. Just so dim-witted thugs prefer their contests physical. And large powerful groups of mindless slaves will choose mass warfare when it comes time to reapportion the empire.
It’s comforting to remind ourselves that the various forms of superstitious nonsense thrown at the problems of origin and destiny are simply that, superstitious nonsense. But then, you know, these idiots are sort of running America now.
So being right alone clearly isn’t enough. In fact being right or wrong may not have anything much to do with it.
It may be all and only about kicking ass, or gumming up the works, or destroying the infrastructure that enables complex civilization – as it threatens to leave the dim-witted behind.
All things the dull can accomplish with ease.
Vigilance!
And stop deluding yourselves that sound arguments alone will carry the day.
Walt Pohl 01.24.05 at 10:32 pm
This is the funniest quote I’ve read today: “Instead, he just calls on the same tired evolutionary pablum.”
Ken Miller 01.24.05 at 10:52 pm
“There’s more to a human life than the instant of conception, and we don’t go around mourning fertilized eggs that weren’t viable.”
David, agreed, there’s more to a human life than that instant. Such as his/her continuing development, birth, and post-birth development and experience – that he/she will never experience.
But just as a mother mourns her stillborn baby, maybe we all should be mourning even these youngest of babies.
And maybe, if we as individuals, and as a society, become less callous toward these little ones, we’ll be a little more circumspect when pursuing destructive fertility or HESC research methods.
Ken Miller 01.24.05 at 11:00 pm
“And Ken, if you claim that each human life begins at conception, why don’t we hear you arguing that a pair of identical twins should be treated as a single person with only a single soul between them?”
John, obviously, there’s more at work here than just DNA. Just ask any twin – they’ll let you know right away that they’re not the same person as their twin. :-)
Ken Miller 01.24.05 at 11:03 pm
“This is the funniest quote I’ve read today: “Instead, he just calls on the same tired evolutionary pablum.â€
Walt, you got me. I knew someone would call me on it!
Ken Miller 01.24.05 at 11:20 pm
“Do you criticize creationists for depending on inferential reasoning?”
John, I have no problem with inferential reasoning, when presented as such, not as fact.
“All of the data are consistent with that conclusion. None of the data are consistent with an intelligent creator.”
I agree that the data are consistent with the conclusion. I’m just suggesting that there may be other conclusions consistent with the data as well.
“You have the opportunity to explain how these data are consistent with intelligent design. It’s obvious that you can’t. It’s your job, not his, to devise tests of your hypothesis.”
I was merely suggesting that there may be other equally consistent conclusions. Why take uncritically, the only offered conclusion? Seems to me that there should be other equally rich alternatives.
“Can you explain why an intelligent designer, working with a digital medium, would create transposable elements? It’s obvious why evolution would create them.”
Maybe to create the particular traits that the designer has in mind, whether the most efficient/productive/robust, or not?
Ken Miller 01.24.05 at 11:35 pm
“Carl Zimmer is a science writer (and a great one, at that) not a researcher. Ajit Varki led the research that Zimmer is discussing.”
Eudoxis, I’m sure that Zimmer is a fine writer. I also note that he’s writing to an empathetic crowd (or perhaps hostile, if he strays too far).
“The causal thread was established a century and a half ago. The fact that there is a non-functional CMAH gene in humans at all should give creationists like you pause.”
I have no problem with there being a “non-functional” CMAH gene in the human genome. If it were active, we’d probably be apes, not men – as we were designed to be.
Andrew 01.25.05 at 12:22 am
But Ken, if humans were designed, why on earth would we have a non-functional CMAH gene at all? Why shouldn’t we just have no CMAH gene? As it is, it’s just cluttering up the genome for no reason.
You could argue that God put it there to fool us. But that seems like an absurdly ad hoc hypothesis.
Walt Pohl 01.25.05 at 12:29 am
Ken, you realize that the evidence for evolution is considerably stronger than the evidence for Christianity? But since they’re not really incompatible, you don’t have to choose…
And asserting the single cells are little babies doesn’t make it true, any more than my asserting that a ham sandwich is a little baby, and if you eat you’re some sort of sick cannibal, makes it true.
Chris 01.25.05 at 12:51 am
Walt,
A ham sandwich is neither human, nor alive, so it would obviously be pretty silly of you to call it a little baby. Now, on the other hand, an embryo is undeniably human, given its DNA. (I mean that in a rather weak sense, in the same sense that a chopped-off human hand is still “human.”) It is also undeniably alive.
I’d say it’s prima facie more reasonable to apply the term “little baby” to a newly created thing that is both alive and human than to apply it to a ham sandwich. You disagree?
Walt Pohl 01.25.05 at 1:10 am
It’s more reasonable, but still not reasonable.
John 01.25.05 at 1:49 am
Ken wrote:
“John, obviously, there’s more at work here than just DNA. Just ask any twin – they’ll let you know right away that they’re not the same person as their twin. :-)”
We all know that. That’s why it is absurd to claim that human lives begin at conception. You see, Ken, twins are products of a single conception.
“I agree that the data are consistent with the conclusion.”
Good!
“I’m just suggesting that there may be other conclusions consistent with the data as well.”
If you thought there were, you would advance them. But you won’t, so you don’t.
“I was merely suggesting that there may be other equally consistent conclusions.”
Like what?
“Why take uncritically, the only offered conclusion? Seems to me that there should be other equally rich alternatives.”
Like what, Ken? Propose away! I’m all ears.
“Maybe to create the particular traits that the designer has in mind, whether the most efficient/productive/robust, or not?”
Why would one do that with a transposable element? Do you know what one is?
How about an easier question: given the digital medium of DNA, whay are things like splice donor/acceptor sequences mushy consensuses? Wouldn’t an intelligent designer make single, invariable sequences for each function?
Might this be why you’ve never heard a creationist discuss mRNA splicing? Why they ignore the vast majority of biology?
John 01.25.05 at 1:55 am
Ken wrote:
“John, I have no problem with inferential reasoning, when presented as such, not as fact.”
After rereading the linked article, that accusation was simply false. It was clearly presented and qualified as inferential reasoning.
So, what are these other explanations you have? Don’t hold back!
Chris 01.25.05 at 2:56 am
John: The fact that twins are separate people is not a good argument against “life” in the moral sense beginning at conception. It is, at most, an argument that “conception” in the sense of a sperm & egg fusing is at least not the only way human life begins.
John 01.25.05 at 3:39 am
That’s the way I was using it.
It also applies later, as twinning occurs after the blastocyst stage at which embryos are frozen at fertility clinics and that yield ES cells.
The problem with these discussions is that neither “life” nor “human life” begins at conception, as sperm and eggs are both human and alive before fertilization. Moreover, fertilization is not a moment, but a process that occurs over 24 hours. Biologically, fertilization is far less interesting than the morphogenesis that occurs in the weeks and months following fertilization.
The morally relevant question is when something represents *an individual* human life, and the only biologically honest answer is “gradually.”
John 01.25.05 at 3:46 am
Chris wrote:
“A ham sandwich is neither human, nor alive, so it would obviously be pretty silly of you to call it a little baby. Now, on the other hand, an embryo is undeniably human, given its DNA. (I mean that in a rather weak sense, in the same sense that a chopped-off human hand is still “human.â€) It is also undeniably alive.”
So since both these criteria are satisfied by human sperm and eggs before fertilization, is it reasonable to conflate them with little babies?
And what does DNA have to do with this?
mg 01.25.05 at 3:59 am
Not unless babies are sacred.
Walt Pohl 01.25.05 at 4:06 am
Dust is largely sloughed-off human skin, which also contains human DNA. When you clean your house, are you tossing thousands of little babies into the trash can?
David Tiley 01.25.05 at 6:21 am
Walt, you have started me off. Don’t we need a huge hospital to keep all those amputated limbs functioning? And all those brain dead people, with human DNA and organs, aren’t we obliged to keep them pumping?
No, if the soul has departed from the body. Aha! So the soul lives in the brain. But, but… fertilised cells don’t have brains so…
Rich pickings for armchair absurdists.
basic dog care 01.25.05 at 7:27 am
This website provide accurate and reliable basic dog care information.Go to http://www.dogcare.mypetdogs.com
des von bladet 01.25.05 at 8:42 am
basic dog care: Normally spam is bad, of course, but in this case you may actually have raised the tone…
Brett Bellmore 01.25.05 at 10:30 am
Any conceivable data is consistant with the “intelligent designer” theory, if you’re willing to posit a “designer” who’s sufficiently powerful AND willing to insult said designer by blaming it for enormous numbers of obvious design flaws.
That’s why ID isn’t really a scientific theory: It’s not falsifiable. If it were, it would have been falsified the first time somebody pointed out that mamalian retinas were build backwards.
bad Jim 01.25.05 at 10:44 am
Please note that California has chosen to fund its own stem cell research. The same populist tools that gave us this defiance of national policy have also saddled us with an aging action figure as governor.
Our lack of moral values makes this an occasionably comfortable and sporadically productive place to live. That and the weather.
Michael Mouse 01.25.05 at 2:09 pm
Des von bladet: Basic dog care would have solved this problem from the start. Dog cells have both Neu5Ac and Neu5Gc. But in evolutionary terms, human domestication of dogs happened after the CMAH gene mutated to broken form in humans. The presence of antibodies to Neu5Gc in humans can be traced in part to domestic animals, including dogs. If people had refrained from licking their dogs in evolutionary history, embryonic stem cell research would even now be helping Christopher Reeve to walk (despite being dead!). So really it is all about basic dog care.
Ken Miller 01.25.05 at 5:27 pm
Two main points to reiterate:
1. Carl Zimmer states as his premise the validity of evolution to explain the research. Then, he takes the research results to bolster the case of evolution against any competitors. Monopolies of all stripes naturally attempt to quash their competition. In this case, he’s using someone else’s research, trying for a two-for-one deal: bash President Bush and the policy to limit federally funded HESC research on one hand; bash ID and Creationists on the other.
2. Whereas it is important to consider whether personhood accumulates to the fertilized egg, the blastocyst, or to the developing embryo, I see no grappling with these issues in the pro-HESC research camp, just a headlong rush to develop the technology. It’s as though the blastocysts have no inherent value aside from their utilitarian contribution to the research. These important issues are only surfaced by challengers outside the camp.
John 01.25.05 at 5:59 pm
“Carl Zimmer states as his premise the validity of evolution to explain the research.”
No, he states that evolution explains the data. He points out that ID doesn’t explain the data, and you confirm that by your inability to explain the data by any other hypothesis.
That’s how real scientists do science.
“Then, he takes the research results to bolster the case of evolution against any competitors.”
He points out that the allegedly competing hypotheses can’t explain the data.
“Whereas it is important to consider whether personhood accumulates to the fertilized egg, the blastocyst, or to the developing embryo, I see no grappling with these issues in the pro-HESC research camp…”
I see no one, including antiabortion folks, who act as if any of those stages represent people outside of abortion. That’s why we don’t see anyone marching outside fertility clinics, Ken.
If you had grappled with these issues, you would question your own treatment of identical twins as separate people, but you never will, just as animal rights wackos will never look at the words “fetal calf serum” and realize that their beloved “non-animal alternative,” cell culture, is neither.
Let’s look at the converse as a hypothetical: if I take human ES cells and inject them into a human blastocyst (something we routinely do with mouse ES cells), would you treat the resulting chimera as one person or two?
Ken Miller 01.25.05 at 6:11 pm
“Ken, you realize that the evidence for evolution is considerably stronger than the evidence for Christianity? But since they’re not really incompatible, you don’t have to choose…”
Walt, actually, you do have to choose. Either you take what God has revealed about Himself, or you don’t. And He claims to be the only cause agent in the Creation.
From a technology perspective, one bit of evidence is the fact of the highly encoded genome in all living things. That’s not just the accumulation of random chemical changes over time. Nor does that accumulation account for the distinct and diverse speciation that we observe.
And who says that there’s better evidence for evolution than for Christianity? There’s plenty of both internal and external evidence for the historicity of Christianity.
Cheers.
John 01.25.05 at 6:45 pm
“And who says that there’s better evidence for evolution than for Christianity?”
I do.
“There’s plenty of both internal and external evidence for the historicity of Christianity.”
What a dodge! Sure there’s plenty, but there’s plenty more for evolution. The claim was a relative one, Ken. Your botching of my question about transposable elements clearly shows that you haven’t bothered to look at the mountains of evidence for evolution.
Walt Pohl 01.25.05 at 7:15 pm
Then Ken, why does the Catholic church, the denomination of half the Christians in the world, accept the truth of evolution?
HP 01.25.05 at 7:33 pm
When you clean your house, are you tossing thousands of little babies into the trash can?
I try to make a point of tossing thousands of little babies into the trash can five or six times a week. It used to be more often, but I’m getting older.
ID types believe in evolution. They just think that its path has been at least partially guided by a force other than the standard Darwinian ones.
I’m currently working on an invention that will harness the non-standard Darwinian force to impel an overbalanced wheel. I’m still working out the kinks, but I think that with a small investment of 50,000 USD on your part, I can have a demonstrable prototype ready in six months. If you just sign right here — make that check out to “cash”; they’re watching me, you know — I can guarantee you 50% of future profits in exchange for your share.
John 01.25.05 at 7:38 pm
Ken fabricated:
“From a technology perspective, one bit of evidence is the fact of the highly encoded genome in all living things.”
Everything we know about genomics and genetics is consistent with evolution. Why don’t you discuss some data if you disagree? I suggest that you not use the bogus term “highly encoded.”
“That’s not just the accumulation of random chemical changes over time.”
Of course not! Not only are the changes chemical, but they have biological origins, like the transpoable element stuff you fibbed about above.
The changes have been selected by evolution; they haven’t simply accumulated.
“Nor does that accumulation account for the distinct and diverse speciation that we observe.”
In fact, it does. If you disagree, how do you explain the repeated observations of trees derived from sequence homologies beautifully paralleling those drawn from morphological homologies?
We could discuss some real data if you have the courage to, as I’ve published such a tree.
Jim Harrison 01.25.05 at 7:39 pm
Arguing against anti-evolutionists is like trying to convince a paranoid he isn’t really Napoleon. What’s involved is a psychiatric rather than a logical problem, even if the nuttiness involved is communal rather than individual. Arguing in favor of evolution as if one’s opponents were rational actually makes things worse since it creates the impression that there is still a scientific controversy about evolution—that debate has been over for a good hundred years. One kind of craziness gives rise to another as we find ourselves coming up with yet more evidence that lead doesn’t float.
james 01.25.05 at 10:03 pm
There is a well proven relationship between a fertilized human embryo and a human baby. There is a marginally demonstrated relationship between evolution and human life. For some reason people are stating evolution as an unquestionable fact and the significance of a human embryo as questionable. The least you could do is apply an equal standard to the required level of “proofâ€.
Walt Pohl 01.25.05 at 10:45 pm
Jim Harrison: In this case, you might be right, but it’s not true 100% of the time. Many people in America are raised from a young age to believe in creationism, and that evolution is a bunch of malarkey. When they finally encounter the real evidence for evolution, some of them can be pursuaded. This is probably a very narrow demographic (college freshmen and younger), but it does exist.
James: You realize that’s a gigantic nonsequitor. I believe, as do 100% of scientists that fertilized human embryos, under the right conditions, turn into human babies. I feel confident in asserting that the scientific evidence that embryos turn into babies is even stronger than the scientific evidence for evolution. The point is that they’re not currently babies.
Ken Miller 01.25.05 at 11:44 pm
“Then Ken, why does the Catholic church, the denomination of half the Christians in the world, accept the truth of evolution?”
Walt, I won’t pretend to speak for the Catholic church as an official church position.
I will, however, speak for myself to say that throughout the Bible, God presents Himself as the only necessary causal agent in the created order. Even to the point that it’s *only* by His pleasure that the universe continues to persist moment by moment, and that He is intimately involved in the existence and experience of every living (and non-living, for that matter) thing.
He decided at various times in the past to introduce new species, and to remove others. If we were able to observe nature closely enough, perhaps we could detect the introduction of new species even today.
BTW, He’s funny about letting others take credit for what He does. Seems that He wants everyone to know that it’s Him, not something or someone else, that’s doing His work. That’s why evolution is incompatible with Christianity.
Walt Pohl 01.25.05 at 11:59 pm
You don’t know that the official Catholic church position is that evolution is true? Wow. Shouldn’t you actually know something about Christianity before you presume to tell us what is and what is not compatible with it? Or is your own narrow conception the only valid form?
sigh 01.26.05 at 1:43 am
I will, however, speak for myself to say that throughout the Bible, God presents Himself as the only necessary causal agent in the created order.
Your position here is more or less what Bishop Stephen Tempier said in 1277, when he denounced the “Averroists†at the University of Paris who believed that creation had been established in such a way that we could study it and figure out rules that described how it works.
Later on, these rules were called “scienceâ€.
… He decided at various times in the past to introduce new species, and to remove others. If we were able to observe nature closely enough, perhaps we could detect the introduction of new species even today.
Actually, we can. And how does he do it? He does it via evolution. God is very clever.
A God who works via the remarkable biological systems that science has revealed is much more impressive than a God who makes things happen poof poof like the genie from Aladdin. Why do you deny God the respect of trying to understand the full complexity of His accomplishment? If I were Him, I’d feel very unappreciated by your attitude.
He’s funny about letting others take credit for what He does. Seems that He wants everyone to know that it’s Him, not something or someone else, that’s doing His work. That’s why evolution is incompatible with Christianity.
The same argument could be applied against the theory of “gravity”. I.e. gravity does not make things fall down, God makes things fall down. If you say the word “gravity” you are taking away God’s glory, etc. And that’s why gravity is incompatible with Christianity.
Do you see that your argument is nonsense?
) ID types believe in evolution. They just think that its path has been at least partially guided by a force other than the standard Darwinian ones.
This statement again makes no sense. There is no reason to look for such a “force”. If you believe in God, you may easily believe that evolution is God’s glorious creation. The only reason one would insist on such a “force” is out of a desire to force scientists to “officially” acknowledge God. This is a political argument, not a scientific one. By presenting it otherwise, you are bearing false witness.
John 01.26.05 at 4:52 am
Ain’t that one of them there Commandments?
It’s just amazing that people who claim to be Christians have no qualms about disobeying clear commands from the Bible while defending rock-solid positions that can’t be found anywhere in the Bible.
Ajax Bucky 01.26.05 at 8:41 am
Some of us have been saying what Jim Harrison said above for some time now. Though it needs reinforcing that clinging to obvious nonsense in the face of an onslaught of logical rebuttal is probably more than just pathology in action. Unless by pathology you mean something subjective, an organism that threatens your own well-being.
The academic culture we all enter before the age of reason, and that many of us remain in past the age of majority, constantly reiterates the dysfunctionality of wrong answers, the inability of irrational thought to succeed, the dead end illogic always leads to.
Outside the educational system having the right answer’s just one more competing strategy. The game is survival, not a credential. It’s complicated for those whose survival depends on academic success, obviously, but the cold hard truth is, the truth itself, as an abstract thing, means nothing in a Darwinian sense.
Just as that paranoid, should he have a gun in his hand, will dictate the actions of, and may even determine the length of life of, the other more rational sane people within his purview.
Over time, given the opportunity, I believe intellectual honesty and a dedication to the “truth” will confer an evolutionary advantage; but in the short run being right or wrong about such non-immediately-essential concepts as the origins of life, or the nature of the early universe, will confer no more advantage than large size or armor plating. Life, and the evolution of life forms, is much more complicated than that.
Creationists are fighting for the same thing everybody else is – to live.
james 01.26.05 at 3:36 pm
walt pohl – The abortion question is “When is a human embryo a human being?â€. For abortion to work in a civilized society it must maintain the idea that a human embryo is not a human being until “born alive”. Abortion runs the possibility of becoming murder if a human embryo is a human being at some indeterminate point prior to this event. The earlier this event occurs in the development process, the greater the possibility. It requires a great amount of faith to believe that the transition from clump of cells to human being occurs in a such a convenient manner as to justify abortion on demand.
Ken Miller 01.26.05 at 5:58 pm
“In fact, it does. If you disagree, how do you explain the repeated observations of trees derived from sequence homologies beautifully paralleling those drawn from morphological homologies?
We could discuss some real data if you have the courage to, as I’ve published such a tree.”
John,I’ll be happy to entertain the data that you present. Please send them to me.
I suspect that each of us will end up with different conclusions from that data – by your invoking evolution as the causative agent, and by my invoking the occurance of special creation. One opinion against the other. But it may be worth the discussion.
But please go easy on me. I’m not a trained biologist and have been separated by some number of years from any formal training in the area. So I thank you in advance for correcting my missteps. :)
John 01.26.05 at 6:29 pm
Ken,
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/93/20/10826.pdf
Check out Figure 1 and Figure 2.
“I suspect that each of us will end up with different conclusions from that data…”
Yes, but…
” – by your invoking evolution as the causative agent,…”
But I won’t be doing that, Ken! I’ll be doing science, which is a method you reject. I’ll be examining the data for consistency with natural selection.
“… and me by invoking the occurance of special creation.”
Where does special creation predict that myosin-Vc will end up? Natural selection makes a very clear prediction. You can do the experiment yourself.
What does special creation predict about the intron/exon structures?
“One opinion against the other.”
Dead wrong, and spoken like a true pseudoscientist, dedicated to bearing false witness–like your falsehood about genomes providing evidence for creation. They do the polar opposite.
We will determine which opinion fits the data and makes accurate predictions.
“But it may be worth the discussion.”
Absolutely. I predict you’ll bail.
“So I thank you in advance for correcting my missteps. :)”
I already have, but you lack the modesty to acknowledge it.
Ken Miller 01.26.05 at 8:35 pm
“But I won’t be doing that, Ken! I’ll be doing science, which is a method you reject. I’ll be examining the data for consistency with natural selection.”
John, naturally you would be looking for data consistent with your premise. That’s not advancing science. That’s bolstering your position.
“Dead wrong, and spoken like a true pseudoscientist, dedicated to bearing false witness—like your falsehood about genomes providing evidence for creation. They do the polar opposite.”
So what are you suggesting, that the existence of information stored in the form of a biochemical language doesn’t require anything more than basic undirected biochemical reactions? I marvel at the mere existence of such a structure in nature. I’m surprised that you don’t, unless you’ve become too familiar and desensitized to what’s before you.
“…dedicated to bearing false witness…”
You may not agree, but does that call for name calling?
“Where does special creation predict that myosin-Vc will end up?”
I realize that I’ve been painting with too broad a brush. I’ve dismissed Evolution out of hand, without differentiating between the micro and the macro. I apologize for that, and I’ll soften my approach.
When considering microevolution, I can allow for limited changes in the genome due to natural processes, which may be expressed in the morphology. Natural selection as a vehicle,in that case, may be worth considering.
However, I still hold that speciation is not a natural process, but a supernatural one. Which of course is opinion, and is on par with the evolutionist opinion of speciation through natural selection.
“I already have, but you lack the modesty to acknowledge it.”
See above.
Seems we have a mutual admiration society going on here.
Thanks for the link to your research. I’ll have to study it, as I’m out of my depth in your area of specialization. I’ll be in touch.
Ken Miller 01.26.05 at 9:12 pm
“You don’t know that the official Catholic church position is that evolution is true? Wow. Shouldn’t you actually know something about Christianity before you presume to tell us what is and what is not compatible with it? Or is your own narrow conception the only valid form?”
Walt, what you are refering to are the social and political positions that the Catholic church officially holds.
What I’ve tried to articulate is what I see expressed in scripture. Of course, not everyone holds scripture in the same regard, so you may see just about any position taken in the name of Christianity.
For example, in the Catholic church, the spoken word of the Pope trumps scripture. I don’t happen to agree with that, but it happens.
Of course, you’ve examined the relevant scriptures to form your own opinion?
sigh 01.26.05 at 9:30 pm
Ken: I suspect that each of us will end up with different conclusions from that data – by your invoking evolution as the causative agent, and by my invoking the occurance of special creation. One opinion against the other.
John: Dead wrong, and spoken like a true pseudoscientist, dedicated to bearing false witness—
Ken: You may not agree, but does that call for name calling?
Is it really “name calling”? The assertion that scientific method is “just one opinion” not only misrepresents science but accuses scientists, who claim otherwise, of operating in bad faith. This is the fundamental issue. Homology trees are not going to make any sense to a person who does not understand this issue.
If you do not agree at least that the data are organized, and were derived, according to conceptual structures that are something other than mere opinion (i.e. the theoretical background of the experiment) then of course when it comes to examining the data you can always make up an alternative opinion right on the spot to counter anything you don’t like.
“This is all very well and good, Doctor, but have you considered the possibility that the enzymes have been manipulated by leprechauns? No? Do you mean your experiment does not rule out the possibility? Astonishing! I’m afraid you have very little credibility, Doctor! No, I don’t believe in leprechauns personally but I’m just making the point that –”
This won’t accomplish anything. And I hope it’s clear that while the example of leprechauns is of course somewhat fanciful, any “interpretation of the data” that is not based on understanding and agreement ahead of time about what constitutes science, and makes science separate from mere opinion, might as well invoke leprechauns.
Ken again: I marvel at the mere existence of such a structure in nature. I’m surprised that you don’t, unless you’ve become too familiar and desensitized to what’s before you.
Has anybody here even so much as hinted that they do not marvel, or that they are too familiar and desensitized to care about the wonder of life? Again, you appear to start with the hidden assumption that all scientists are working in bad faith. How is it possible for anyone to engage in conversation with such a position? And how is this rhetorical strategy supposed to be effective witness for the good name of Jesus Christ?
sigh 01.26.05 at 9:54 pm
Oh, dear. Let’s just cut to the chase, shall we?
Ken: What I’ve tried to articulate is what I see expressed in scripture. Of course, not everyone holds scripture in the same regard, so you may see just about any position taken in the name of Christianity.
Crystal clear. For example, even though the Papists claim to be Christian, they worship idols! So something is obviously wrong there.
In fact, no person or group of people, or historical event, or anything human, could be considered representative of Christianity in any way, since we all fall short of the glory.
No, if you want to talk about Christianity, you must go straight to the scriptures.
Which are easy to understand.
Unless your mind is clouded by selfishness.
Okay … so how can we tell if a person’s mind is clouded by selfishness? Well, if they refuse to publicly acknowledge God. That’s pretty much the only heuristic we have to work with. After all, why would anybody refuse to make public pronouncements about how fabulous God is, unless they were selfish? (And therefore they won’t be able to understand the scriptures, whose meaning is otherwise perfectly obvious, and therefore …)
Ken: Of course, you’ve examined the relevant scriptures to form your own opinion?
I can’t speak for anyone else here, but I have. Here’s one of my favorite verses, Matthew chapter 6, verse 5:
“And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.”
Uncle Kvetch 01.26.05 at 10:29 pm
I enjoy reading stuff about historical linguistics–i.e., how languages change and, um, “evolve” over time. Historical linguists have developed quite a range of theories that seek to explain the processes involved. But I guess in Ken’s view these theories, being, after all, “just theories,” should be treated on an equal footing with the story of the Tower of Babel, which offers an equally plausible explanation for linguistic change.
John 01.27.05 at 12:52 am
Ken, true to form, wrote:
“John, naturally you would be looking for data consistent with your premise.”
You just broke that ol’ Commandment again. I wasn’t looking for data consistent with evolution. I was looking to clone a gene, and did so. The table and figure merely show its mathmatical relationship to other members of the myosin-V family. Your challenge is to explain those data using special creation.
The dishonesty of your eagerness to falsely attribute positions to me is breathtaking, Ken.
“That’s not advancing science. That’s bolstering your position.”
Cloning new genes is advancing science. I had a Nature paper for cloning myosin-Va, and I demolished the hypothesis I offered in that paper in another PNAS paper, proving beyond any doubt that I don’t only look for evidence to bolster my position.
And earlier this year, I demolished another hypothesis that was proposed in an earlier publication that I coauthored.
Your dog won’t hunt, but thanks for showing that you’ll fabricate to bolster your position.
“So what are you suggesting, that the existence of information stored in the form of a biochemical language doesn’t require anything more than basic undirected biochemical reactions?”
The nature of the genome’s language, even new “words” that I brought up earlier, is entirely consistent with evolution and inconsistent with an intelligent, rational designer–even to the point of using evolution’s predictions (homology) to identify previously unknown “words” whose significance is then demonstrated experimentally.
Any of you creationists doing experiments, Ken? You’ve never done an iota of sequence analysis, have you?
“I marvel at the mere existence of such a structure in nature. I’m surprised that you don’t,…”
I do–far more than you–because I spend my days indulging my marveling. You, OTOH, arrogantly pretend to know it all without studying anything.
“… unless you’ve become too familiar and desensitized to what’s before you.”
If you marvel at the structure of the genome, why haven’t you bothered to study it, Ken? Why do you dishonestly pretend to know what you are talking about?
“You may not agree, but does that call for name calling?”
We’re talking about matters of simple fact. I marvel at the complexities of nature, and you simply lied, claiming that I don’t.
I asked: “Where does special creation predict that myosin-Vc will end up?â€
“I realize that I’ve been painting with too broad a brush. I’ve dismissed Evolution out of hand, without differentiating between the micro and the macro.”
ROTFL! It’s irrelevant. The question was about macro, but thanks for bearing false witness yet again.
“When considering microevolution,…”
My question had nothing to do with microevolution. Could you park your arrrogance for even a single question?
“…However, I still hold that speciation is not a natural process, but a supernatural one. ”
My question had nothing to do with speciation. It exposed you as willing to pontificate (regurgitate is more accurate) for paragraphs (bearing false witness yet again) without the most basic understanding of the question I asked.
I’m talking about the evolution of orthologous genes across entire *phyla* and *kingdoms*, not speciation. Don’t worry though–you just made an colossal error of several orders of magnitude while dodging a polite request to use your hypothesis to make a simple prediction, a fundamental scientific practice.
Ken Miller 01.27.05 at 5:27 pm
John,
I concede the discussion to you. I bow to your superior knowledge and training in your area of expertise.
Looking back over our exchange, it seems to me that I pressed a bit too hard on occasion. I appreciate your graciousness to tolerate my excesses. I mean no personal harm to either your honesty or integrity. I certainly harbor no ill will toward you.
I wish you the best of success in your endeavors.
Thank you for the spirited discussion.
adieu, Ken
Ken Miller 01.27.05 at 5:34 pm
Sigh,
Thank you for your comments.
Perhaps another discussion on another day.
Regards, Ken
Ken Miller 01.27.05 at 5:36 pm
Sigh,
Thank you for your comments.
Perhaps another discussion on another day.
Regards, Ken
John 01.28.05 at 9:10 pm
Ken wrote:
“I concede the discussion to you.”
So you are abandoning creationism because it utterly fails to explain the conservation of genetic material across kingdoms and phyla, or just cutting your losses?
“I bow to your superior knowledge and training in your area of expertise.”
Thanks, but neither is the issue. The point is that everything I see, as someone who marvels at the complexities of life, is consistent with natural selection and totally inconsistent with the claims of creationists.
There’s a reason why you weren’t prepared to discuss this subject–creationists ignore it, because their intent is to persuade, not to enlighten.
“Looking back over our exchange, it seems to me that I pressed a bit too hard on occasion.”
That’s putting it mildly. As Sigh noted, your claim that I don’t marvel was deeply insulting, especially when you hadn’t even bothered to look in detail at something (the genome) you claim to marvel at.
Creationism simply isn’t scientific, as you just demonstrated empirically. You simply abandoned the scientific method when challenged, and accused me of “naturally” violating basic scientific ethics.
Here’s another thing to consider: have you ever encountered a designed system that featured *partial* redundance? I haven’t, and this is a major feature of modern biology. I am confident that this will never be addressed by a creationist.
“I appreciate your graciousness to tolerate my excesses.”
I didn’t think that I was gracious in any way.
“I mean no personal harm to either your honesty or integrity.”
But when you wrote, “John, naturally you would be looking for data consistent with your premise,†that was a frontal attack on my professional integrity. Do you even realize that if a scientist does not attempt to falsify his own hypotheses, he is considered incompetent at best? That’s the primary criterion we use in rating grant applications: does the applicant propose a stringent test of a falsifiable hypothesis? That’s why creationists will never be scientists.
Checking this out might help to free your mind from false dichotomies:
http://www.ualberta.ca/~dlamoure/lecture.html
“I wish you the best of success in your endeavors.”
Thanks. I appreciate your concession.
Comments on this entry are closed.