math model success repudiates "poofed" design
Kent Paul Dolan
inherited one from earlier ape-family species
ancestors, as science says, but was independently
"poofed" into existence by some (supernatural)
"Designer" as creationism/ID claim, (and similarly
for the genomes/phenotypes of other species) why
does that "magicked" genome produce phenotypical
behaviors that look _just like_ the laws of
mathematics, chemistry, biology, and physics say
they should?
Doesn't being "magical" mean the resulting organisms
should be operating entirely outside of natural law,
and within the "laws of magic"?
"Tumor Growth And Chemo Response May Be
Predicted By Mathematical Model"
[...]
The mathematical model developed by Cristini’s
lab works by defining tumor biologic and
molecular properties relating to laboratory and
clinical observations of cancers. In this model,
the behavior of cancer cells and their
surroundings is linked to tumor growth, shape
and treatment response.
"The central finding of this work is that tumor
growth and invasion are not erratic or
unpredictable, or solely explained through
genomic and molecular events, but rather are
predictable processes obeying biophysical laws,"
the authors wrote in the paper addressing
predictability of tumor growth in brain cancer.
[...]
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/05/090518121004.htm
FWIW
xanthian.
T Pagano
<xant...@well.com> wrote:
>If the design of the human genome is not an
>inherited one from earlier ape-family species
>ancestors, as science says,
This dimwit fails to realize that all he has done here is shifted the
problem of how humans arose to how apes arose. Dolan can no more
produce empirical evidence of which loci in the genome of some
ephemeral common ancestor changed to produce apes than he can for
humans.
>but was independently
>"poofed" into existence by some (supernatural)
>"Designer" as creationism/ID claim,
Interestingly "independent design" (in mature form) is consistent
with "stasis" and "sudden appearance" of the fossil record. Both of
these fossil characteristics are discordant to the neodarwinian claims
of ubiquitous change by purely naturalistic pathways.
There is a whole wing of the atheist-evolutionist church (originally
lead by the late evangelist Gould) who agree that the fossil record is
inconsistent with ubiquitous, gradualistic change espoused by Darwin
and Dawkins.
>(and similarly
>for the genomes/phenotypes of other species) why
>does that "magicked" genome produce phenotypical
>behaviors that look _just like_ the laws of
>mathematics, chemistry, biology, and physics say
>they should?
>
>Doesn't being "magical" mean the resulting organisms
>should be operating entirely outside of natural law,
>and within the "laws of magic"?
Nucleotide sequences themselves are consistent with but NOT required
by any laws of physics or chemistry, they are contingent. It is
rather irrelevent what "phenotypical behaviors" are caused by the
sequences since what is at issue are their "origin" not their effects.
Furthermore once the nucleotide sequences are established in the
genome of some individual the expression of that information is the
result of some highly precise genetic machinery not the laws of
physics and chemistry. Tumors are a result of the a failure of that
machinery.
Why Dolan concludes that his referenced article about predicting tumor
growth has the slightest relevence to the origin of populations (and
the complex specified info in the genome) is beyond me.
>
> "Tumor Growth And Chemo Response May Be
> Predicted By Mathematical Model"
>
> [...]
>
> The mathematical model developed by Cristini’s
> lab works by defining tumor biologic and
> molecular properties relating to laboratory and
> clinical observations of cancers. In this model,
> the behavior of cancer cells and their
> surroundings is linked to tumor growth, shape
> and treatment response.
>
> "The central finding of this work is that tumor
> growth and invasion are not erratic or
> unpredictable, or solely explained through
> genomic and molecular events, but rather are
> predictable processes obeying biophysical laws,"
> the authors wrote in the paper addressing
> predictability of tumor growth in brain cancer.
>
> [...]
>
>
> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/05/090518121004.htm
>
>FWIW
>
>xanthian.
Interesting article.
Nonetheless the investigators in the article generally treated the
unknown tumor mechanisms as a black box. To suggest that any of this
referenced article illuminates how new organs, new systems, new
structures and new species emerged and progressed to maturity by
neoDarwinian means is sign of mental illness at worst or plain
stupidity at best.
Regards,
T Pagano
Ray Martinez
> On Fri, 03 Jul 2009 21:28:07 -0700, Kent Paul Dolan
>
Nominated: POTM
Ray
wf3h
> On Fri, 03 Jul 2009 21:28:07 -0700, Kent Paul Dolan
>
> >If the design of the human genome is not an
> >inherited one from earlier ape-family species
> >ancestors, as science says,
>
> This dimwit fails to realize that all he has done here is shifted the
> problem of how humans arose to how apes arose. Dolan can no more
> produce empirical evidence of which loci in the genome of some
> ephemeral common ancestor changed to produce apes than he can for
> humans.
pagano doesn't understand evolution at all. it is defined as DESCENT
WITH MODIFICATION.
modification is CHANGE. evolution explains CHANGE. creationism can no
more explain change than it can explain why the french love jerry
lewis.
>
> >but was independently
> >"poofed" into existence by some (supernatural)
> >"Designer" as creationism/ID claim,
>
> Interestingly "independent design" (in mature form) is consistent
> with "stasis" and "sudden appearance" of the fossil record.
and it would be compatible with ANY fossil record at all. since a
designer has infinite capacity to do what she wants, no matter WHAT
the fossil record showed, creationists could explain it. evolution
can't which is why it's a scientific theory. it has to be TESTED. and
it has limits. design does not.
>
> There is a whole wing of the atheist-evolutionist church (originally
> lead by the late evangelist Gould) who agree that the fossil record is
> inconsistent with ubiquitous, gradualistic change espoused by Darwin
> and Dawkins.
?? proof? none. seems pagano has heard, 3rd hand, what gould and
eldredge wrote and decided to morph it into somthing neither would
recognize. IOW he knows nothing of those guys either.
creationism does that...makes an inveterate liar out of you.
>
> >Doesn't being "magical" mean the resulting organisms
> >should be operating entirely outside of natural law,
> >and within the "laws of magic"?
>
> Nucleotide sequences themselves are consistent with but NOT required
> by any laws of physics or chemistry, they are contingent. It is
> rather irrelevent what "phenotypical behaviors" are caused by the
> sequences since what is at issue are their "origin" not their effects.
uh...no. what is at issue is how they CHANGE with time. THAT is what
evolution addresses. it's what makes evolution evolution. and it's
what creationism can not explain.
>
> Furthermore once the nucleotide sequences are established in the
> genome of some individual the expression of that information is the
> result of some highly precise genetic machinery not the laws of
> physics and chemistry. Tumors are a result of the a failure of that
> machinery.
chemically pure bullshit. as a chemist, i recognize it as bullshit.
it's ALL chemistry and nothing BUT chemistry. sorry pagano. you
creationsits for 2000 years sat around pushing magic as an explanation
for nature. but pagano is so ignorant he doesnt even know the role of
chemistry when it bites him on the ass....as it just did.
it's astonishing to watch the collapse of logic and mental processes,
caused by religious fanaticism in creationism....astounding.
[M]adman
Seconded: POTM.
Now let's see if these kooks are as fair and unbiased as their web site
claims
>
> Ray
Boikat
This is sort of like to morons studying a pile of crap and proclaiming
it "art" because the turd arrangement looks sort of like a pile of
shit....
Boikat
Chris
Since it has been seconded it will be voted like any other potm
nomination. Are you suggesting it should receive some kind of special
consideration?
Chris
Eric Root
Since Pags babbles about an "atheist-evolutionist church," it might
win in the category "most childishly moronic science-hating screed."
Eric Root
hersheyh
>
> >If the design of the human genome is not an
> >inherited one from earlier ape-family species
> >ancestors, as science says,
>
> This dimwit fails to realize that all he has done here is shifted the
> problem of how humans arose to how apes arose. Dolan can no more
> produce empirical evidence of which loci in the genome of some
> ephemeral common ancestor changed to produce apes than he can for
> humans.
The *real* dimwit would be the person who denies the fact that the
degree of identity in DNA sequences of modern humans and modern chimps
implies a closer genetic relationship than exist for any other two
currently living species. And that the degree of DNA sequence
identity between humans and other modern apes also indicate a less
close genetic relationship.
This is perfectly and logically analogous to the degree of genetic
similarity seen *within* human families implying closer or more
distant familial relationships.
The only remaining questions are 1) whether there is *any* specific
sequence difference between humans and chimps that cannot be
attributed to known natural mechanisms of DNA change and 2) if the
total amount of difference is possible within the time frame given for
divergence of humans and chimps.
> >but was independently
> >"poofed" into existence by some (supernatural)
> >"Designer" as creationism/ID claim,
>
> Interestingly "independent design" (in mature form) is consistent
> with "stasis" and "sudden appearance" of the fossil record.
But, specifically, NOT with a single creation event at a single point
in time. IOW, stasis and sudden appearance (or rather, the
"appearance" of sudden appearance) as observed in the fossil record is
not consistent with the Christian Biblically-based story of Genesis.
It would, instead, require a non-Christian supernatural agent who
poofed specific organisms based on related ancestral organisms into
existence at different times and places throughout a long time.
> Both of
> these fossil characteristics are discordant to the neodarwinian claims
> of ubiquitous change by purely naturalistic pathways.
Not when you realize how rare (over long time frames) fossilization is
for most organisms. And when you realize that many speciation events
would appear invisible in the fossil record. After all, there is more
than one species of hominid that existed between the common ancestor
of chimps and humans and modern humans that show character
intermediacy.
> There is a whole wing of the atheist-evolutionist church (originally
> lead by the late evangelist Gould) who agree that the fossil record is
> inconsistent with ubiquitous, gradualistic change espoused by Darwin
> and Dawkins.
>
> >(and similarly
> >for the genomes/phenotypes of other species) why
> >does that "magicked" genome produce phenotypical
> >behaviors that look _just like_ the laws of
> >mathematics, chemistry, biology, and physics say
> >they should?
>
> >Doesn't being "magical" mean the resulting organisms
> >should be operating entirely outside of natural law,
> >and within the "laws of magic"?
>
> Nucleotide sequences themselves are consistent with but NOT required
> by any laws of physics or chemistry, they are contingent.
The observed pattern of nucleotide sequence differences (both in the
small scale of family relationships within a species and evolutionary
family relationships between species) are consistent with the
explanation of descent with modification precisely because the
observed sequence patterns are contingent upon the ancestral sequences
from which they are derived and differences are largely functionally
neutral.
> It is
> rather irrelevent what "phenotypical behaviors" are caused by the
> sequences since what is at issue are their "origin" not their effects.
Agreed.
> Furthermore once the nucleotide sequences are established in the
> genome of some individual the expression of that information is the
> result of some highly precise genetic machinery not the laws of
> physics and chemistry.
The genetic machinery of all organisms obey the laws of physics and
chemistry. Genetics and the chemistry that constitutes life is
chemistry. Genes are chemicals.
> Tumors are a result of the a failure of that
> machinery.
Often tumors are a result of the chemistry of mutation and repair of
mutation being naturally imperfect.
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank
Tony, isn't it about time for you to run away again . . . . ?
================================================
Lenny Flank
"There are no loose threads in the web of life"
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
http://www.RedandBlackPublishers.com
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank
> Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Jul 4, 10:08 am, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
Wow, the Trifecta of Creationuttery.
Ernest Major
<ceb2d587-f7ba-4707...@b14g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
hersheyh <hers...@yahoo.com> writes
>The *real* dimwit would be the person who denies the fact that the
>degree of identity in DNA sequences of modern humans and modern chimps
>implies a closer genetic relationship than exist for any other two
>currently living species.
I think you've misspoken. You appear to be claiming that humans and
chimpanzees are closer than any other pair of species. That is not true.
(Trivial counterexample - chimpanzees and bonobos.) I'm assume that is
not what you intended.
--
alias Ernest Major
John S. Wilkins
Odd. I read Howard as saying that "chimps" (i.e., both species) are
closer to humans than any other species pair, but you are right that he
could be read differently.
--
John S. Wilkins, Philosophy, University of Sydney
http://evolvingthoughts.net
But al be that he was a philosophre,
Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre
Ernest Major
<jo...@wilkins.id.au> writes
>Ernest Major <{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> In message
>> <ceb2d587-f7ba-4707...@b14g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
>> hersheyh <hers...@yahoo.com> writes
>> >The *real* dimwit would be the person who denies the fact that the
>> >degree of identity in DNA sequences of modern humans and modern chimps
>> >implies a closer genetic relationship than exist for any other two
>> >currently living species.
>>
>> I think you've misspoken. You appear to be claiming that humans and
>> chimpanzees are closer than any other pair of species. That is not true.
>> (Trivial counterexample - chimpanzees and bonobos.) I'm assume that is
>> not what you intended.
>
>Odd. I read Howard as saying that "chimps" (i.e., both species) are
>closer to humans than any other species pair, but you are right that he
>could be read differently.
Presumably he meant something on those lines, but I don't think he
choose the right words.
--
alias Ernest Major
[M]adman
Did I even REMOTELY imply that? No. Of course not.
Your mascara is running drama queen
> Chris
Boikat
Yes, you did. Read your last sentence again, moron. You most
certainly *implied* that if pangy-poo's moronic rant did not recieve
POTM, then the voters are biased, meaning "special treatment".
>
> Your mascara is running drama queen
That would be you, Stinky.
Boikat
Ron O
It could be a mistake. There is a good case to be made that Ray and
adman are not capable of differentiating between Post of the month and
Chez Watt.
Ron Okimoto
hersheyh
> In message
> <ceb2d587-f7ba-4707-ace4-a3d824f5f...@b14g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
> hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com> writes
>
> >The *real* dimwit would be the person who denies the fact that the
> >degree of identity in DNA sequences of modern humans and modern chimps
> >implies a closer genetic relationship than exist for any other two
> >currently living species.
>
> I think you've misspoken. You appear to be claiming that humans and
> chimpanzees are closer than any other pair of species. That is not true.
> (Trivial counterexample - chimpanzees and bonobos.) I'm assume that is
> not what you intended.
I was indeed only thinking about living organisms related to humans.
> --
> alias Ernest Major
r norman
And what living organism is not related to humans ;-)
Mike L
> On Sun, 5 Jul 2009 12:51:40 -0700 (PDT), hersheyh
[...]
>
> >I was indeed only thinking about living organisms related to humans.
>
> And what living organism is not related to humans ;-)
There you raise an important question which has never, to my knowledge
at any rate, been addressed in these pages. Angels, both glorious and
fallen. I don't think Holy Writ gives us any usable information on the
origin of the Bright Seraphim and all the Company of Heaven. There's a
bit more knowledge on the origin of Jinn, of course; but it's still
pretty incomplete.
--
Mike.
hersheyh
[Tries to remove foot from mouth; sticks it in further.]
Ignore that man behind the screen with his foot in the odd position.
Ye Old One
Usenet trolls :)
--
Bob.