Posted on 08/23/2005 10:39:22 AM PDT by woodb01
I have not argued against common ancestry.
Why you would think non-random integration would destroy the concept of common ancestry is strange.
That does seem reasonable, but not relevant. Darwin Central encourages honesty.
It would be nice if you guys could discuss this issue without making war. Some of us are interested in whether current reasearch does, or does not, support a particular hypothesis, after all, we are talking science here. It's too bad, given the attitude of some members here, that such an informative debate is not likely to happen.
Even were the points of insertion unique, the current pattern (taken over several virial insertion regions) would indicate common ancestry.
Completely off topic, I have a catalog for Argosy University. It has a history of Argosy and the Sarasota campus. There is no mention of any doctoral programs prior to 1981, and no PhD programs at the Florida campus at all. I got the catalog by emailing the information officer. Argosy really only teaches counselling, curriculum development, and business admistration
I have lost track of the thread where this came up.
But if the genes don't fit
Your theory is split.
Thanks for the info. If its' possible, I'd like to have that e-mail address, and ask them directly about Bliss. They may comment, and they may not. It's worth a shot.
Just my opinion that if you walk like a duck.....
I considered that, except for the fact that that would have made the (already flawed) analogy even *more* of a complete departure from a useful comparison to the SCID-X1 study results.
Even though it would still be a poor analogy, one could try to use the analogy of "hitting the same person three times", or "hitting each of a pre-chosen set of three people" or "hitting all members of a set of triplets". (It would be a poor analogy because the SCID-X1 trials actually hit the same region in three *different* blasts of the "machine gun", but at least the "three hits" notion is preserved).
The "three sets of twins", on the other hand, has *NO* meaningful equivalent in the SCID-X1 trials whatsoever -- there's no "triple pairwise" event.
The effect desired is expression of a wild type gene to correct the disease confered by the patient's mutated gene. Ostensibly insertion anywhere that results in expression of the delivered gene is all that is needed.
The side effect in this case is the insertion near LMO2. Retroviruses tend to insert near oncogenes, especially those related to leukemia, such as LMO2.
There definitely are multiple insertions. How many and their randomness is unknown. Only some will effect a cell -- if the insertion is near a gene that contols proliferation, for example, the proximal integration of the virus elements can up regulate that gene compared to a normal cell. This can cause a cancer, or it could actually be benign and perhaps even help to increase the number of cells expressing the therapeutic gene introduced by the vector. In such as case insertion near such a gene can increase the efficacy of the gene therapy treatment.
There's a lot unknown still in the whole broad field, from the basic molecular and cellular biology to the application of it for medical purposes.
I don't disagree.
The initial argument though was based upon the premise that integration was random and propigation was static. Odds of localization in different species were then presented for that scenario as an argument.
But the scenario first explicated is not biologically accurate or relevant.
One can make an argument based on erroneous information and premise for something is is true. That doesn't mean one should.
Randomized integration over species (or over indivudual in a single species or even an individual gamete) is sufficient to indicate common ancestry.
How many of thes insertions were in germ cells that produced children?
That's a huge factor in decreasing the randomness. All of them had to be in germ cells that produced children. Even if the actual integration event in to the chromosome of germ cells were purely random at the molecular level, the selective pressures for propagation of the elements attenuates this randomness.
Insertion of an element in a germ cell in a region that confers faster growth on that germ cell will select for that insertion. That means when observing insertions over evolutionary periods of time, sites of insertion seen will be based on non-random but directed integrative events that confered selective advantage on the cell that gor that insertion. This is true even if the initial insertion/integration event is purely random.
This why we do not have to assume that when 3 of 9 patients in a gene therapy trial have observed insertions in the same region we do not have to conclude that they must be the product of common descent because the odds of insertion in to that site are astronomical.
As itchyboy pointed out, these insertions are selected and amplified. If this insertion was in a germ cell, and in 100 years someone looked at the DNA of these three kid's offspring, would they be correct in assuming that these offspring all had the same progenitor in a prior generation from whom they inherited the insertion?
I'm not sure what you mean, so I can't comment.
I certainly do. Here's the problem once again for the lurkers. Ichemeuon posted a looong post showing what he called transitional fossils showing dinosaurs turning into birds. The problem though is that at least two very prominent avian evolutionary experts disagree with the fossils sequence...and in a signficant way.
VadeRetro et al dismiss this disagreement as not important. They essentially are calling these experts eccentric nut cases. Here is a biography of one of those "nuts" from the university he works at:
Biographical Sketch
Alan Feduccia is S. K. Heninger Professor at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. He is an evolutionary biologist interested in vertebrate evolution, especially the origin of birds from reptiles, the origin of avian flight, and Tertiary adaptive radiation.
Feduccia took his B.S. in Zoology from L.S.U., and Masters and Ph.D. from the University of Michigan. He lectured at Michigan and then taught at S.M.U. for two years before joining the University of North Carolina faculty in 1971. Feduccia's research has taken him on numerous expeditions to Central and South America and Africa. He is the author of more than 125 scientific publications dealing primarily with the evolution of birds and other vertebrates, embryology, comparative morphology, and evolutionary systematics. His publications include some ten books (including editions & translations), and five monographs, including the internationally acclaimed and award-winning, The Age of Birds, Harvard University Press (1980), which appeared in Japanese, German and paperback editions. Reviewer comments included: "a revelation of clarity and synthesis...Feduccia--himself a leading anatomist--has brought together startling new evidence on the reptilian-avian relationship... science writing at its best," and in 1993 the book was termed "definitive" by the New York Times.
His popular books include Catesby's Birds of Colonial America (U.N.C. Press, 1985), and Birds of Colonial Williamsburg (Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, 1989), illustrated with 70 watercolors by famed bird artist Douglas Pratt. His new book The Origin and Evolution of Birds was the lead science book for Yale University Press for the fall of 1996, and winner of the 1996 Scholarly and Professional Publishing Award of the Association of American Publishers. Feduccia has recently published cover articles in Science and Naturwissenschaften, and the former was listed in Discover Magazine's top 50 news stories of 1993, and in Science News' science news of the year.
He has lately been interviewed on numberous radio and television shows, including frequent appareances on National Public Radio, BBC, and Voice of America. He has appeared recently on the Australian television show Quantum, ABCTV (1995), the McNeil/Lehrer Report (1995 and 1997), the Japanese television series "Planet of Life", Japan Broadcasting Corporation (NHK), Science and Technology Satelite News, (February 1996), NBC Radio News, CBS Radio News, NPR Morning Edition, ABC Radio News, Australia (1997), ABC Discovery News (April 1998) and the Discovery Channel's If Dinosaurs Could Fly (February 1998). He is an invitee to "Renaissance Weekend."
Now obviously he is not a nut. So why do Vade and others have to characterize him as such? Well, simply put because there is no way to prove him wrong. Why? Because evolution isn't like math, chemistry, physics or anything else most rational people consider to be science. Evolutionary study dealing with "transitional" fossils is all a matter of opinion. That's right, opinion.
Think about it: if a mathematical experts disagrees with math he isn't given the time of day. You are either right or wrong. Same with physics, biology and chemistry. Our technology operates as it does because all of these disciplines have methods in which the theories can be verified and tested. Fossil study does not. Actually dating the fossils isn't or can't be done with any degree of accuracy. Think about it: if it could be done then there would be no debate about transitionals. None. They could prove that the fossils in question are X number of years old and Dr. Alan Feduccia would have to concede the point. But they can't.
Since they can't prove the age, they have to do the only thing next: call those who disagree nutcases. It's the old Clinton nuts and sluts strategy. Evolutionists who disagree with orthodoxy are called nuts. People who disagree with evolution are called sluts.
That's why these threads get contentious and why they exist. Think about it. If someone came and started a math thread and stated that they didn't believe that 2+2=4 then the thread would quickly die because THERE IS NO DEBATE. It's a fact, easily proven. Evolution isn't like that. Smart people disagree and can disagree and nobody can prove them wrong. Oh they'll yell and scream that all the experts agree and anyone who doesn't agree with the experts is whacked. But ask yourself, why do they bother? If it's so evident there would be no debate. They could state their case and it would be crystal clear, just as 2+2 is to most 4th graders.
Arrrrgggghhhh!
No more! I surrender!
I've been waiting all day in case you reconsidered. I guess I've been waiting in vein.
Or perhaps it's because Feduccia's initial premises are faulty? You might ask what makes up a 'science' before jumping to the conclusion that the study of evolution is not science. You might also investigate quantum physics before assuming all 'physics' are simple, obvious and 'provable'. I assume you are considering 'classic' physics as 'Physics' in your comment, but classic physics has been shown to be lacking in explanatory power, specifically when looking at the atomic world. Once you get to the quantum level, any relationship physics has to the observable and testable becomes tenuous.
"Think about it: if a mathematical experts disagrees with math he isn't given the time of day. You are either right or wrong.
"Same with physics, biology and chemistry. Our technology operates as it does because all of these disciplines have methods in which the theories can be verified and tested.
What makes you believe the biologists practicing in the fields of evolution are any different than other biologists? What makes you believe that evolutionary studies are not submerged in math and physics? The indirect observations used in evolutionary studies are just as testable and verifiable as quantum physics, relativity, astronomy, cosmology and any other science that relies on it.
"Fossil study does not.
This is a strawman version of evolution. Evolution is based on many more studies than just 'fossils' (paleontology). It includes taxonomy, cladistics, geology, geophysics, geography, genomics, chemistry, physics, astronomy, computer science and probably a few I've forgotten about.
"Actually dating the fossils isn't or can't be done with any degree of accuracy. Think about it: if it could be done then there would be no debate about transitionals. None. They could prove that the fossils in question are X number of years old and Dr. Alan Feduccia would have to concede the point. But they can't."
Let's take a look at that statement. Radiometrics can date the rock fossils are found in, accurately to within a specific range of time. How many years 'out' can radiometrics be and still be within 1%? If we go with the oldest age of the Earth of 4,550,000,000 years the range of dates within 1% would be between 4,595,500,000 and 4,504,500,000 years. This is equivalent to being within 9.6 months of determining the age, scientifically/medically, of an 80 year old human simply by examining his body. That sounds pretty accurate to me.
Most of the 'doubt' about transitionals comes from the creationist groups who disregard dating all together. If dating was accurate 'to the day', they would still argue the point. Knowing the exact dates of fossils would not stop Feduccia from contesting the ideas he contests because it would not tell us which fossil is in direct line with any other, it would just tell us which is older. There is no restriction to more than one lineage of dinos having descendants who flew.
"Since they can't prove the age, they have to do the only thing next: call those who disagree nutcases. It's the old Clinton nuts and sluts strategy. Evolutionists who disagree with orthodoxy are called nuts. People who disagree with evolution are called sluts.
Your opinion does not make for a good argument, especially when 'arguments of distraction' are all you use.
It has been suggested to you that Caudipteryx 'devolved' from a flying dinosaur (if birds evolved from dinos, they can still be considered dinos) which you rejected. There really is no such thing as 'devolution' or 'de-evolution' since evolution has no direction and no goal. However there is no set of evolutionary rules that specify that a non-flying dino which has evolved into a flying dino cannot evolve into a non-flying dino once again. There are cases of birds arriving on predator free islands losing their ability to fly within a relatively short period of time.
It is also not necessary that a series of transitional fossils be in direct lineage with one another. As long as the general path of change is shown and verified by analysis of multiple shared diagnostic features it is evidence of the transition. This is much like your mother's cousin who is just as valid a representative of the evolution of 100 generations of your family as you are.
One can only endure so much punishment before giving up....
Bite me!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
