ID: What’s it all about, Darwin?

The American Thinker ^ | August 26th, 2005 | Dennis Sevakis

[wallcrawlr]

My mother says she is a Darwinist. I’m not sure of all the things that could or should imply. I take it to mean the she does not believe that the Cosmos and all that it contains is the result of the will of a Supreme Being. Nature just exists and that is all there is to it. Asking what is the purpose of human existence is a nonsense question. It has no meaning. As we have no conscious origin, we have no conscious destination. Hence no purpose.

This idea is quite troubling to many humans as we are quite reluctant to attach no meaning to the thoughts and desires coursing through the synapses of our brains. And so, for most of human existence, the idea that there was no God was a heresy to be condemned, punished, reviled, tortured and even burned at the stake.

When our social institutions evolved to the point where asking such a question wasn’t as quite as painful or harmful to one’s health, science, in the sense that we use today, began to blossom. And it bloomed because of its explanatory power, its predictive power. If you combine A, B, and C – bingo! – you get D. And no one had ever seen, heard or thought of D before!

One of the best and most widely known examples of this is Einstein’s famous equation, E = mc^2. Exactly what this means is not, for the purposes of this discussion, important. What is important is that this conclusion results from a very simple postulate. Namely, that the speed of light is constant relative to an observer – hence the term “relativity” theory. The other postulate is that we are only dealing with non-accelerated frames of reference. That means constant velocities and no gravitational fields. Hence the term “special” relativity. General relativity, dealing with accelerated frames of reference, is, both conceptually and mathematically, a great deal more abstract and difficult. And, unfortunately, I’m not one of those privy to its secrets.

We still believe, given compliance with the postulates, that the mass-energy equivalence equation is an accurate description of physical reality. For someone with an undergraduate’s knowledge of physics and fair skill with the calculus, it isn’t even very difficult to derive. But that is not the reason for its endurance. Our “faith” in this equation is borne out by innumerable observations, experiments and even a couple of unfortunate events in Japan that took place just about sixty years ago. Though the details of specific processes may, to some extent, still elude us, we have an explanation for the enormous energy levels and extreme duration of the power generated by stars. It was this question that stumped some of the greatest scientific minds of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Einstein’s answer still has no competing theory and it does not leave unanswered questions as to its validity lying about unaddressed.

The same cannot be said of evolutionary theory. There are unanswered questions. Evidence that does not fit. “Facts” that have proven illusive or false. Fabricated evidence. Explanations that are logically incomplete. Jerry-rigged computer models – oops! – sorry, that’s global warming. Result? A competing theory, Intelligent Design or ID, has been proposed as an alternative to Darwin’s rumination. Is this “unscientific” as many wail and gnash in their haste to keep “God” out of science? No. It’s an alternative hypothesis. A competing theory. Not religion. Not superstition. Not a conspiracy by those pesky right-wing, Christian fundamentalist – fundamentalist Christians, if you prefer. A proposed theory. This is how science advances. If one never questions, there are no answers to be had.

If you would like to bone-up on the fundamentals of ID, I suggest that you read Dan Peterson’s piece in the American Spectator, “The Little Engine That Could...Undo Darwinism.” He gives a rundown of the main players in the ID debate along with their academic backgrounds and achievements as well as the main arguments supporting their positions. For an opposing view by a man of science in the field of evolutionary theory, read Jerry Coyne’s offering in the New Republic Online, “The Case Against Intelligent Design.” This was at one time linkable without a subscription as I have a copy saved. But alas, one now seems mandatory.

Based on my brief acquaintance with the subject, there seems to be two fundamental lines of argument used by ID theorists. The first is that which asserts the probability of the complex molecules that form our DNA occurring by chance is infinitesimally small and therefore unlikely to have ever happened by chance. This is the argument put forth by the mathematician and physicist William Dembski.

Michael Behe, who popularized the flagellar motor found in e. coli and other bacterium as an example of intelligent design, is a professor of biochemistry at Lehigh University in Pennsylvania. His arguments are based on the concept of irreducibly complex processes or structures as opposed to those that are cumulatively complex. Those that are irreducibly complex do not lend themselves without great difficulty to explanation by a theory of evolution. For Darwin himself stated that if one could show that a blind, incremental process could not explain a natural phenomenon, his theory would fall apart.

Darwin’s theories are being questioned, but here we are not talking about religious zealots making the inquiry. We’re talking about real, live, grown-up scientists, who, because of our advancing knowledge of the molecular basis of life, and not just bible stories, are asking legitimate and profound questions that are undermining the basis of Darwinism. And they’re not doing so with the desire nor intention of substituting scripture for textbooks. God, as the Jews or Christians or even Muslims perceive Him, is not being offered in place of Darwin.

What is? Good question. I’ll ask my mom. She always had the answers.

[WildTurkey]

Inversion of Genes
This is where the order of a particular order of genes are reversed as seen below



Normal chromosome un-altered
The connection between genes break and the sequence of these genes are reversed
The new sequence may not be viable to produce an organism, depending on which genes are reversed. Advantageous characteristics from this mutation are also possible
Translocation of Genes
This is where information from one of two homologous chromosomes breaks and binds to the other. Usually this sort of mutation is lethal



An un-altered pair of homologous chromosomes
Translocation of genes has resulted in some genes from one of the chromosomes attaching to the opposing chromosome
Alteration of a DNA Sequence
The previous examples of mutation have investigated changes at the chromosome level. The sequence of nucleotides on a DNA sequence are also susceptible to mutation.

Deletion
Here, certain nucleotides are deleted, which affects the coding of proteins that use this DNA sequence. If for example, a gene coded for alanine, with a genetic sequence of C-G-G, and the cytosine nucleotide was deleted, then the alanine amino acid would not be able to be created, and any other amino acids that are supposed to be coded from this DNA sequence will also be unable to be produced because each successive nucleotide after the deleted nucleotide will be out of place.
Insertion
Similar to the effects of deletion, where a nucleotide is inserted into a genetic sequence and therefore alters the chain thereafter. This alteration of a nucleotide sequence is known as frameshift
Inversion
Where a particular nucleotide sequence is reversed, and is not as serious as the above mutations. This is because the nucleotides that have been reversed in order only affect a small portion of the sequence at large
Substitution
A certain nucleotide is replaced with another, which will affect any amino acid to be synthesised from this sequence due to this change. If the gene is essential, i.e. for the coding of haemoglobin then the effects are serious, and organisms in this instance suffer from a condition called sickle cell anaemia.
All of the genetic mutations looked at through the last 2 pages more or less have a negative impact and are undesired, however, in some cases they can prove advantageous.

Genetic mutations increase genetic diversity and therefore have an important part to play. They are also the reason many people inherit diseases.

The next page looks at polyploidy, a type of mutation that effects chromosome content of an organism, and also investigates the frequency of mutations and factors that play a part in this.

[WildTurkey]

Polyploidy
Humans are diploid creatures, meaning for every chromosome in our body, there is another one to match it. Read the following

Haploid creatures have one of each chromosome
Diploid creatures have two of each chromosome
Triploid creatures have three of each chromosome
Polyploid creatures have three or more of each chromosome
They can be represented by n where n equals haploid, 2n equals diploid and so on.
It is possible for a species, particularly plant species, to produce offspring that contains more chromosomes than its parent. This can be a result of non-disjunction, where normally a diploid parent would produce diploid offspring, but in the case of non-disjunction in one of the parents, produces a polyploid.

In the case of triploids, although the creation of particular triploids in species is possible, they cannot reproduce themselves because of the inability to pair homologous chromosomes at meiosis, therefore preventing the formation of gametes.

Polyploidy is responsible for the creation of thousands of species in today's planet, and will continue to do so. It is also responsible for increasing genetic diversity and producing species showing an increase in size, vigour and an increased resistance to disease.

Mutation Frequency
This page and the previous two have investigated the different ways that mutations arise, and the following elaborates on the ways in which mutations are instigated.

Barring all external factors, mutations occur very rarely, and are rarely expressed because many forms of mutation are expressed by a recessive allele.

However there are many mutagenic agents that artificially increase the rate of mutations in an organism. The following are some factors that increase genetic mutations in organisms

Members of species in a particular geographic area or ethnic origin are more susceptible to mutations
High dosages of X-Rays or ultraviolet light can increase the likeliness of a mutation
Radioactive substances increase the rate of mutations exponentially
As mentioned previously, genetic mutations are a source of new variation in a species because it physically alters the sequence of nucleotides in a given sequence, therefore altering the genome in a unique way.

The next pages investigate genetic diversity in more detail, an how certain alleles (perhaps mutations) are favoured over other alleles in natural selection...

[WildTurkey]

In the 19th century, a man called Charles Darwin, a biologist from England, set off on the ship HMS Beagle to investigate species of the island.

After spending time on the islands, he soon developed a theory that would contradict the creation of man and imply that all species derived from common ancestors through a process called natural selection. Natural selection is considered to be the biggest factor resulting in the diversity of species and their genomes. The principles of Darwin's work and his theory are stated below.

The Theory of Natural Selection
One of the prime motives for all species is to reproduce and survive, passing on the genetic information of the species from generation to generation. When species do this they tend to produce more offspring than the environment can support.
The lack of resources to nourish these individuals places pressure on the size of the species population, and the lack of resources means increased competition and as a consequence, some organisms will not survive.
The organisms who die as a consequence of this competition were not totally random, Darwin found that those organisms more suited to their environment were more likely to survive.
This resulted in the well known phrase survival of the fittest, where the organisms most suited to their environment had more chance of survival if the species falls upon hard times. (This phrase if often associated with Darwin, though on closer inspection Herbert Spencer puts the phrase in a more accurate historical context.)
Those organisms who are better suited to their environment exhibit desirable characteristics, which is a consequence of their genome being more suitable to begin with.
This 'weeding out' of less suited organisms and the reward of survival to those better suited led Darwin to deduce that organisms had evolved over time, where the most desirable characteristics of a species are favoured and those organisms who exhibit them survive to pass their genes on.

As a consequence of this, a changing environment would mean different characteristics would be favourable in a changing environment. Darwin believed that organisms had 'evolved' to suit their environments, and occupy an ecological niche where they would be best suited to their environment and therefore have the best chance of survival.

As the above indicates, those alleles of a species that are favoured in the environment will become more frequent in the genomes of the species, due to the organisms higher likeliness of surviving as part of the species at large

Examples of Natural Selection

[WildTurkey]

Darwin's Finches
Darwin's finches are an excellent example of the way in which species' gene pools have adapted in order for long term survival via their offspring. The Darwin's Finches diagram below illustrates the way the finch has adapted to take advantage of feeding in different ecological niche's.



Their beaks have evolved over time to be best suited to their function. For example, the finches who eat grubs have a thin extended beak to poke into holes in the ground and extract the grubs. Finches who eat buds and fruit would be less successful at doing this, while their claw like beaks can grind down their food and thus give them a selective advantage in circumstances where buds are the only real food source for finches.

Industrial Melanism
Polymorphism pertains to the existence of two distinctly different groups of a species that still belong to the same species. Alleles for these organisms over time are governed by the theory of natural selection, and over this time the genetic differences between groups in different environments soon become apparent, as in the case of industrial melanism.

Industrial melanism occurs in a species called the peppered moth, where the occurrence has become of more frequent occurrence since the beginning of the industrial age. The following argument elaborates the basis of principles involved in natural selection as far as industrial melanism is concerned.

Pollution, which is more common in today's world since the industrial age causes a change in environment, particularly in the 1800's when soot would collect on the sides of buildings from chimneys and industries and make them a darker colour.
The resultant effect was that the peppered moth, which had a light appearance was more visible against the darker backgrounds of sooty buildings.
This meant that predators of the peppered moth could find them more easily as they are more visible against a dark background.
Due to mutations, a new strain of peppered moth came to existence, where their phenotype was darker than that of the white peppered moth.
This meant that these new, darker peppered moths were once again harder to track down by their prey in environments where industry has taken its toll.
In this instance, natural selection would favour the darker moths in polluted environments and the whiter moths in the lesser polluted environments due to their ability to merge in with their environmental colours and lessen the chances of them being prone to a predator.
Sickle Cell Trait
Consider this argument of natural selection in the case of sickle cell trait, a genetic defect common in Africa.

Sickle cell trait is a situation that occurs in the presence of a recessive allele coding for haemoglobin, a substance in the blood responsible for the transport of gases like oxygen. The presence of the allele is either partially expressed recessively (sickle cell), or fully expressed by a complete recessive expression which results in full blown anaemia. If this particular allele is dominant, no sickle cell trait is expressed in the phenotype.
The above occurrences in the case of a recessive allele result in structural defects of red blood cells, severely reducing the organisms capacity to uptake oxygen.
It was pointed out that in Africa, there is a high frequency of this mutation, where cases of malaria were high.
A substantiated link was made noting those who suffer sickle cell trait or anaemia were immune to the effects of malaria.
This is yet again natural selection at work. Although sickle cell trait or anaemia are not advantageous characteristics on their own, they prove to be advantageous in areas where malaria proves to be a greater threat to preserving the genome (i.e. surviving).
The incomplete dominance of this genetic expression proves favourable either way.
This is how science has understood natural selection since the first studies involving Darwin. In the 21st century, humans selectively breed species to create hybrid species possessing the best genes of both parents via a process known as selective breeding.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Now, you are welcome to defend a creation theory/story if you choose - but should science set out to disprove all telic possibilities with stories that “must” be natural regardless of the findings?"

Science can ONLY deal with natural causes. Supernatural causation can never be part of a scientific theory. You say *regardless of the findings*, but there have been NO findings that support supernatural causes.

"Dr. David R. Liu, a professor of chemistry and chemical biology at Harvard seems to think that the purpose of science is to create stories/theories in regard to the origin of life that – well, as he says, ‘’my expectation is that we will be able to reduce this to a very simple series of logical events that could have taken place with no divine intervention.”

This is the way EVERY theory in science works, without exception. Why single out Dr. Liu for starting from the same point that all science starts from?

"Myth 1: The theory of intelligent design is a modern version of Creationism.
Fact: The theory of intelligent design goes back at least as far as classical Greece and it has been debated in nearly every century since then."

It's just a very OLD version of creationism. I'm not sure who says it is modern.

"As for the idea that science could lead to atheism, Newton dismissed it brusquely: "Blind metaphysical necessity, which is certainly the same always and everywhere, could [not] produce [the] variety of things" found on our diverse and ever-surprising world…"

Yet his theories assumed no supernatural causes. That he was a creationist just means he believed as most everybody did before Darwin. He was also a Unitarian who denied the divinity of Christ; should Christians look to him for theological arguments just because he was a scientific genius?

[WildTurkey]

Are cats for true Christians?
Is it appropriate for a Christian to own a cat, in light of their past pagan religious affiliation and the medical information that is now coming to light? -J.R., U.S.A.
It would be misleading to answer this question with either a simple 'Yes' or a 'No.' The Scriptural answer of necessity must be a 'qualified' one, and it is easy to see why. Many conscientious ones among Jehovah's people today have wondered if Christians should own cats in view of their somewhat sordid symbolic history and the many health risks associated therewith. While we would not wish to state an opinion on what must remain a matter of personal preference, what is acceptable to one person may, although unintentionally, stumble another. This can become a life-or-death issue since to move the steps of a brother away from the path of Christ's ransom sacrifice is tantamount to 'putting a millstone around the neck and being thrown into the sea.' -Matt. 18:6. Clearly, in a matter where our eternal salvation is involved, the mature Christian will not pursue a purely selfish course based on his own personal choices, but will adopt a congregational viewpoint as scripturally prescribed.

First, let us consider what most scholars agree is the etymology (word derivation) for the English term 'cat'. When analyzed with the Latin 'felis cattus domesticus', the original Koine Greek is 'cur.io huma bes-tia', means 'a contemporary housecat with all of its beastly identifying characteristics and behavior.' A faithful servant of Jehovah would quickly notice that the nature of a cat is so marked as being 'beastly'. The Bible makes clear reference to this condition when describing parts of Satan's organizations, both past and present. For instance, consider the fearsome 'beasts' as described in the book of Daniel or the 'scarlet colored wild beast' in Rev. 17:3. The demons entered the swine when rebuked by Jesus showing the potential harm and malevolent spirit control to which a Christian may be potentially exposed. Lest we forget the story of Nebuchadnezzar and the condition of God's enemy when being humbled by Jehovah, the student of God's Holy word would ask - is it by accident that the Bible in the book of Daniel describes his experience as a 'beast' of the field? Hardly so!

Clearly, the Bible - by using this kind of terminology - shows beyond any reasonable doubt that the basic nature of cats, while created perfect by God, has become evil or 'beastlike' since the fall of Adam six thousand years ago, and more probably, since the Great Flood of Noah's time (c2350 B.C.E.). This is a development of the condition borne by the 'Original Serpent', the 'Great Dragon' Lucifer himself. (Gen. 3:1) Indeed, modern studies of classification of cats, while not necessarily being reliable as they may be based on the discredited 'theory' of evolution, strongly associate felines with serpents (despite some external differences in physiology and morphology, which confuse those who do not study these matters deeply).

There are numerous reasons why a loyal dedicated servant of God should use his Bible-trained conscience to arrive at a proper understanding of why cats are not advisable as pets or companions for Christians. Consider, then, the following facts:

It was a common practice in ancient Egypt to worship or idolize cats as 'gods'. Indeed, after death many cats were mummified, venerated and sacrifices were made to them. As Christians we observe not only the Mosaic Law, but also the 'necessary things,' identified by the Apostles at Jerusalem, to include the following edict: '(1) Abstain from sacrifices to idols'. We are to 'guard ourselves from idols' and 'worship no other gods'. Such feline influence could lead to idolatry and thereby 'grieve Jehovah's Spirit' with tragic consequences. May we never take for granted Jehovah's wise and generous counsel brought to you by your spiritual brothers in the pages of this magazine!

The Bible does not say that cats were not present at Herod's birthday party when John the Baptist was beheaded. History shows that cats were most likely present at this tragic party that Jehovah did not approve of. Clearly then, as loyal Christians, why would we even want to associate with animals that are without a doubt of such bad influence, remembering how true are the Bible's words: 'Bad associations spoil useful habits'! -1 Cor. 15:33. Some have exposed themselves to possible spiritual contamination in this way. To invite cats in our house is to toy with disaster. Can one deny that the chance exists that the same grave consequences could visit your home that fell upon John? Clearly, God disapproved of this 'birthday' party. Should we not then disapprove (without showing any malicious intent, only Godly hatred) of cats the way the scriptures recommend?

Throughout history, particularly in the middle ages and reaching its climax in the Salem Witch trials of the seventeenth century, cats were recognized by the forces of Christendom as familiars and carriers if not direct incarnates of demons. While, in common with most beliefs of the empire of false religion, no evidence has ever been found to support this, the symbolism of cats still remain within the public psyche, and involvement with them reflects poorly on God's footstools and footstep followers. Many pagan faiths still conclude that black cats bring ill-luck and possess demonic forces, while we have shown that it is, instead, all cats that share these perceived characteristics. Since cats were associated with the devil, could we as faithful and dedicated servants of God therefore contaminate ourselves by exposure to a 'living symbol' of satanic incarnation? How would this reflect on God's name and that of his visible, earthly organization? Would we want to be linked with a symbol of Satan, the 'god of this beastly system of things'?

The careful student of the Bible will acknowledge that nowhere within it is any species ('kind') of cat referred to in favorable terms. In fact, was it not lions of the first century who the Devil used to devour faithful Christians? Jehovah Himself 'stopped up the mouths of the lions' (Dan. 6:22) in Daniel's day. True, the small housecats of today are not quite lions, but being of the same accursed animal family used by God's enemies on numerous occasions throughout history, would it be wise or prudent to own one? In addition, by owing any type of cat (feline), would we not give an appearance of condoning their evil deeds throughout recorded Bible and secular history? The Bible makes clear that God's people are 'no part of this world' (John 15:19) and that we are 'not to share in the sins of others', consume lecithin within nutritive cereal or 'candy' bars, or do other things directly banned in Holy Scripture.

The demeanor of a cat is seen by many honest-hearted observers as reflecting some supernatural, unnatural proclivity towards malice or evil. And, it is a well-known fact that cats are impossible to tame, teach or raise in the truth. The cat has a rebellious, independent spirit. While the animal itself may be unaware of this tragic condition, it serves only its true master - Satan, the Devil.

The scriptures clearly indicate that neither Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, faithful Job, the Apostles, Jesus nor any other human bearing God's favor himself owned a cat. Should we simply assume that this is a mere coincidence? Surely not! This was most likely because they didn't want to be like the pagan contemporaries of their respective days who showed no regard for how God feels about owning a cat. In harmony with the pattern set by the faithful prophets and worthies of old, it would therefore not be fitting for the true Christian today to own a cat.

But, the most modern scientific evidence also supports the Biblical view. Contrary to popular beliefs among worldly people, cats are unhygienic animals. Recently the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) announced that 'Cats .. can shed Salmonella in their feces, which can spread the bacterial infection to humans'. Salmonella (salmonella typhimurium) creates a condition of 'week-long diarrhea, abdominal cramps and in some instances, hospitalization.' Would we be showing the proper respect to our life, Creator and to our 'neighbor' by exposing ourselves and others to this potentially deadly disease? Would this be seen by your brothers, and by those showing an interest in God's word, as giving a good witness?

Additionally, cats practice many unclean habits not befitting a Christian household: coughing up fur balls, licking inappropriate body areas on their own bodies (inappropriate handling) and even, in some cases, on the bodies of their human owners (wrongful motive?), urination on the floor, vocal and blatant promiscuity (unknown to any other species, all others being endowed with Godly chastity and decorum) and widespread sexual misconduct without the benefit or sanctity of holy matrimony, even orgiastic practices, substance abuse of catnip (an intoxicating herb) which produces conditions akin to drunkenness, stealing food from the table, producing ungodly sounds, excessive playfulness and the employment of devices not known to have been used by Jesus, the conducting of its unholy business under the cover of the darkness of night, and so on. What sort of example does this give our young ones endeavoring to faithfully serve Jehovah? The Bible clearly shows that 'neither fornicators .. nor thieves .. nor drunkards .. nor revilers .. will inherit the Kingdom.' (1 Cor. 6:9-11)

It must not be forgotten that the feline is a killer. It eats mice and their kind, which is forbidden to Christians and their pets (Lev. 11:29, Isa. 66:17). But, far more serious, is the matter of the wanton consumption of the undrained corpses of the victims of this nocturnal creature; eating bodies filled with God's sacred blood is not a matter to be trifled with (Gen. 9:3,4; Lev. 3:17; Deut. 12:16,23,24; Acts 15:20,28,29). In an earlier article in The Watchtower, we have shown that it would be improper for a Christian to permit a veterinarian to give blood transfusions to his pet, for animal feed known to contain blood to be served to a pet or a farm animal under one's jurisdiction, or to employ any fertilizer that is known to have blood in it (w64 2/15 127-8). By allowing one's cat to roam uncontrolled, the Christian becomes a willing party to, even a conspirator within, this serious breach of God's law of life.

In addition, the Apostle Paul admonishes us to 'quit mixing in company .. not even eating with such an unclean [one].' -1 Cor. 5:9-11; Mark 2:13-17. Although Paul was speaking primarily about Christians who fell into sin, there is no reason to conclude that this inspired Biblical principle cannot be applied to association with cats. Uncleanness in any form is condemned by Jehovah and the fact that the Apostle Paul made no distinction when it came to associating with housecats proves beyond a doubt to the right-thinking worshiper of Jehovah that loyal Christians must avoid all association with all sources of uncleanness. This would logically include animals that either harbor these tendencies or indulge in such practices.

Of course, while demonstrating one's obedience to God's lovingly-issued commandments, one must do so without any spirit of meanness or ill-will towards these Satanic creatures, though they represent God's enemies. Instead, mature Christians 'feel a loathing' toward those, including cats, who have voluntarily or otherwise made themselves God's enemies, and they leave it to Jehovah to execute vengeance. -Job 13:16; Romans 12:19; 2 John 9,10.

Are we not grateful for this insight on God's viewpoint regarding such matters? True worshipers follow closely God's mandates on cleanness to their eternal benefit! Sister N.K. from Virginia, U.S.A. tells us that since getting rid of her cat, she has not had to be preoccupied with cleaning the litter box or wasting valuable time better spent pursuing kingdom interests with the burden of purchasing cat food. This has allowed her to become a full-time pioneer; she finds that it is now easier to meet her allotted hours in field service. Godwin, a brother from Sierra Leone, puts it this way: 'I'm so grateful that God's organization is kept clean! It has freed me from the burden of owning a cat and all the spiritual pitfalls and financial commitments that go with it. I hope all the brothers will realize how the Devil subtly uses cats to corrupt and distract us from the disciple-making work.' (Matt. 24:14). What fine examples of faithfulness!

The question of how to dispose of one's unwanted cat is a serious matter. Would it be proper to hand over such a creature of Satan to a person of the world? We see no immediate problem with this, as such a person is already immersed in the wicked ways of this system of things, and so a beastly companion would be a fitting one indeed. They could accompany eachother on the road to destruction, through ignoring God's generous gift of life proffered via His spirit-begotten earthly organization. It is on this same sound principle that a Christian doctor would have no reason to deny blood transfusions to a worldly patient. If, on the other hand, one took the view stated on page 128 of the abovementioned Watchtower, and consider that the pet or any other animal is under the ultimate jurisdiction of a Christian, who therefore bears responsibilities (Eccl. 12:13,14; Jas. 4:17, 1 Pet. 3:21) that are essentially parental in nature. The cat is a dependant. In harmony with this, surely it is the parent's obligation before God to ensure the feline pet is treated as one would an unruly child who repeatedly refused to obey its parents, or of one who committed apostasy. Unfortunately in the case of human offspring, one is limited by the laws of the higher authorities of the land as to what scripturally-ordained punishment may be meted out, as compliance with both sets of laws is necessary in such areas. This may not always be the case in terms of felines, where the fact that we are not living in theocratic countries may not prove such an impediment to what God requires of us, as manmade law may not afford such unmerited protection to cats as it does to humans. God's soldiers would be mindful to apply, where the case merited it and local custom did not prohibit it, the principle of Deut. 21:18-21 which states that: 'In case a man happens to have a [dependant] who is stubborn and rebellious, he not listening to the voice of his [guardian], and they have corrected him but he will not listen to them, his [guardian] must also take hold of him and bring him out to the older men of his city and to the gate of his place, and they must say to the older men of his city, 'This [dependant] of ours is stubborn and rebellious; he is not listening to our voice, being a glutton and a drunkard.' Then all the men of his city must pelt him with stones, and he must die.' The mature follower of Jehovah will do well to be reminded of God's advice in page 503 of The Watchtower of November 15, 1952 where it was held that 'In the case where a father or mother or son or daughter is disfellowshiped, how should such person be treated by members of the family in their family relationship? .. We are not living today among theocratic nations where such members of our fleshly family relationship could be exterminated for apostasy from God and his theocratic organization, as was possible and was ordered in the nation of Israel in the wilderness of Sinai and in the land of Palestine. 'Thou shalt surely kill him; thy hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people. And thou shalt stone him to death with stones, because he hath sought to draw thee away from Jehovah thy God, .. And all Israel shall hear, and fear, and shall do no more any such wickedness as this is in the midst of thee.' -Deut. 13:6-11, AS.' Of course, we can take no legal responsibility for anything which results from your voluntary application of your interpretation of such Biblical principles as you may believe that we have brought to your attention.

As loyal followers of Jehovah's thinking on this matter, we can rejoice in the fact that in the new system, the incoming theocracy and World Order, the 'lion will lie down with the lamb' -Isa. 11:6-7. Yes, when Satan is finally abyssed, the 'beastly' nature of felines will be forever abolished, and they will be fit companions for humans on Paradise Earth! But until that rapidly-approaching time, God will reward all of our efforts to maintain integrity by loyally submitting to the leading of his spirit expressed through the loving guidance of the 'faithful and discreet slave'. -Matt. 24:45-47

[js1138]

Heres an abstract from an actual article proposing steps in the evolution of the flagellum. this is just a summary, but it has a distinct lack of vagueness. If you insist, I will feel challenged to post the entire article.

4. Conclusions

The detailed evolutionary model described above is summarized in Figure 7.  The role that various evolutionary processes played in the model can now be roughly quantified.  Only one major shift of function occurred at the system level, the transition from a pilus to a protoflagellum.  All of the other changes in system function can be seen as minor modifications of a basic function; if these are enumerated (export --> secretion --> adhesion --> pilus, and dispersal --> taxis), then four minor shifts of function occurred. In all cases a “shift” in function is actually more accurately described as an addition of function at the system level, as previous functions are maintained.  At the level of subsystems (consisting of two or more proteins), the cooption events can be tabulated: subsystem cooption was invoked for the origin of the core export apparatus, outer membrane secretin (proto-FlgI) and lipoprotein chaperone (proto-FlgH), the adhesin ancestral to the axial protein family, the motor complex, and the chemotaxis/switch complex, for a total of five subsystem cooption events.  In each of these cases, cooption occurred by the mutation of one protein to link two preexisting systems (Figure 7), followed by the duplication and integration of the new subsystem proteins into the major system. Except for the major transition between pilus and motility, subsystem cooption was associated with improvements of system function rather than major changes in system function.  At the gene level, duplication events within the core system were invoked 11 times for origin of 12 axial proteins from one, and an additional time for the divergence of FliN and FliM.  None of these events requires postulating functional shift at the subsystem or system levels.  Addition of a new domain with novel functionality was identified twice (FliN+CheC --> FliM, rod cap+muramidase --> FlgJ), although it probably occurred in additional instances where homologies are currently more vague.  It appears that loss of a component is only a possibility for the outer membrane secretin of the primitive type III secretion system, although if this became FlgI then no component loss events are necessary. This is the case even though some components that are ancient on the model (e.g., FliH) are apparently not absolutely required in modern flagella (Minamino et al., 2003).  All other changes at all levels were matters of gradual improvement of function, i.e. optimization and co-adaptation of components. Even at this early stage of development, the model gives decent estimate of the relative importance of various evolutionary processes involved in the origin of complex biochemical systems.

Figure 7: Summary of the evolutionary model for the origin of the flagellum, showing the six major stages and key intermediates.  White components have identified or reasonably probable nonflagellar homologs; grey components have either suggested but unsupported homologs, or no specific identified homologs, although ancestral functions can be postulated.  The model begins with a passive, somewhat general inner membrane pore (1a) that is converted to a more substrate-specific pore (1b) by binding of proto-FlhA and/or FlhB to FliF. Interaction of an F₁F₀-ATP synthetase with FlhA/B produces an active transporter, a primitive type III export apparatus (1c).  Addition of a secretin which associates with the cytoplasmic ring converts this to a type III secretion system (2).  A mutated secretion substrate becomes a secreted adhesin (or alternatively an adhesin is coopted by transposition of the secretion recognition sequence), and a later mutation lets it bind to the outer side of the secretin (3a).  Oligomerization of the adhesin produces a pentameric ring, allowing more surface adhesins without blocking other secretion substrates (3b). Polymerization of this ring produces a tube, a primitive type III pilus (4a; in the diagram, a white axial structure is substituted for the individual pilin subunits; all further axial proteins are descended from this common pilin ancestor).  Oligomerization of a pilin produces the cap, increasing assembly speed and efficiency (4b).  A duplicate pilin that loses its outer domains becomes the proto-rod protein, extending down through the secretin and strengthening pilus attachment by association with the base (4c).  Further duplications of the proto-rod, filament, and cap proteins, occurring before and after the origin of the flagellum (6) produce the rest of the axial proteins; these repeated subfunctionalization events are not shown here.  The protoflagellum (5a) is produced by cooption of TolQR homologs from a Tol-Pal-like system; perhaps a portion of a TolA homolog bound to FliF to produce proto-FliG.  In order to improve rotation, the secretin loses its binding sites to the axial filament, becoming the proto-P-ring, and the role of outer membrane pore is taken over by the secretin’s lipoprotein chaperone ring, which becomes the proto-L-ring (5b).  Perfection of the L-ring and addition of the rod cap FlgJ muramidase domain (which removes the necessity of finding a natural gap in the cell wall) results in 5c. Finally, binding of a mutant proto-FliN (probably a CheC receptor) to FliG couples the signal transduction system to the protoflagellum, producing a chemotactic flagellum (6); fusion of proto-FliN and CheC produces FliM.  Each stage would obviously be followed by gradual coevolutionary optimization of component interactions.  The origin of the flagellum is thus reduced to a series of mutationally plausible steps.

Even the present extended treatment has left out detailed discussion of the origin of the chemotaxis and regulatory proteins listed in Table 2.  However, many of these proteins have homologs functional in different systems, and the chaperones of axial proteins might have originated by duplication in a fashion similar to the axial proteins themselves. The evolution of the organization of flagellar genes and operons also deserves attention, although the precise organization found in modern bacteria is probably not essential (Kalir et al., 2001).

[Heartlander]

Darwin’s finches

It is basically a conflict of worldviews and fundamentalism exists on both sides of the issue – a worldview with teleology and a worldview void of teleology in science.

How does naturalism help the conservative cause? Currently science lacks a solid explanation for the origin of life. In fact, there are some who say chance and necessity do not explain the origin of life and people should consider the implications. If life does not arise from purely (mindless) natural means than are we to assume everything else did due to common descent? What if the selfish-gene hypothesis was question by ‘new’ scientists? What if the social implications of Darwinism were found lacking?

Bottom line: ‘Current science’ states the universe and human consciousness comes from mindless mechanisms. ID states consciousness does not come from mindlessness – this means mindlessness is not the originating source of our material consciousness and our consciousness is not a byproduct of mindless mechanisms. Our Morality is not a relative happenstance that changes with the wind.

Consider the current phylogenic software, you could throw random data into it and it would still form a tree. Why? Obviously because it is designed to create a tree and it will always create a tree because that is the preprogrammed goal but the trees will appear different. Now the initial assumption in the software is common descent and via random data a whale could be descended from a bat - And why not? This could solve the whole; sonar, tail, nose, and fin issues. (And yes, I am familiar with the current whale evolution paradigm so there is no need for anyone to post it) The point is that if this information was published in favor of Darwin’s common descent people would defend it because of a preprogrammed adherence to common descent – if a different story came out next year with “bear to whale” data that supported common descent, it would be defended as well as long as it was based on common descent… (Do we see an obvious preprogrammed pattern? – LOL) But than anyone can make these predictions within evolutionary science - It’s science made easy by naturalism

[js1138]

Is the Design Theory, in your opinion, a theory that has been disproved?

Design cannot be proved or disproved. What has been disproved is Behe's formulation of Irreducible Complexity. Even Behe has backtracked to the point of a quantum dot on this. There isn't much left of the concept.

[Heartlander]

…Suppose I were a super-genius molecular biologist, and I invented some hitherto unknown molecular machine, far more complicated and marvelous than the bacterial flagellum. Suppose further I inserted this machine into a bacterium, set this genetically modified organism free, allowed it to reproduce in the wild, and destroyed all evidence of my having created the molecular machine. Suppose, for instance, the machine is a stinger that injects other bacteria and explodes them by rapidly pumping them up with some gas (I'm not familiar with any such molecular machine in the wild), thereby allowing the bacteria endowed with my invention to consume their unfortunate prey…

Now let's ask the question, If a Darwinist came upon this bacterium with the novel molecular machine in the wild, would that machine be attributed to design or to natural selection? When I presented this example to David Sloan Wilson at a conference at MIT two years ago, he shrugged it off and remarked that natural selection created us and so by extension also created my novel molecular machine. But of course this argument won't wash since the issue is whether natural selection could indeed create us. What's more, if Darwinists came upon my invention of a novel molecular machine inserted into a bacterium that allows it to feed on other bacteria, they wouldn't look to design but would reflexively turn to natural selection. But, if we go with the story, I designed the bacterial stinger and natural selection had nothing to do with it. Moreover, intelligent design would confirm the stinger's design whereas Darwinism never could. It follows that a design-theoretic framework could account for biological facts that would forever remain invisible within a Darwinian framework. It seems to me that this possibility constitutes a joint test of Darwinism and intelligent design that strongly supports intelligent design -- if not as the truth then certainly as a live possible theoretical option that must not be precluded for a priori philosophical reasons like naturalism…
-William Dembski

[Heartlander]

DAWKINS: (snip)"…But yet we have this gathering together of genes into individual organisms. And that reminds me of the illusion of one mind, when actually there are lots of little mindlets in there, and the illusion of the soul of the white ant in the termite mound, where you have lots of little entities all pulling together to create an illusion of one. Am I right to think that the feeling that I have that I'm a single entity, who makes decisions, and loves and hates and has political views and things, that this is a kind of illusion that has come about because Darwinian selection found it expedient to create that illusion of unitariness rather than let us be a kind of society of mind?" <

PINKER: "It's a very interesting question. Yes, there is a sense in which the whole brain has interests in common in the way that say a whole body composed of genes with their own selfish motives has a single agenda. In the case of the genes the fact that their fates all depend on the survival of the body forces them to cooperate. In the case of the different parts of the brain, the fact that the brain ultimately controls a body that has to be in one place at one time may impose the need for some kind of circuit, presumably in the frontal lobes, that coordinates the different agendas of the different parts of the brain to ensure that the whole body goes in one direction. In How the Mind Works I alluded to a scene in the comedy movie All of Me in which Lily Tomlin's soul inhabits the left half of Steve Martin's body and he takes a few steps in one direction under his own control and then lurches in another direction with his pinkie extended while under the control of Lily Tomlin's spirit. That is what would happen if you had nothing but completely autonomous modules of the brain, each with its own goal. Since the body has to be in one place at one time, there might be a circuit that suppresses the conflicting motives…"(end snip)

Are mindlets true for scientists?

[WildTurkey]

Bottom line: ‘Current science’ states the universe and human consciousness comes from mindless mechanisms.

Where did you read that?

[Heartlander]

Where is the peer-reviewed article disproving Behe’s theory?

[Heartlander]

Show me a peer-reviewed article that states otherwise… Or could state otherwise…

[js1138]

Your basic problem with theDembski challenge is that it is utterly impossible to probe the origin of a design by looking at it.

This isn't what ID is about. ID proposes to prove that a design could NOT have come about through a series of small, functional steps. Such a proof is silly to contemplate, and in fact, it will always paint itself into a corner, as it has with blood-clotting and the flagellum.

[js1138]

All that's necessary to disprove Behe is to list a series of possible small steps that can lead to his irreducibly complex structure. It helps the argument if, as is the case, all of the intermediate steps actually exist in currently living organisms.

I gave you and article and link. Don't pretend I didn't.

[Gumlegs]

You don't call naziism and communism being led away from God?

No.

[WildTurkey]

Show me a peer-reviewed article that states otherwise… Or could state otherwise…

You make an unsupported statement and I ask you to support it and you do not even attempt to support it. Case closed. You lied.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

And if that bacterial stinger in your Dembski quote evolved through natural selection, Dembski would assume it was intelligently designed. ID *theorists* see intelligent design in everything; everything can be intelligent design. Yet they have not ONCE shown evidence for this designer. There is no reason to a priori assume a designer, and science demands that all causes be natural and material. ID can never be a scientific theory.

[js1138]

Would you consider a review by Dembski adequate? Here's what he said about the content of the article.

Even if the trajectories are continuous, it still remains to be shown that they are Darwinian. I'm entirely comfortable with the evolution of the immune system, for instance. In fact, I'm comfortable with full common descent. My argument, always, is that evolutionary pathways to irreducibly complex systems, even if they exist, are non-Darwinian.

So if Dembski is your standard-bearer, he's comfortable with evolution and common descent, as long as the source of variation is not stochastic.