Posted on 09/13/2005 4:15:07 AM PDT by PatrickHenry
Certainly chemical (cAMP - fact), and maybe microwave (fact?). I believe it and it has been written in a reputable Internet site. It must therefore be gospel (er, TRUE!!!)
"I presume you know that 16S isn't subject to horizontal transfer. So your point is?"
It isn't?
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=14645285&dopt=Abstract
http://www.ttaxus.com/files/badger2005-hyphophylo.pdf
Likewise, even though 16S is sometimes useful as a tagging mechanism, it hasn't even shown to be phylogenically useful above the genus level in many eukaryotes:
http://www.ttaxus.com/files/badger2005-hyphophylo.pdf
So, it's not even useful for declaring universal common ancestry, because even with the gigantic limitations of the methods, it STILL doesn't produce a workable tree when you go beyond unicellular organisms.
"But we know it happens. We observe it in modern bacteria."
I agreed to this point. The problem is that the existence of horizontal transfer makes it impossible to differentiate gene features that are based on horizontal transfer and gene features that are based on unique origin. You can't tell the difference simply from looking at the features.
This is the problem of modern phylogenics -- the phylogenic methods all assume that universal common ancestry is true, so they don't have cases for saying "this isn't a case of universal common ancestry". I can build a best-fit tree for ANY set of data. This doesn't prove that a tree exists. For one to be able to determine _whether_ a tree exists, I would have to have criteria for which I would say "no tree exists". However, now, with horizontal transfer, you wipe away even common-sense non-trees by simply filling in the problem areas with horizontal transfer.
It is all based on the _assumption_ of universal common ancestry. The only way that it isn't an assumption is with a workable model of abiogenesis, which does not exist.
Theories predict. It is just semantics to call this anthropomorphizing. My point was that Darwin and evolution don't predict specific kinds of behavior. They only predict that populations will change when there is differential reproductive success.
Self-sacrifice in individuals is an observable phenomenon, not an abstract concept. I would assume that mother cats feel good when feeding their babies, but projecting human feelings onto animals is, at best, a risky shortcut to understanding the phenomenon.
Feel good does not equal feel virtuous. there are hormones involved.
Momma cat gets an urge to nurse, she nurses. Abscess or no.
The hurricane f'r instance doesn't work as a comparison to nursing cats.
I'm saying that assuming animals do things because it feels good is perhaps a useful shortcut for pet owners, but it oversimplifies the business of motivation.
Ask a person if they feel good waking up at 3:00 am to feed a baby. Or feel good changing a diaper. Motivations, even in cats, are complex.
For one to be able to determine _whether_ a tree exists, I would have to have criteria for which I would say "no tree exists". However, now, with horizontal transfer, you wipe away even common-sense non-trees by simply filling in the problem areas with horizontal transfer.
You can do a rigorous mathematical analysis of the data, and make a decision on whether a tree exists; such an analysis will be complicated but not rendered invalid by HGT. HGT only gets to be a serious problem when the rate of transfer becomes comparable to the rate of genetic divergence. This isn't true in higher organisms, and it doesn't seem to be true in prokaryotes; after all, even in the second paper you cited, by including more genes (better statistics) in the analysis, they came up with what they claim is a correct taxonomy.
Ultimately, we'll be comparing genomes with genomes, not genes with genes. At that stage, it is possible that HGT will make the analysis of some branches impossible, but so far the indications are that it will not. And in the end, if HGT is such that we can at most trace ancestry to a some finite population of gene-transferring protists, that won't be the body-blow to evolution you hope. The LUCA is more an amusing corollary to evolution than a central dogma.
This is where we obviously disagree. But as another poster pointed out, it appears (at least to a lot of people) that passages about the "Tree of Life" and the "Tree of Knowledge" are just as obviously metaphoric as the passages as I cited.
Does one's belief in E color the way the look a Scripture, or ones belief in Scripture influence the way they look at the data from the Earth?
Well, I don't see scientific theories as "beliefs" - they are hypotheses strongly supported by physical evidence. There was a time in history where a superliteral interpretation of Scripture did form the basis of inquiry of data, but it was abandoned because consistent, predictive models describing physical evidence could not be formed as a consequence.
The main problem that I (and the scientific community at large) have with "creation science" is the fact that it distorts evidence in blatantly false ways - with repeated statements like "evolution is forbidden by thermodynamics" or "evolution can not add new genetic information" or "there is physical evidence showing that dinosaurs and people lived together", which people who understand science know are simply wrong, and can demonstrate so. I don't fault the people who listen to these things (many of whom have no formal science education); I do fault the people who deliberately mislead others with these kinds of statements.
Theories such as biological evolution, the Big Bang, stellar evolution, plate tectonics, gradual sedimentation, etc. (all separate theories that are often misclassified together under the generic label of "evolution") are used and "believed" because they describe physical evidence with consistent and predictive models, that is all.
Does this color the way I look at Scripture? Only in the same regard that facts I see in everyday life influence the way I look at it (as in I know it's not a good idea to hate my family - this certainly "colors" the way I look at Luke 14:26-27). The fact is, there's just too much evidence supporting the aforementioned theories to just sweep under the rug; this would hardly be the honest behavior God would want, IMHO. I do believe the central theme to Christ's message was not to get hung up on the specifics of what, where, when and how in Scripture, but to take to heart the precepts behind it - as in the case where He and the apostles were gathering grain on the Sabbath; this angered the Pharisees, who adhered to the literal meaning of Scripture without thinking of what the purpose of the Sabbath was. Whether certain specific passages are literal or metaphorical is not the point - the point is how they speak to one's heart, mind and soul.
My personal belief in the meaning of the Creation account and the fall of man? I believe that the eating from the Tree of Knowledge symbolizes that once people became intelligent and chose to seek knowledge, we became aware of our mortality, and our newly found fear separated us from God - this was the "fall from grace" of our own making. It may have been specifically through one man named Adam that this originally happened, I don't really know. (Though if the story were exactly literal, wouldn't Jesus have said one man and one woman?) A reading of Genesis 4 does seem to imply there were other people around at the time, as when in verse 14 Cain worries that "whoever finds me will kill me". Anyway that's enough - this is only my personal take on the account anyway; I'm sure you've heard similar ideas before.
I have thought for some time that there must have been a specific time in history when people realized that sex causes babies. Some people speculate that this realization did not occur until people started domesticating animals.
Excellent post, Quark2005.
As for the extract I've quoted above, we've only to look at the case of the Church's persecution of Galilleo--in terms virtually identical to some of the arguments of some Creationists. It is worthy pointing out (again) how there was a time when to assert that the earth orbited the sun was held to be a vile heresy, punishible by death, by a Church which feared that anything other than an absolute and literal interpretation of scripture would result in universal anarchy.
The Church was wrong then about the science, and wrong about the consequences of following the science. Mercifully, most Churches today don't have such spurious difficulties with science--though it is clear that a minority of fndamenatlists, seeking political influence using good PR but lousy junk-science, do have a specific--and potentially dangerous--agenda
Motivations, especially in cats, are complex.
Jeepers, so that's where the little blighters come from!
Now I see where I have been going wrong...better tell the wife PDQ!
LOL.
summer snacks - poop tarts
winter snacks - poopcicles
Yes. It's no good you knowing if she doesn't.
"As for the extract I've quoted above, we've only to look at the case of the Church's persecution of Galilleo--in terms virtually identical to some of the arguments of some Creationists."
You should learn more about the persecution of Galilleo.
Facts that most people don't know about Galilleo:
* Heliocentrism had been thought up by the Greeks, and likewise rejected by them long before the Church was ever involved
* The pope allowed Gallileo to teach and write about heliocentrism, as long as he presented it along with geocentrism in a balanced view
* The pope would have allowed Gallileo to write exclusively about heliocentrism if Gallileo could prove it, he could not
* Gallileo's model had numerous technical problems. One of the biggest of which was that he assumed circular orbits, so he _still_ had epicycles. Keppler got rid of the epicycles. Likewise, there was no parallax motion of the stars -- a criticism that Gallileo had no answer to (it turns out they are just too far away).
* Gallileo was not just tough on astronomy, but it also invalidated all physical theory developed to that point, with no replacement. Aristotle's physics was based on location, with different physics accompanying different heights above the earth. With the earth no longer at the center, Aristotelian physics was completely invalidated, with a replacement model not forthcoming for many, many years (i.e. Newton).
* Gallileo's book describing heliocentrism (which he was supposed to present a balanced view with geocentrism) had two characters -- "smart" and "stupid", and he put the geocentrist view in stupid's mouth, using the POPE'S OWN WORDS. This is what got him into trouble -- putting the pope's words into the mouth of the character "stupid".
Note that Keppler did not have trouble with his Church, nor did Copernicus, nor did Newton. In fact, the main critics of Gallileo was not the Church but the academics -- especially because of the implications for physics. He only got in trouble with the Church when he decided to publish a book declaring the pope stupid.
Did the pope handle it right? Obviously not. But to portray this as persecution of science by the Church because of Biblical literalism just shows how much the establishment can distort the facts of what actually happened.
Oh, wait! My hair!
It just sort of wandered off by itself a few strands at a time.
I've been told there are some hunter-gatherer societies in today's world where people still don't make that association. (Though that could be an urban legend - don't quote me on it.)
"...nor did Copernicus (have trouble with his Church)"
Might be because he didn't publish until after he was dead. :)
What business did the Pope have telling Galileo what he could teach or publish. What business did the Pope have questioning Galileo?
Besides. It wasn't just Catholics. Martin Luther insisted that the sun revolves around the earth because the Bible says so.
You should learn more about Giordano Bruno.
I agree on both your points. Anthropology doesn't have a very good track record in recording the culture of "isolated" tribes. But in a society where everyone had sex, it would be pretty difficult to associate it with babies.
But pretty difficult to forget the association once figured out.
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.