Immunology in the spotlight at the Dover 'Intelligent Design' trial

Nature Immunology ^ | May 6, 2006 | Andrea Bottaro, Matt A Inlay & Nicholas J Matzke

[Conservative Texan Mom]

Please pardon me while I go get my doctorate in biology so I can keep up! I'll be right back....promise.

[js1138]

One of the things I've pointed out on these threads is that these threads are not about science but socio-political issues and that people participate here out of interest in these socio-political issues.

Well, duh. This is a political website. People come here first for the politics.

Personally, I do not like constantly having to disavow YEC every time someone finds out I am a conservative.

As far as I am concerned, having come of age in the 60s, the left is as anti-science as anyone on the right. But I have no incentive to separate the left from its disruptive idiots. I do have an incentive to separate political conservativism from anti-science.

[tallhappy]

The paper I cited was not concerned with how (or even where) chromosomes break.

No. it was very pure. They didn't talk about mechanism or biochemistry/molecular biology at all. Except for one comment and referencewherein the authors speculate their finding explain why the FRA3B locus doesn't seem to have been disrupted:

This high estimate of the number of still undiscovered fragile regions may explain the recently observed phenomenon that the highly recombinogenic FRA3B locus was never disrupted in the course of mouse–human evolution (27).

FRA3B (and similar fragile regions are regions of transposon, LTR and othe repeat type elements.

As per the referenced paper:

Comparison of Repetitive Elements. In the murine Fra14A2 locus, long interspersed nuclear elements (LINE, L1, and L2), short interspersed nuclear elements (B1 and MIR), elements with long terminal repeats (HERVs and MalRVs), and DNA transposons (mariner and MER) were spread throughout the region, as in the FRA3B region. Total interspersed repeats represented 32.6% of the sequenced region. The repeat contents of the mouse and human loci are summarized in Table 2.

From: Sequence conservation at human and mouse orthologous common fragile regions, FRA3B/FHIT and Fra14A2/Fhit ref 27), Shiraishi, T., Druck, T., Mimori, K., Flomenberg, J., Berk, L., Alder, H., Miller, W., Huebner, K. & Croce, C. M. (2001) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 98, 5722-5727

[furball4paws]

You don't need a doctorate. All you need is a questioning mind and one that looks at science objectively. Serious questions are always welcome and if we don't know the answer we will find out or send you to a place where you can.

Science is not really that complex (the practice in the laboratory can become quite complicated though), it simply requires you to ask questions of the natural world and look at experimentally derived data for answers. There's no mumbo jumbo involved.

The jargon, as in any field, though, can be a nightmare.

[atlaw]

The question, though, is on what basis does one believe?

Reading. Critical thought. The kind of rudimentary stuff that literate and liberally educated adults find themselves capable of doing every day (if their curiosity drives them to it).

[<1/1,000,000th%]

Mary Shelley referred to the evolution theories of Erasmus Darwin (Charles' grandfather) in her preface to the 1818 publication of Frankenstein.

See. You don't need to know any biology to participate on these threads. ;)

[js1138]

It's a fair question, asking why one "believes" in a scientific theory. On the other hand, it is rather inconvenient to have to answer this on a daily basis.

I'm sure that most people believe science simply because, in their daily lives, it appears to work. Quartz watches, computers, satellite TV, GPM, cell phones, medicine, dentistry. I personally see nothing very wrong with this. Even the most brilliant person cannot master all areas of knowledge. At some point we take things on trust.

I take evolution to be established in part because of trust, but also because I have spent decades reading about it, and because I see the principle of selection working in many ways, not all of which are biological.

Darwin says he got the idea for natural selection after reading the Scottish economists. That probably included Adam Smith. The invisible hand is a powerful metaphor. It is neither chance nor an intelligent agent. It is something not easily classified by traditional philosophy, an after the fact cause.

Selection neither pushes nor pulls. It constrains; it prunes. Because the conditions of selection are dynamic, the shape of the constraint cannot easily be quantified or described. It is a moving target. Just as no industrialist can guarantee a market for a new product, no imaginable designer can be certain what traits will be successful for the next generation of organisms. The reason I do not "believe" in intelligent design is I think it is impossible. Designing for all contingencies is as impossible as predicting the weather years in advance.

[tallhappy]

You don't need a doctorate. All you need is a questioning mind and one that looks at science objectively.

Absolutely.

No mumbo jumbo. It's not magic.

[Conservative Texan Mom]

Thanks. It is a bit overwhelming at times. Part of the challenge for me is that I'm more of the literary type. It's difficult for me to wrap my brain around all the scientific details. Questions, however, usually aren't a problem, as I'm also the philosophical type. It's understanding the answers that takes some "contemplating".

OkeeDokee. Ya think that I'll get hammered when I post Bible verses that support evolution? There was a thread a couple of days ago in which some YEC were posting verses to support their point of view. I read the verses and saw something completely different, and in some cases, my interpretation was even more literal than theirs. I don't wish to insult them though. I wish to be respectful of their view, because in reality, for those of us who believe God did it, none of us can say, with absolute certainty, how.

[js1138]

The thing that bugs me is people who think they have the only correct set of verses and the only correct interpretation.

[<1/1,000,000th%]

Creationism in the US comes from the literalist view of the Bible.

You can't ask too many questions, though. They start to get cranky. Apparently only Genesis can be read literally, and only certain details.

I've never been able to get an answer on why that is.

Anyway, welcome to the crevo threads!!! ;)

[Tribune7]

Pianka has somewhat extreme views, but the majority of people at the TAS acceptance speech deny he said what Forrest Mims claimed he said.

You think Mims was lying?

In any case, he is entitled to his views . . .

Would you say the same thing if he were advocating six-day creationism without rebuttal by the Texas Academy of Science? And how do you know he's not teaching them in school?

[Conservative Texan Mom]

Check this out then.

You're probably already aware of the Hebrew word for day, Yom, has several translations. One of them is, "a long period of time" basically, anyway. I believe that in the Hebrew language, a different word was used for day, regarding the first day, the creation of light and dark. I know I read this, it's just been awhile, but I remember the context of it. The word used was similar to day, but it indicates a significant importance. Something was more significant about the first "day".

Another observation, this one is regarding the 6 day 24 hour period. On the first day, God created light and dark. This is what defines day from night. He did not create day and night, but the mechanism that defines them. The way in which we gage day and night was not created until the forth day.

Now, here is a verse to support the view that the Hebrew word, Yom, meant a length of time.

Gen 5:1 This [is] the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him;

IN THE DAY that God created man, not, on the day, but in the day, which could have been millions of years if day means a period of time. It would seem that the wording would be ON THE DAY if it were referring to a 24 hour period.

Now, if you consider that Day can mean a length of time, consider this.


Zec 12:1 The burden of the word of the LORD for Israel, saith the LORD, which stretcheth forth the heavens, and layeth the foundation of the earth, and formeth the spirit of man within him.

Gen 2:7 And the LORD God formed man [of] the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul

1Cr 15:45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul;

In each of these verses the thing that defines Adam as a man is a soul, or spirit. I wonder if anyone has ever considered that our bodies evolved, but it was not until we were endowed with a spirit that man was created. If day is not confined to 24 hours, these two things may not have been at the same time.

Now, if you consider that, then phrases like this make much more sense.

11 Then God said, "Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds."

and

24 And God said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals, each according to its kind." And it was so.

and

When the LORD God made the earth and the heavens- 5 and no shrub of the field had yet appeared on the earth [d] and no plant of the field had yet sprung up, for the LORD God had not sent rain on the earth [e] and there was no man to work the ground, 6 but streams [f] came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground- 7 the LORD God formed the man [g] from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.


Something else I've noticed is that the Genesis account alludes to the life sprouting from the Earth on three occasions, "the land produced vegetation," and,"the land produced living creatures," and also, "God formed man from the dust of the Earth."

If the Bible is God's inspired word, which I believe it is, the author of Genesis was not there, so he must have been inspired by a vision, dream, or some other sort of revelation. Cellular organisms would appear invisible. A vision may very well be interpreted as life springing from the ground. That is quite similar to the description in Genesis.

As far as "kinds" go. I know that many get hung up on this. I don't know exactly what it means. I also don't know exactly how far evolution can conclusively backtrack our origins. My thinking is that God could have created various cellular organisms that each evolved according to their kind.
I'm not saying that this is my absolute belief, but it is a possiblity to consider.
What do ya think. Is that enough of a rant?

[Tribune7]

I'm just paraphrasing what the Discovery Institute put in writing,

Biblical literalism? Young Earth Creationism? Where exactly?

[Tribune7]

One of the things I've pointed out on these threads is that these threads are not about science but socio-political issues and that people participate here out of interest in these socio-political issues.

Exactly :-)

[js1138]

I hope you will forgive me if I say that I lost interest in this controversy a long time ago. For me, the Bible tells me to be the most loving person I am capable of being. I believe that good works are the embodiment of faith and that faith does not exist in their absence.

In this, I appear to be a heretic, or so I have been told.

[<1/1,000,000th%]

You could spend a lot of time doing things like that. I'm not sure where it would get you with the anti-science crowd.

The other fact I would mention is that during Jesus' life on earth, the Torah was available to most people only in Aramaic. Very few people could speak or write Hebrew.

"Day" in Aramaic has even more meanings than it does in Hebrew.

[csense]

You started the series of posts by asking why I (a person with no credentials) post here.

I just reviewed the posting history of tallhappy on this thread, and I can not find evidence for this assertion anywhere.

Perhaps you owe him an apology, considering the other remarks in your post.

[Conservative Texan Mom]

I agree with that.

Actually, my feelings are that the manner of creation isn't important to Christianity. The main reason I stated this interpretation, is as a reminder that we don't know how, and therefore shouldn't use it as a basis for judgment.

[Conservative Texan Mom]

Very interesting.

I guess I'll just see if an appropriate opportunity arises. If it does, I'll just take it as it comes. Perhaps it will be thought provoking to someone.