Posted on 06/27/2007 10:57:15 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
>>[But so far, evolution doesn’t cover first life.]
Phew- one problem avoided. That was a close one.<<
Its an important distinction. There isn’t any reason to reject evolution because of religious belief that first life was created when evolution doesn’t contradict that.
[There isn’t any reason to reject evolution because of religious belief]
True- there’s plenty of reason to reject it based entirely on the biological impossiblities, mathematical impossibilities, and on the fact that evolution has to rely on assumptions and a few similarities to make their case- as well as the fact that the fossil record is entirely absent of data indicating the mass amounts of mutational ‘experiments’ as animals supposedly ‘worked out’ which freakish mutational malfunctions would stick around awaiting furhter freakish mutational malfunctions for which miraculaously, a fully functioning highly complex new system would emerge- all without the addition of NEW information from lateral gene transportattion which has never been observed interspecies.
I don’t reject evolution based on any religious belief- I reject it based purely on both logic, and the absence of evidence.
That isn't the focus of the thread at all. What the OP is claiming is that a chromosomal change is not an evolutionary mechanism but in some way a designed system. His suggestion that ID can do a better job of determining the cause of cancer implies that ID, which is primarily supposed to be a method of identifying intelligently purposeful design rather than contingent trial and error design, should find indications of either IC or CSI within the cancerous cell. I suspect that he also believes that once we find that evidence of a designer all we have to do is find the designer and convince s/he/it to stop making people sick. Unfortunately for GodGunsGuts his claim necessitates not only chromosomal changes be intelligently designed, but not be a part of evolutionary processes, which is demonstrably false.
As far as your claim that mutations cannot be positive I suggest you actually read some of Ichneumon's posts rather than ignoring them. I believe he has posted a number of links to mutations (undirected (by any intelligent agent) random changes in the genome) which have conferred an advantage to the organism. It seems for your argument to appear to have any validity it requires you to ignore the vast number of neutral mutations and the changing context of the mutation in regards to both the environment and the population.
You and Ichy both are living by your hopes, not by logic.
"You never disappoint us!
Do you have an argument against anything specific in Ichneumon's post or is the best you can do is claim it's nonsense? Show us how your logic is superior to Ichneumon's by actually picking a few points he made and debunking them. Surely if what he says is nonsense you should be able to tear his information apart. At the very least you should be able to tear his logic apart.
That’s not what I was implying at all. I was suggesting that IDers are capable of thinking outside the RM+NS (read: Darwinian) box and would therefore be a welcome addition to the heretofore failed War on Cancer.
But that won't stop him and his friends from wasting bandwidth and annoying rational people.
2. I still don't understand your point. All this guy is saying is that he believes that point mutations are not responsible for cancers. What does that have to do with "positive outcomes?""I don’t think that it is profound or novel; just as obvious as the sun on a summer day, but you evos are selectively blind as to it’s obvious consequences"
You didn't answer his question.
Nor have you related your non sequitur to the OP's original intent.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1857518/posts?page=59#79
Are you saying that cancer is designed?
Are you also saying that common causes, environmental causes and concurrent disease causes are somehow outside of normal medical investigation and the development of treatments?
Perhaps you are suggesting that the body can make an intelligent decision based on health problems to become or initiate cancer? Are the cancer cells themselves intelligent?
What should we do if CSI is found in a cancer cell, email the intelligent agent and request he stop?
If you are simply saying that current science is too constrained by modern methods and the new blood of the very inventive IDists would open up whole new pathways, then perhaps we should invite a few children to come up with ideas, they are even more inventive than IDists (mostly). You insult every scientist working on cures for cancer by your statements, statements I might add which have nothing but your opinion to back them.
ping
You have failed to debunk anything Ichneumon said. I note that you did not even attempt to do so.
You seem to feel that argument by assertion is a winning formula. You are wrong.
I didn’t look at Ich’s post- but I’m assuming the old argument for ‘benificial mutations’ include ‘nylon eating’ and ‘sickle cell anemia’? If so- suggesting that attaining a very serious problem is an ‘advantage’ is stretchign it quite a bit, as well, the actual ‘benifits’ far outwiegh the actual harm done- Science shows a couple of ‘evidences’ that some mutations ‘accidently result in somethign that isn’t harmful, yet ignores the fact that out of all the myriad of mutations studied to date, only a scant few show any sign of accidental ‘benifit’ (If you can call a disease benificial- that’s like saying paralysis is benificial because it means you won’t trip, fall down and break your crown)- Now, concidering the mid boggling amount of ‘benificial mutations’ that must have happened to account for the staggaring numbers of complex systems we have today, it seems quite odd that the only evidnece science can show for ‘benificial mutations (Which evolution suppsoedly needs) are a scant few serious problems that just so happen to ‘advantage’ a small percentage of folks against Malaria, and even then, not very well. Showing a couple of anectdotal evidences is a far cry from presenting a ligit argument for macro-evolution via mutation- Heck- it’s even a very weak case for micro-evolution at that.
[You insult every scientist working on cures for cancer by your statements, statements I might add which have nothing but your opinion to back them.]
Don’t get ignorant! That is a kiddie argument that ignores the science and degrees of ID Scientists
What makes an IDist an IDist and what exactly can an IDist bring to the table that a non-IDist cannot?
How is the idea that mutations other than chromosomal changes strictly neo-Darwinian/Evo-Devo? How is the idea that chromosomal changes can be responsible not neo-Darwinian/Evo-Devo?
For starters, they would not be adverse to looking for non-random causes of cancer. After all, cancer cells grow at astonishing speed. They require special energy pathways in order to sustain this rapid growth, and one of the ways cancers do this is by literally diverting blood vessels towards themselves, and they even manage to cause new blood vessels to sprout from old blood vessels in this search for the energy required to sustain their incredible growth. They also fight off the body’s immune response by adopting all sorts of clever stratagems. They are also very clever at avoiding chemotherapy drugs, and they send out colonizers that can dissolve the tissue components that stand in their way. And in their search for new organs, once found, they cleverly attach to neighboring cells, and thus invade the new organ. So rather than assuming that trivial random mutations cause cancer, perhaps we should start looking at the possibility that cancer is a DIRECTED MUTATION possibly linked to a cause outside of the genome.
To that end, IDers are uniquely predisposed to look outside the genome for possible causes of cancer (esp. in regards to the field of epigenetics). They would also be willing to look at the energy pathways that cancer cells utilize as a possible link to a more holistic understanding of what causes cancer (in which case, any changes in the genome would be the effect, not the cause, of cancer). Or take the research of Jonathan Wells, who “uses the theory of intelligent design (ID) to formulate a testable hypothesis about centrioles, which are microscopic structures in animal cells whose function is not yet understood. Wells’ hypothesis—if confirmed by experiments—would explain how centrioles function in normal cell division and malfunction in cancer. The hypothesis could also help to explain why there is a correlation between calcium and Vitamin D deficiency and major types of cancer.”
Like I said, what we need is fresh ideas in the War on Cancer...and to that end, IDers should be welcomed with open arms.
More on Dr. Well’s cancer reseach:
Abstract: A microtubule-dependent polar ejection force that pushes chromosomes away from spindle poles during prometaphase is observed in animal cells but not in the cells of higher plants. Elongating microtubules and kinesin-like motor molecules have been proposed as possible causes, but neither accounts for all the data. In the hypothesis proposed here a polar ejection force is generated by centrioles, which are found in animal cells but not in the cells of higher plants. Centrioles consist of nine microtubule triplets arranged like the blades of a tiny turbine. Instead of viewing centrioles through the spectacles of molecular reductionism and neo-Darwinism, this hypothesis assumes that they are holistically designed to be turbines. Orthogonally oriented centriolar turbines could generate oscillations in spindle microtubules that resemble the motion produced by a laboratory vortexer. The result would be a microtubule-mediated ejection force tending to move chromosomes away from the spindle axis and the poles. A rise in intracellular calcium at the onset of anaphase could regulate the polar ejection force by shutting down the centriolar turbines, but defective regulation could result in an excessive force that contributes to the chromosomal instability characteristic of most cancer cells.
Wells’s article is available from the journal’s publisher in Italy: http://www.tilgher.it/(m0h1zb55der2y545b3unsq55)/index.aspx?lang=&tpr=4
Or you can download the English version in PDF format:
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=490
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.