Like every other typical atheist involved in messing with biology, what atheist Sean C. wrote
is in >:
[for a sad and purposeless face
(smile)]>: I had to laugh when I read this blog.
Sean, thanks for reading the blog. Remember that the one that laughs the last laughs the best.>: As a bona fide evolutionary biologist...
" means "in good faith
", "acting without the intention of defrauding
", so, what do you mean here, oh Sean?
Do you mean that by being "evolutionary biologist
" you are an atheist philosopher blinded to everything that counters a speculative macroevolutionary biology currently shaped a la
Darwin?>: I'm constant amused by the time and effort creationists expend trying to debunk evolutionary studies
Even thought Intelligent Design
is not "creationism
", creationists and anyone else are rightfully entitled to debunk baseless speculations sold as "proof
" for a speculative and macroevolutionary "closed" worldview.
To point out the precision of a real microchange
(call it microevolution
an ideological and baseless speculated macrochange
(call it macroevolution
) it is a legitimate scientific endeavor, always ignored by the ideologues of materialism such as Sean C.
Please Sean, don't you run like every other materialistic darwinian evolutionist which ever posted here... I need to ask you: Do you think that under the current dominance of Darwinism in biology we already have an adequate identification of biological varieties in nature? My own answer is a sounding NO!
Sean, are you blinded not to see that what is currently sold as examples of "speciation"
are indeed examples of variation within compatible groups of organisms, hence microevolution is fraudulently being sold as macroevolution by "bona fide
" atheistic "evolutionary biologists", er, pseudo-philosophers like you, Sean? That's SAD!>: Sad
Yes, sad is Sean's atheism blinding his "objectivity
" as when he writes the very next line:>: Better to ask, what would it matter if God didn't exist?
Well, Sean, by your choosing you can live very empty in your closed worldview and then, at the end, just to wait to die uneventfully. What would it matter to you anyway, oh Sean? However, it is very clear that your atheism is biasing all your possible science, if any.
Sean, your writing demonstrates that you are only an atheist philosopher attempting to put some of your poison on the minds of objective scientists.
Sean, is it not plausible and testable the precise identification of biological varieties and the consequent generation of new biodiversity
that we are proposing here? By your atheistic thumb, supposedly this pursuit is not scientific.>: I would have thought that the recent landmark decision against intelligent design in Pennsylvania would make you folks take a step back and actually think
Sean, you evidently are not an objective scientist but an atheistic philosopher and a baseless politic. Intelligent Design
researchers are not affected at all by biased decisions not to think
! You need to consider that the rigorous identifying of biological compatible varieties and the consequent generation of new biodiversity is science
indeed.>: Carry on, however, it makes little difference
It really makes a Universe of difference for the minds of thinking people!>: Cheers
Sean, answer the points that here I posted in bold.
: "What Hunt and other religious Darwinists are so adept at doing is take minute changes over time and make leaps of faith to macro changes
." More comments on the deception of macroevolution
as well as here
Interesting postings here
, and here
Scott E. Page (pangloss, a Prof. of Complex Systems, Political Science, and Economics at U. Mich. attempted to ridicule the statement:
"The discovery of genes expressed only in particular organisms or species (“species specific genes”) can be emphasized as a product of intelligent design, as these are not present in any other organism, discarding a continuous evolutionary way of transmission of genetic material, and enforcing the discontinuous, nonlinear origin of the genomic organization of living beings."
Then, Page went after the statement: "For example, the human genome contains at least 223 genes that do not have "the required predecessors on the genomic evolutionary tree", never transmitted "vertically"."
The original number of 223 genes not found in primates was written in three places:
1- Initial sequencing and analysis of the human genome. International Human Genome Sequencing Consortium. Nature. 2001. 409, 860-921.
“An interesting category is a set of 223 proteins that have significant similarity to proteins from bacteria, but no comparable similarity to proteins from yeast, worm, fly and mustard weed, or indeed from any other (nonvertebrate) eukaryote.”
2- The Human Genome, Elizabeth Pennisi. Science. 16 Feb 2001. 291(5507): 1177-1180.
"Another head-scratching discovery, made by the public consortium, is that the human genome shares 223 genes with bacteria--genes that do not exist in the worm, fly, or yeast"
Microbial Genes in the Human Genome: Lateral Transfer or Gene Loss? Steven L. Salzberg, Owen White, Jeremy Peterson, Jonathan A. Eisen. Science. 8 June 2001. 292(5523):1903 – 1906.
“223 bacterial genes have been laterally transferred into the human genome” and “In the analysis used to support the claim that 223 genes have been laterally transferred into human.”
The 2001 reported 223 non-linearly transmitted genes were re-visited in at least two places:
4 –In the 2 August 2001 correction: Initial sequencing and analysis of the human genome. International Human Genome Sequencing Consortium. Pages 565-566:
“Extensive sequence data from many additional organisms will be required to assess definitively the provenance of each gene.”
5 - In 2003 Steven L. Salzberg in his power point presentation (Genome Paleontology: Discoveries from complete genomes) declares:
“Our re-analysis finds just 41 genes (Ensembl) or 46 (Celera) with best hits to bacteria – not 223… At least 3 have already been found in Drosophila, 10 more in other species.”
6-Meanwhile a 2008 staff blogger wrote in "Figuring Out The Role Of Human-Specific Genes" that "There are around 23,000 genes found in human DNA but perhaps 50 to 100 that have no counterparts in other species."
7 - In the most recent paper dealing with this information:
"The three genes reported here are the first well-supported cases of protein-coding genes that arose in the human lineage and are not found in any other organism," Knowles and McLysaght concluded. "It is tempting to infer that human-specific genes are at least partly responsible for human-specific traits and it will be very interesting to investigate the functions of these novel genes."
"Based on these findings, the team estimates that about 0.075 percent of human genes — roughly 18 of the 24,000 — are human-specific and arose from formerly non-coding sequence."
"The authors also note that because of the strict set of filters employed, only about 20% of human genes were amenable to analysis."
More information: Knowles DG, McLysaght A. Recent de novo origin of human protein-coding genes. Genome Res. 2009 Oct;19(10):1752-9., doi:10.1101/gr.095026.109
So, we do research because there are innumerable things that we are still ignorant of. Here Scott needs to remember the title words on the book that he himself wrote: "The difference, how the power of diversity creates better groups, firms, schools and societies"...
"Secondary pupils in Northern Ireland are spearheading a campaign to introduce a scientific concept, banned in the United States, into the curriculum. Students from both secondary schools and some of the province’s most prestigious grammar schools claim that so-called intelligent design will give a “more balanced view of how the world came into being”."