Mike Gene prÃ¤sentiert mit dem Konzept eines front-loading zweifellos eine originelle Deutung der Evolution, deren RealitÃ¤t er nicht in Frage stellt. DafÃ¼r, dass es intelligentes Design in der Biologie gibt, vor allem was die Ausstattung der Zellen betrifft (genetischer Code, Fehlerkontrolle, Maschinencharakter usw.), legt der Autor starke Indizien vor. Ob das front-loading-Konzept schlÃ¼ssig ist, wird die weitere Forschung zeigen mÃ¼ssen.
Archive for March, 2008
Tired of fighting? Love movies? Have a FaceBook account? Then join our club!
Spirituality — defined as an inner belief system — accounted for eight to 17 per cent of the average child's sense of happiness, the study showed.
By contrast, money, the marital status of parents and the child's gender didn't even register one per cent.
"What we found out with kids is they know how wealthy they are. They are well aware of how rich their parents are, but it contributes to less than one per cent of children's happiness," said Holder.
Spirituality could be playing a larger role for several reasons. It produces a sense of hope and meaning and often involves socializing, which is important to a child's happiness.
CALLING ALL BOOKCOPS. CALLING ALL BOOKCOPS.
The dangerous book, The Design Matrix, is now held by the Santa Cruz Public Libraries . Unfortunately, it is checked out. But once the culprit returns the intellecual pornography, any BookCop in the vacinity should properly reshelve this idiocy to prevent it from corrupting anotner mind.
Behold the orange. Being perfectly round, it has no sharp edges with which to poke you in the eye if it happened to fall from the tree. Note how easily it fits into the palm of my hand. And it even comes with its own biodegradable wrapper! To open it, you"¦..hey wait, the thing doesn't have a tab! Where's the dagburnit tab?!
Ah, behold the thumbnail. Note how it so perfectly punctures the biodegradable wrapper and"¦.. Read the rest of this entry »
From Robert Shapiro:
Since then, so-called prebiotic chemistry, which is of course falsely named, because we have no reason to believe that what they're doing would ever lead to life "” I just call it 'investigator influenced abiotic organic chemistry' "” has fallen into the same trap. In the proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences about two months ago there was a paper "” I think it was theoretical "” they showed that in certain hydro-thermal events, convection forces and other attractive forces, about which I am unable to comment, would serve to concentrate organic molecules, so that organic molecules would get much more concentrated in the bottom of this than they would in the ordinary ocean.
Very nice, perhaps it's a good place for the origin of life, and interesting finding, but then there was another commentary paper in the Proceedings by another invited commentator, who said, Great advance for RNA world because if you put nucleotides in, they'll be concentrated enough to form RNA; and if you put RNA in, the RNA will come together and form aggregates, giving you much more chance of forming a ribosome or whatever. I looked at the paper and thought, How did nucleotides come in? How did RNA come in? How did anything come in? The point is, you would take whatever mess prebiotic chemistry gives you and you would concentrate that mess so it's relevant to RNA or the origin of life "” it's all in the eye of the beholder. And almost all of prebiotic chemistry is like this; they take chemicals of their own selection.
People were talking about Steve Benner and his borate paper where he selected, of his own free will, the chemical formaldehyde, the chemical acid-aldehyde, and the mineral borate, and he decided to mix them together and got a product that he himself said was significant in leading to the origin of RNA world, and I, looking at the same thing, see only the hands of Steve Benner reaching to the shelf of organic chemicals, picking formaldehyde, and from another shelf, picking acidaldehyde, etc. Excluding them carefully. Picking a mineral which occurs only in selective places on the Earth and putting it in in heavy doses. And at the end getting a complex of ribose and borate, which by itself would be of no use for making RNA, because the borate loves to hold onto the ribose, and as long as it holds onto the ribose it can't be used to make RNA. If it lets go of the ribose, then the ribose becomes vulnerable to destruction by all the other environmental agents.
The half-life of pure ribose in solution, a different experiment and a very good one, by Stanley Miller is of the order of one or two hours, and all of the other sugars prominent in Earth biology have similar instability.
What a bloody mess. Bunnies should not be fighting bunnies.
In his essay, The Question of Purpose, David Zeigler states his objective:
My "purpose" (we can create our own temporally and spatially limited purposes) in writing this piece is to point out one of the most important and real issues in the teaching of Darwinian evolution that so often goes unaddressed, or more amazingly"”unrecognized, and this issue is really fairly obvious.
Yet before getting to the "most important and real issues," it would help for Zeigler to explain his views of science:
Well, I can't disagree with this required reading list.
Writing in the journal, Evolution: Education and Outreach, David Zeigler has an article entitled, "The Question of Purpose." Zeigler's argument is twofold: Darwinian science teaches us that there is no purpose or meaning outside of ourselves and teachers can improve evolution education by better stressing the non-teleological nature of evolution and reality. You can read this for yourself here (pdf file). I'm hoping to comment on several aspects, but I thought you'd like to check it out first and have an opportunity to correct me if I have wrongly mischaracterized it.
One of the major complaints about Harvard's "Inner Life of the Cell" video was that it was too serene and uncrowded, creating an "illusion" of design that did not exist. What I have for you below is another award-winning animation which factors for those complaints. It shows the crowded, chaotic, Brownian world of the cell. The process that is illustrated is apoptosis, otherwise known as programmed cell death.
Here's the walk through: You'll see a T lymphocyte approach a diseased cell and the animation will switch to the surface of the diseased cell. Welcome to chaos of the molecular world! You'll then see the lymphocyte present its death ligand to the death receptors of the cell, resulting in trimerization and thus activation. In essence, the self-destruct button has been pushed. Then, you'll switch to the cytoplasmic face of the death receptors which can now attach adaptor proteins, which in turn, fish out procaspase 8. The procaspase 8s become activated and break off to activate other caspase 3s in the cytoplasm "“ the signal is being amplified and spread. The caspase 3s will go about cleaving other cytoplasmic proteins. At this point, you'll switch to a lower magnification to watch the signal spread, causing mitochondria to release their cytochrome c. This protein, which is normally part of the life-giving electron transport chain needed to fuel of the ATP synthase will now moonlight as the a death signal, where it will bind to a protein called Apf1 triggering the formation of the the death wheel, which will then sequentially bind caspase 9s to form the apoptosome, which will activate an army of caspase 3s, reinforcing the signal from the death receptor. The activated caspases will begin the process of orderly taking the cell apart and the cleavage of part of the actin cytoskeleton is shown. Then you switch to a picture of the cell to show the result of the buzzing caspases "“ the cell breaks apart into many small vesicles known as apoptotic bodies. What is not shown is that phagocytotic cells will then simply eat these, providing for the clean removal of diseased or worn out cells.
Are you ready for the show?
TT member Nick (not Matzke) outlined his views as a theistic evolutionist. He summarizes as follows:
I'm content with the label "theistic evolutionist," and I believe that:
a) God is the Creator;
b) the history and process by which God created living things is best explained by modern evolutionary biology, rather than "Intelligent Design" in its various incarnations;
c) that process included events that we (correctly) perceive as chance or the results of natural selection, but
d) those events were nevertheless known to God "before" the creation of the Universe, the universe is sustained by God's will, and nothing happens contrary to his will.
I bring this up because this is very close to my own theological views. I would quibble about (b) because I am not convinced modern evolutionary biology and Intelligent Design are mutually exclusive and keep an eye on ID for reasons I have explained before. But perhaps more interesting is point c). From my experience, many theists seem uncomfortable with chance playing a significant role in history. But I think God works through chance. What say you?
Prompted by a TT blog comment and being curious, I looked for a blog entry alleged to show how blogger Chu-Carroll had demonstrated David Berlinski's cluelessness. I came upon Berlinski's Bad Math, a commentary on Berlinski's article On the Origins of Life. I came away disappointed for rather than showing bad math on the part of Berlinski it instead demonstrated Berlinski's failure to hold to faith based outcomes believed to have occurred in a storied prebiotic setting in which putative self-replicating molecules replicated their way to living cells through unknown and unidentified chemical pathways. From the link: