Intelligent design, the leading cause of cancer
by KrauzeHere at Telic Thoughts, we often make fun of those critics who are worried that intelligent design is going to lead to a theocracy. But, as Tim Paganos Ed Darrell reminds us, there is a lot more threatiness to be worried about:
Every dime spent to advocate ID over evolution is a dime spent against a cure for cancer. Every minute spent advocating ID over evolution before a state school board is a minute spent advocating ignorance.
At first, I was relieved, since, as an ID evolutionist I don't advocate "ID over evolution". But then I started thinking. Wasn't evolutionary biologist Jerry Coyne labelled an "anti-evolution critic" for suggesting that rape isn't a biological adaptation? And didn't the president of Kansas Citizens for Science Jack Krebs argue that you could be labelled an anti-evolutionist simply by believing in guided evolution? Oh no, what if I am sabotaging the war on cancer?
So, with the help of Jill Greenberg's "End Times" exhibition, I've made a little sticker to warn readers of the dire consequences of following this blog.
If any other ID-friendly blogs want to use the sticker, go right ahead. When it comes to cancer, you can't be too careful!
August 15th, 2006 at 5:53 pm
LOL!!! In the same paragraph where he makes his asinine cancer remark, he tells Joe…
Wait a minute… is Paganos really so ignorant as to believe that genetic engineering, vats of recombinant e.coli and cloning are "evolution?" Or that multinational pharmaceutical gigacorps are ever going to offer treatments or cures – for ANY plague of humanity – to us regular folks who can't get our expensive insurance to pay for setting a broken leg? Fat chance.
Perhaps Paganos' "ethics" argument would be more impressive if he were out there protecting family farmers and the environment from ADM, et. al. pouring poisons into our land and water supplies that DO give us cancer. Or arguing against release of un-tested and promiscuously-designed transgenes into the environment. Or advocating universal health care for all citizens. I wonder if he'll advocate putting me in one of PZ's re-education camps if he finds out I won't eat GM foods…
What a maroon.
Comment by Joy — August 15, 2006 @ 5:53 pm
August 15th, 2006 at 8:21 pm
Hmmm….Joy sounded anti-Pharmaceutical industry, anti-whatever-ADM-is industry, pro-environment, pro-universal health insurance….
…I…I…I don't feel so all alone, anymore. I thought I was the lone liberal voice in a sea of conservative IDists. Are there any more out there? Maybe we should start our own blog…Liberals for ID.
Comment by Bilbo — August 15, 2006 @ 8:21 pm
August 15th, 2006 at 10:01 pm
Bilbo, you are in good comany. I am increasingly Liberal (certainly more liberal than the average IDer on Uncommon Descent if "global warming" is any measure of liberality — I do find it one of the markers) and shock of shocks — still a Christian. I have mixed feelings about pharmaceutical companies, am generally scared of ADM foods, and am proud to be a Canadian complete with socialized medicine.
This poster was so good, I showed my wife! A little exaggeration sure helps to clarify things on occasion, doesn't it?
Comment by bFast — August 15, 2006 @ 10:01 pm
August 15th, 2006 at 10:24 pm
Mount Timpanogos is a beautiful nearly 12,000-foot peak in Utah's Wasatch Range. Who the devil is this "Tim Pagonos?"
None of the research I was thinking of was ADM's. Good farmer-oriented stuff by Texas A&M, Kansas State, etc., etc. Evolution is the binding paradigm of biology, Joy. It's possible to be a technician in a lab without understanding evolution, but everything is illumined by the theory. Do you seriously think that ADM had anything to do with Luther Burbank? Barbara McClintock?
Get over it. Sure evolution theory is used by big business. It works, and there's money in it. That's stark contrast to any form of creationism, and starker contrast to intelligent design if you're one of those who doesn't see that ID is creationism with a more expensive PR firm.
Which is another point against ID and creationism: Your mutual funds and/or pension are funded in no small part on the fruits of evolution, traded on the New York Stock Exchange and other exchanges. One may not invest in a company making products based on any form of creationism. Creationism and intelligent design don't work in the real world, in God's creation — and so there are no such companies.
C'mon down from the heights of Timpanogos. You flatlanders act like you're a bit hypoxic.
Comment by edarrell — August 15, 2006 @ 10:24 pm
August 16th, 2006 at 1:18 am
Joy said:
"Wait a minute"¦ is Paganos really so ignorant as to believe that genetic engineering, vats of recombinant e.coli and cloning are "evolution?" "
Yes, Joy, he must be that ignortant (i.e., non-intelligent) since "genetic engineering, vats of recombinant e.coli and cloning" are examples of Intelligent Design!! Maybe Pagnanos has seen blind nature creating engineered genes, vats of recombinant e.coli and cloning, but I sure haven't.
Stu Harris
http://www.theidbookstore.com
Comment by Stuart Harris — August 16, 2006 @ 1:18 am
August 16th, 2006 at 2:51 am
"Who the devil is this "Tim Pagonos?""
I couldn't find a profile for whoever wrote the blog (is it you?), so I took a wild guess.
Comment by Krauze — August 16, 2006 @ 2:51 am
August 16th, 2006 at 8:17 am
Lemmee see…
Joy, a self-avowed organic farmer who knowingly and willingly sells foods that are chock full of stuff she herself believes can cause cancer, is lecturing on ethics and morality.
I see that this is filed under humor. Maybe that 'splains it.
Comment by Art — August 16, 2006 @ 8:17 am
August 16th, 2006 at 8:51 am
"Get over it. Sure evolution theory is used by big business. It works, and there's money in it. That's stark contrast to any form of creationism, and starker contrast to intelligent design if you're one of those who doesn't see that ID is creationism with a more expensive PR firm."
LOL. ID not only causes cancer, it causes poverty too. And the cure for poverty- a course in evolutionary biology- but of course.
Comment by Bradford — August 16, 2006 @ 8:51 am
August 16th, 2006 at 8:52 am
"evolution is key to crop research"
Funny. One of the pioneers in transgenic crops (John Sanford) is now an ID'er.
Comment by johnnyb — August 16, 2006 @ 8:52 am
August 16th, 2006 at 9:42 am
If edarrell wants to argue that advocacy of intelligent design impedes a cure for cancer, he needs to spell out the causal relationship. Are there any cancer treatment trials that haven't been done because of intelligent design? Are there any cancer laboratories that have been closed because of intelligent design? Have any cancer researchers been fired because of intelligent design? When Ed has answered these questions, we can go over the same answers for animal rights terrorism, and we can then discuss the issue of "moral imperatives".
Comment by Krauze — August 16, 2006 @ 9:42 am
August 16th, 2006 at 10:16 am
"If edarrell wants to argue that advocacy of intelligent design impedes a cure for cancer, he needs to spell out the causal relationship. Are there any cancer treatment trials that haven't been done because of intelligent design? Are there any cancer laboratories that have been closed because of intelligent design? Have any cancer researchers been fired because of intelligent design? When Ed has answered these questions, we can go over the same answers for animal rights terrorism, and we can then discuss the issue of "moral imperatives".
Eloquently put. However since the root cause of his hostility has nothing to do with morality and everything to do with a petulant 'don't like it' attitude you can be expected to wait a long time for such a discussion.
Comment by Bradford — August 16, 2006 @ 10:16 am
August 16th, 2006 at 10:24 am
Bilbo:
I'm all for good drugs, but I don't agree with the current focus and expansion thereof, which turns the practice of medicine into mere drug dealing (and puts doctors on the pharma payrolls to do just that). I've seen the fatal damage it can do, and real medicine is about way more than that. Of course, now that actual medicine – and the patented drugs – are reserved for the exclusive few with money to pay for it, potential damage is lessened. There's some 'evolution-in-action' for ya.
ADM is Archer Daniels Midland, the commodities gigacorp that runs most of the gigantic factory crop farms in this country. You know, the ones that plant thousands of acres of subsidized monoculture crops that end up rotting in silos (or in fields) every year to keep the price for real food to real farmers down. They get the lion's share of government money, they are mecha-intensive, pour millions of tons of industrial waste – including heavy metals, mercury, arsenic and radioactive ash – onto farmland as "inert ingredients" in chemical fertilizers, inundate the same crops with thousands of tons of pesticides and herbicides (much of which washes right into the nation's water supply)… all for food no one eats or would want to eat.
Then there's Monsanto (now a division of Pharmacia), but that's a whole other horror story. Yeah, I'm an unapologetic progressive who can shame the pseudo-libs hiding in anti-ID, anti-religion ivory towers any day of the week. Just ask Art. Or PZ. Or this Paganos guy (there's many more involved in these debates pretending to be what they're not). They're closet authoritarians with a hefty mean streak, as bad or worse than the dreaded "Theocrats" they rant and rail against constantly. And even more of a minority, which is why they like to disguise themselves as liberals.
Let you and bFast in on the secret: It takes one to know one, and these are not ones.
Comment by Joy — August 16, 2006 @ 10:24 am
August 16th, 2006 at 11:58 am
Thanks for the name correction, Krauze.
Comment by edarrell — August 16, 2006 @ 11:58 am
August 16th, 2006 at 12:25 pm
Joy — this is stuff I'm interested in, but don't know much about. Do you have any links to more information?
Thanks.
Comment by johnnyb — August 16, 2006 @ 12:25 pm
August 16th, 2006 at 12:39 pm
edarrell:
Um… nope. What big business is doing is intelligent design. They do it because they believe they are superior to nature, and that nature's little gene-thingys are entirely determinant (even though actual studies of nature have demonstrated redundantly not so since these basement gene-splicers started creating monsters). And the pharma-chemical labs work with predictability. There's nothing predictable about "random" and never will be.
I have no mutual funds or pension (which would be a throw-away these days). I have real property and struggle to keep up with the tax increases as rich exiles buy it up at 150 times what I paid for it so they can build fancy log third-homes in gated "preserves" (a laughable misnomer) they spend maybe a week a year in. THEY have mutual funds and golden parachutes. I work the land, and it's very much an investment in nature's wonderful creation. Which may or may not be a reflection of perfection in a deistic creation, but which suits me. I protect and defend it.
That would be Mount Mitchell, thanks. We don't like flatlanders much either. They don't know how to drive.
Comment by Joy — August 16, 2006 @ 12:39 pm
August 16th, 2006 at 1:03 pm
I hope this statement is a joke:
Big business doesn't create? Oh yea, creating is the job of small business. Big business doesn't use Intelligent Design? Oh, that's what's wrong with my chevy.
Comment by bFast — August 16, 2006 @ 1:03 pm
August 16th, 2006 at 1:21 pm
I hope this statement is a joke:
Sure evolution theory is used by big business. It works, and there's money in it. That's stark contrast to any form of creationism, and starker contrast to intelligent design.
The author appears to be quite serious. He would have us think that evolution is a better paradigm than intelligent design for the engineering that engenders manufactured products and the imagination that goes into the advertising of them.
Comment by Bradford — August 16, 2006 @ 1:21 pm
August 16th, 2006 at 1:24 pm
johnnyb:
Wow, there's so many! I've been following for many years, on several fronts (not only because I'm an organic producer, but because I'm an herbalist with a love of un-raped nature, a semi-vegetarian with a concern for food and food quality, and a semi-professional Mom/Grandma concerned for the next generations and the world they'll inherit.
Without getting into Monsanto's more insidious projects (including recombinant human and bovine growth hormones that are suspiciously coincidental to the proliferation of BSE/vCJD [Mad Cow] and the unabashed pushing of the poison called Aspartame) or ADM's participation in a nefarious scheme to 'recycle' huge amounts of industrial/radioactive wastes back into the breadbasket's soil, here are a couple of fairly good starter sites with internal and external links you can follow if you're interested:
Global Issues
Blows Against the Empire
What has happened to health care in this country is both obvious and shameful. It amounts to a gigantic futures market in human suffering, in which we are all mere guinea pigs – all 'for-profit' and with CEOs who get paid tens of millions of dollars a year not to let you have your broken leg set by a doctor. ADM pretty much owns the futures markets, and if you care to trace the web of subsidiary connections in all these issues, you'd find the same cabal behind 'em all.
Oh, and just a hint of what's real here… Monsanto/Pharmacia does not allow genetically modified foods in their own corporate cafeterias.
Do not be fooled by pretentions asserted by movers and shakers in the wings on either side of the specific issues discussed here in the ID vs. NDE debates. If you lift the rock on divisive – sleight of mind distraction – issues you often find the scorpions in the nest underneath are indistinguishable.
Comment by Joy — August 16, 2006 @ 1:24 pm
August 16th, 2006 at 2:07 pm
Joy: I've been following for many years, on several fronts (not only because I'm an organic producer, but because I'm an herbalist with a love of un-raped nature, a semi-vegetarian with a concern for food and food quality, and a semi-professional Mom/Grandma concerned for the next generations and the world they'll inherit.
Art: Joy, a self-avowed organic farmer who knowingly and willingly sells foods that are chock full of stuff she herself believes can cause cancer, is lecturing on ethics and morality.
I know there's some history here but this looks like a logical disconnect. Is Art contending that veggies and herbs are carcinogenic?
Comment by Bradford — August 16, 2006 @ 2:07 pm
August 16th, 2006 at 2:42 pm
Bradford:
Who knows? Last time we engaged this skirmish he was claiming organic food is responsible for mass e.coli epidemics, even though it's agribiz that uses sewage sludge and raw animal wastes as fertilizer, not organic growers. I do amend with compost – crop wastes, clipped grass, pulled weeds, kitchen scraps (carefully separated from animal waste/cheese/meat/milk because these do not promote the proper nematodes and soil microorganisms and are likely to test positive for transgenes or recombinant hormones). If I were to put compost from materials that contain GMOs in my plots I'd lose my certification for 5 years. Same happens if my corn gets pollenated by GM corn pollen. Which, as an additional little consideration, would also subject me to Monsanto's corporate lawyers who would sue me for 'stealing' their patented genes, take my home and land, and turn it over to the gigacorp subsidiaries for raping.
It's not easy jumping through the USDA organic certification hoops, and it's not particularly cheap either. Have an orchard and vineyard as well as truck crops and rotating grains/alfalfa/clover. Open pollenators are at-risk if my neighbors plant genetically modified relatives, so I'm front and center or organizing to keep GMOs out of the area, as well as expanding our marketing networks for locally grown organics and CFA participation ("shares" of crops that people can buy into on a seasonal basis). Art has been known to parrot corporate un-facts on occasion, and he has a positive hatred of all things organic. Of course, he's more heavily invested in "re-making the natural world" in his own image so to speak, than I am.
Maybe he'll weigh in to clarify his assertion, tell us how Monsanto/Novartis et. al. have managed to get around whatever cancer-causing substances he's talking about by "intelligently designing" plants and animals. Darned if I know… §;o)
Comment by Joy — August 16, 2006 @ 2:42 pm
August 16th, 2006 at 2:54 pm
Bradford asks:
In a nutshell:
On the ARN boards, Joy opined (and never recanted) that the parts of plant viruses (especially pararetroviruses) that are used in biotechnology can cause cancer in humans. What she didn't tell us (and she still won't) is that organic farming practices inevitably lead to greater degrees of infestation of crops with pathogens. (This is manifest as an increase in chemicals that plants produce in response to pathogens.) This holds for viruses, including the "odious" agents Joy hysterically screams about (in her calmer moments, that is).
The fact is, if one is of the opinion that CaMV or parts thereof are potentially carcinogenic, one is compelled (out of intellectual consistency) to suspect any and all produce that is not rigorously clean from insects and other things that can infect a plant with viruses.
(Just to be clear – Joy's claims about plant viruses are completely unfounded, utterly and totally false. Readers and participants needn't worry about the logical consequence of Joy's stance – she is wrong.)
Of course, the issue isn't that organically-grown crops are more or less carcinogenic than "normal" crops. (There is zero reputable data that tells us one is better than the other.) And it is not about GMOs and their effects on society – it should be obvious to anyone with a lick of sense and an iota of understanding of the biology involved that Joy's rants about GMOs are deeply rooted in ignorance, even hatred.
The issue is that Joy isn't willing to live up to the ethical and moral standard she lectures about.
And neither is Krauze. He badgers people about animal rights activists, but sits silent while Joy (who is a philosophical and ethical cousin of PETA types) makes all manner of unsupported assertion. Can we expect Krauze to ask Joy for some data that supports her ludicrous link between growth hormone and mad cow? Not very likely. Can we expect Krauze to ask Joy for the experimenatl evidence that shows that CaMV is a carcinogenic agent? Not in a blue moon. Can we expect Krauze (or any of the other TTers who are prone to weave animal rights activists into their logical looniness) to take issue with any of the GMO and biotech issues Joy so blithely lectures about? It'll never happen.
In light of Joy's contributions to this thread, I think we can all easily recognize Krauze's reference to animal rights activists (who have not hindered nearly the amount of scientific work that anti-GMO types have in Europe) as a crude and hypocritical ploy.
Par for the TelicThoughts course, I'm afraid.
Comment by Art — August 16, 2006 @ 2:54 pm
August 16th, 2006 at 3:48 pm
Art sez:
I linked to Mae Wan Ho's work on the viral promoters (CaMV and other mosaic viruses) used to defeat natural species defenses against horizontal transfer in this crude technology, and the assessment of dangers the crudeness of the technology presents. Some say it's just "unlikely," others say it's a real danger. Still others suggest the breakdown of natural barriers posts a risk of disease transmission all by itself.
And we do know what happened when human gene therapy trials similarly used a human leukemia virus promoter – FDA flat shut 'em down. [Korthoff's review of "Lamarck's Signature" here].
Hmmm. One must wonder if Art believes that plants produce cancer-causing chemicals in response to pathenogen attack, and if so, how genetic engineering of plants gets around this. Surely he knows, or he wouldn't claim that stressed plants cause cancer, would he?
And, since in reality the jury's out, one might also wonder how Art knows I'm 'wrong' too. But I don't wonder. His pocketbook is talking, not his mouth (or fingers).
And exactly what Art thinks he knows about my morality/ethics goes unsaid. This is probably because he doesn't know me, but has taken to abject fear of me because I won't eat or grow transgenic crops, and think this crude technology – based as it is on a falsified hypothesis of genetic determinism – is dangerous. I'm a regular Big Threat to Art's clients, worth every cent spent to 'defeat' me and my evil naturalistic ideas, wherever and whenever I am able to exercise my right to speak.
LOL!!! Oh, this is great fun! I've cats and dogs too, Art. Put 'em to work clearing vermin from the barns and fields (though the dogs' primary duty is to bark when strangers come up the driveway or when bears get in the trash). Boo!
I'm not the FDA. So I'm not responsible for filing the rBGH/rHGH data in the same place as the BSE records. I just found 'em there, then went looking for 'why'. How many anomalous aa substitutions did they finally end up documenting in Prosilac, Art? I forget…
Well, there you have it. It's all a ploy designed to make wannabe IDiots believe that human hubris and rampant greed isn't good for us. Why, next thing you know some IDiot might convince her neighbors not to plant Starlink[TM] corn on the back 40 because it's not approved for human consumption and will readily pollenate the wimpy heirlooms people pay extra at the market to buy. Damned anti-GMO types! Fie!!! §;o)
Comment by Joy — August 16, 2006 @ 3:48 pm
August 16th, 2006 at 3:58 pm
Art doesn't like my refusal to pursue some tangent about GMO foods, and therefore try to portray me as a hypocrite.
Well, if I'm going to adress Joy's claims about GMO foods, let's make them relevant to the discussion by having Art answer the same questions that I asked Edarrell: Are there any experiments that haven't been done because of Joy's statements? Are there any laboratories that have been closed because of Joy's statements? Have any researchers been fired because of Joy's statements?
To anyone following Art's behavior, this is just another example of how he shifts between incompatible moral principles, based on what he thinks will make this blog look bad. You see, not too long ago, I criticized Salvador, an ID-friendly, who had taken a list of "actions by the Dover school board" that was obviously written as a joke, and presented it as though the poster was serious. Back then, Art trivialized the case, saying that Salvador was merely "missing some irony", and claimed that I was giving him a "public flogging". As he ended one of his comments: "All in all, a pretty pathetic entry. And ever more the norm for TT."
Yet here is Art, demanding that I criticize some comments that have had no measurable effect. Here's how he ends his comment: "Par for the TelicThoughts course, I'm afraid." Same message, different moral standard.
Oh yeah, and what about Art's claim that I "badger people about animal rights activists" In case anyone forgot, this thread started when Edarrell claimed that "every dime spent to advocate ID over evolution is a dime spent against a cure for cancer. Every minute spent advocating ID over evolution before a state school board is a minute spent advocating ignorance." If someone has a dictionary, will they please borrow it to Art? I believe we have a clear example of what "badgering" is.
For the record, I don't think Art, Ed, or anyone else are obligated to respond to animal rights terrorists. When I ask ID critics about them, it's always in response to those critics assuming the moral high ground, demanding everyone else to be as alarmed about intelligent design as they are.
Comment by Krauze — August 16, 2006 @ 3:58 pm
August 16th, 2006 at 4:22 pm
I apologize for indulging in Art's distractive sleight of mind, Krauze. I simply find it very funny that what passes for 'intelligent design' in big business these days is being foisted on us under the patently false rubric of "evolution." There's nothing evolutionary about any of it, though at some point transgenes will have broken down natural barriers sufficiently to promote a regular evolutionary free-for-all we may regret if we survive. Neodarwinism's gene-centricity set us up for this fall, which was begun in the 1970s and has refused to stay current as biological science has falsified the assumptions one right after the other for the past 30+ years.
Who's trying to fool whom here?
They like to call themselves "naturalists" but they're not. They like to call themselves "liberals" but they're not that, either. The only thing they won't call themselves (though there are notable rhetorical exceptions) is Christian. Because if they did, they might have to think twice about telling such outrageous lies.
My bad.
Comment by Joy — August 16, 2006 @ 4:22 pm
August 16th, 2006 at 6:14 pm
For the record – anyone who works in evolutionary biology can testify that most biologists working in other fields have only the very vaguest clue how evolution works. And for most fields of biology this matters not one jot. A molecular biologist or biochemist who (deeply) understands evolution doesn't have any substantial advantage in terms of research output over one who doesn't have a clue about genetic drift or homology – these issues are simply completely irrelevant to most research carried out in most labs.
Comment by Mesk — August 16, 2006 @ 6:14 pm
August 16th, 2006 at 8:06 pm
Mesk:
I have to disagree, Mesk. In this day and age, with 10-15% funding rates in NIH and NSF, the edge that comes with being able to converse in, and competently utilize, evolutionary concepts such as drift, selection, and homology (in the different senses of the term) is likely to be the difference between funding or not. Something as simple as a Ka/Ks analysis can reveal fruitful new avenues of investigation into enzyme mechanisms, and one would be remiss (or worse) to not capitalize on such information.
It's a pretty obvious fact (to me, at least) that the post-genomics age is one in which molecular biology, biochemistry, and evolutionary biology are going to be hopelessly intertwined. One ignores this at their own professional peril.
Comment by Art — August 16, 2006 @ 8:06 pm
August 16th, 2006 at 9:48 pm
"I have mixed feelings about pharmaceutical companies … "
Which may well be related to this factoid: "I am increasingly Liberal" Please, allow me to parse this for you: It's a well-known fact that pharmaceutical companies produce goods and services that millions of people want (and sometimes absolutely need) to consume. It's also a well-known fact that these same companies do this in the expectation of turning a tidy profit on their investments. 'ZOUNDS! These people are nothing but evil-capitalist-pig-dogs! (And probably Americans to boot).
"… am generally scared of ADM foods … "
That's all well and fine, but do you have a rational reason to be frightened? (By the way, being scared or frightened about imaginary problems (especially when coupled with the ignoring of real problems) is another marker of "liberalism")
If you'd like to worry about something genetical, but with a bit more heft to the worry than worrying about genetically modified multi-cellular plants, try this: heat-resistant e.coli (and other such bugs) coming soon to a kitchen near you. Isn't that going to be fun when cooking your food normally doesn't make it safe to consume?
"… and am proud to be a Canadian complete with socialized medicine."
While I do not doubt that retaining a compulsory one-size-fits-all-with-rationing-imposed-by-bureaucratic-fiat medical system enables millions of Canadian voters to indulge in quite healthy doses of moralistic preening, if you want to claim that Canada's (or anyone else's) socialized medicine actually delivers the goods — you know, a better level of health-care for the populace than a market-based system does — I really think you're going to have to doctor your "facts."
It's like this: "health care" is an economic good, a commodity. As with all commodities, there is a cost to producing it, and part of that cost involves forgoing the opportunity to produce some mix of other commodities. We can never produce as much "health care" as there is demand for. Therefore, we must ration it — one way or another. This is an inescapable fact of life.
Canada decides to ration "health care" by pretending to make everyone equally miserable (because, of course, the "evil rich" can always find "evil" ways to evade the compulsory system, and those with the proper connections can always game the system), by pretending that bureaucrats know the right mix to produce and just who deserves what.
On the other hand, America decides to ration "health care" by (mostly) private and mutually-agreed-upon decisions; that is, via a (generally) open and free market.
Both nations ration "health care" — that's unavoidable. One nation does it by governmental force, coupled with moralistic preening about how superior their system is. The other nation does it by allowing billions of individual free choices to determine the price, and thus the supply, of the various components that comprise "health care."
There is no magic; there is no free lunch. Anywhere.
Comment by Ilion — August 16, 2006 @ 9:48 pm
August 16th, 2006 at 9:54 pm
For the record, Mesk, I feel your pain. I love science too, even though its applications are often prematurely deployed to everybody's detriment. I remember "Duck and Cover" because I was there, and knew what it was worth. Exactly zip.
There is so much to know! So much we might do if we honestly understood it! But what we have in the way of applications so far are highly suspect. On a number of considerable levels, being exploited on provisionals rather than solid ground. It'll come back to bite us. Pride is the primary sin.
Perhaps if we approached design as if it were in fact design, we'd learn more? Do we know it can't work?
Did you know that Israel offered its Presidential position (not nearly as powerful as a PM) to Albert Einstein in 1951? He refused the honor and stayed under guard at Princeton instead. He knew what they wanted, and he was already on-record as being agin' it. Scientists can be dissident toward applications, even if they were the first ones to suggest the possibilities. Robert Oppenheimer was a dissident toward his own work too. Because we don't really understand.
We see a lot of "evolutionary biologists" – many of whom are not – telling us what we must believe. In this thread it's that we must believe our refusal to believe causes cancer. That's the most ridiculous thing anyone on either 'side' has said in a long time. Wow… just wow.
It looks and smells a lot like desperation to me, Mesk. What in the world are they so afraid of?
Comment by Joy — August 16, 2006 @ 9:54 pm
August 16th, 2006 at 9:57 pm
Mesk: "For the record …"
Aw, man!
Comment by Ilion — August 16, 2006 @ 9:57 pm
August 16th, 2006 at 10:25 pm
Krauze:
Joy is the TT representative of anti-GMO activists. This persuasion of ideologue has been far more damaging than animal rights activists when it comes to science. But Krauze won't speak out against such persons or their behavior, as he won't press Joy on the scientific bases for her opinions. (And I'm pretty sure Joy herself won't speak out with any sort of conviction against the ecoterrorists who share her vision.) Nope, he chooses to harp on animal rights activists, and to portray himself as a champion of the poor oppressed scientist who is being persecuted by PETA. It's all quite amusing, this two-faced faux morality that is on display here.
From the NYT:
————————
Wave of 'Eco-Terrorism' Appears to Hit Experimental Cornfield
By MICHAEL COOPER
Published: July 21, 2000
On a police blotter, it might not look like much: a small cornfield vandalized, a few acres of ears trampled and uprooted.
But this was not just any cornfield. The patch that was damaged here last Thursday was part of a research project at the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, a field with a distinguished scientific heritage. It was where Dr. Barbara McClintock studied Indian corn in the 1940's to learn about genes — work that won her a Nobel Prize in 1983.
Officials say they believe that the field was attacked for that very reason. The destruction, they said, appears to be the latest of several recent incidents across the country in which experimental crops have been destroyed and research centers vandalized by militant environmentalists who oppose the genetic modification of plants. Graffiti denouncing genetic engineering were found scrawled near the trampled rows of corn.
More than 30 acts of sabotage against genetic research have been reported in the last year, according to both law enforcement officials trying to combat the practice and radical groups that encourage it. Vandals have trampled experimental grass fields in Oregon, pruned pinot noir vines and uprooted strawberry fields in California, and hacked down cornfields in Maine.
Sometimes the destruction goes well beyond crop damage. On New Year's Eve, arson destroyed a suite of offices in Michigan State University's Agriculture Hall. No one was hurt, but the fire caused hundreds of thousands of dollars' worth of damage. A radical environmental group, the Earth Liberation Front, later claimed responsibility, saying it had focused on the program because of the program's ties to biotechnology.
————————————-
Comment by Art — August 16, 2006 @ 10:25 pm
August 16th, 2006 at 10:32 pm
Oh, man! Did I forget to be in Michigan in July? Geez… I was on the road to Virginia that day for my nephew's wedding in the Globe Theatre replica. Huh. Cold Spring… Cold… oh, yeah. They maintain the Eugenics history, don't they?
Comment by Joy — August 16, 2006 @ 10:32 pm
August 16th, 2006 at 10:40 pm
Joy:
And I debunked the arguments of Ho et al. decisively on ARN. Joy had no answers for these points then, and she won't offer any now. Nor, I daresay, will her TT compatriots.
Nonetheless, enjoy.
—————————————-
On the cauliflower mosaic virus 35S promoter
Much has been made by anti-GMO zealots about alleged potential risks involved in using the CaMV 35S promoter in transgenic crops. These supposed risks are three-fold: it has been claimed that the 35S promoter might activate silent viruses in crops and humans, that this promoter could possibly activate potential oncogenes in humans cells, and that recombination in the 35S promoter (resident in human cells) could lead to chromosome breaks, cancer, etc. All of these claims are not only hypothetical to the point of absurdity (no anti-GMO zealot has ever documented any such adverse event associated with the 35S promoter), they are contrary to the actual science that underlies the activity of this promoter and its use in transgenic crops. The following is an attempt to explain the truth of the matter.
The first claim is often associated with assertions that the 35S promoter, as used in tranegnes, is a "super-promoter", a virulent, virus-specific agent that is capable of wreaking all manner of havoc, including massive activation of silent autonomous genetic elements in plants and humans. The fact of the matter is that the 35S promoter, while more active than many, is non-descript in both its overall activity and the tissue distribution of this activity. A list of references at the end of this post should be consulted for more information; for now, it suffices to point out that this promoter is relatively simple (two elements, or small DNA sequences that mediate interactions with transcription factors, with as many as perhaps five subelements amongst these) and is recognized by two or three host transcription factors. There are no viral factors involved, nor is the 35S promoter even close to the most active one that can be found in eukaryotic cells. Thus, it is no more likely to disrupt molecular homeostasis in plants than any of a large number of other promoters, or, when introduced into human cells (via, for example, consumption of plants), any of a number of "natural" plant promoters. (This latter possibility is, as we will see later, absurd.)
[As an aside, Ho claims that naked CaMV DNA is much more likely to be taken up by cells than packaged DNA. From the response to the criticisms raised by Futterer et al:
This assertion is grounded in a comparison with studies showing that, with animal viruses, DNA is able to establish infections in non-hosts. This is but one of many shameless deceptions that can be found in Ho's writings. Beyond the fact that the comparison is scientifically wrong, Ho's implication vis-Ã -vis the relative infectivities of CaMV particles and DNA is also incorrect. Plant viruses do not enter cells via receptor-mediated processes, but rather are introduced mechanically. Because of this, intact virus particles are invariably more infectious than naked nucleic acid, owing to the greater stability of nucleoproteins. Ho claims that the 35S promoter has been converted to a form that is better at moving from cell to cell that an intact virus, but the fact is that just the opposite is true.
While we're on the subject of Ho's shameless deceptiveness, the next sentence in the passage is:
The abstract from reference 1 shows us that the cited study involves , not HTLV-1 itself, but clones that had previously been adapted for rabbit cells. This abstract is at the end of the post.
I haven't checked all of Ho's references, but with each of the ones I did track down, I found that Ho had completely misrepresented the claims and findings of the cited studies. I am not impressed by her scholarship.]
The second claim arises, at least in part, from a claim by Ho that, because caulimoviruses share genomic features with retroviruses, the 35S promoter will, like retroelements, inadvertently activate genes by insertion into them. This claim is, IMO, a piece of willfull deception. Retroviruses act in the described manner owing to a unique feature of their genomes: they are terminally redundant, and the redundancy includes the promoter used to make RNA copies of the genome. In ascii art format, they are like:
>——>
with > denoting the promoter and its orientation. If the element inserts in the proper orientation, the terminal > will activate expression of otherwise silent genes.
The CaMV 35S promoter, as used in transgenic crops, does not have this property. Rather (and Ho herself illustrates this in her literature), it is used in the form:
>——- T
where T is a terminator of transcription. This means that any transcription starting from > will never get into adjacent host DNA, thus eliminating the chances of inadvertent activation of plant, or human, DNA at the insertion site. (There is a possibility that an enhancer element in the 35S promoter might act at some distance to disrupt normal gene expression, but this possibility can be estimated by empiral examination of transgenic collections to be small, and unrelated to the wild and inaccurate claim made by Ho.)
The third claim, that the recombination hotspot in the 35S promoter can cause wide-spread genetic havoc in those who eat GMO crops, can be seen to be absurd by doing nothing more than some simple math. First, recall that, in order for this to occur, the 35S promoter has to find its way, stably, into the genome of a human cell. Such an occurrence, through ingestion of GMO crops, has never been demonstrated (nor, as the numbers that follow indicate, will it). Consider, for example, the uptake of DNA by human cells. In the lab, if given optimal (very large) quantities of DNA, human cells must be specially treated in order to take up DNA. Typically, 10-100% of a sample of 1 million cells will take up a purified plasmid if treated with co-precipitating agents or powerful electrical impulses. However, leave out these agents, and none of the cells take up the DNA. Conservatively, it is safe to say that less than 1 cell in 10^4, when given very large quantities of DNA, will take any up. Translated to a human scale, if a typical human body has 10^12 cells, and if each and every one of them is bathed in large quantities of DNA, at the very most 10^8 will take any up (and likely many orders of magnitude less than this – but we'll be generous for now).
But that's just uptake. In order for the imagined adverse events to occur, this DNA must integrate into the human genome. This will have to be via non-homologous recombination, and will occur in 1 in 10^4 to 1 in 10^6 cells (typically – I'm probably overstating this as well, but we're being generous). Using the higher number, this means that, in a typical human body, at most 10^4 cells, if bathed in very large concentrations of DNA, would ever end up with a copy in their genome.
But we're not done yet. Remember, we're talking about transgenic crops as the source of DNA. That proportion of a typical plant genome that could be 35S promoter is vanishingly tiny – 350/5,000,000,000 (350 being Ho's size of the 35S promoter, ad 5×10^9 a typical haploid genome size of a crop plant). Rounding things to make the typing easy, this is about 10^-7. Adding this consideration to the above, we now find that, if 1000 people had all of their cells bathed in very high concentrations of crop plant DNA, only 1 cell in all of these people might end up with the 35S promoter in its genome. That's 1 cell in 1000 people.
But there's more. In most of the body, very small quantities (if any) of crop plant DNA will be seen. Since DNA uptake is directly affected by DNA quantity, this means that the actual frequency would be much less than described above. It's hard to say just how much, since it's hard to know what fraction of plant DNA survives intact into the bloodstream, but it's safe to say that the actual rates of uptake would be, very generously, 1% of those seen in optimized lab experiments. 1% of the cells in a body might see more DNA than this, but the uptake in even these cells would be less than seen in lab settings. But we'll say, for now, that these cells (I am thinking of the cells in the digestive tract) are for some reason spectacularly efficient. (This helps in the math, so I'll be generous here.) All of these considerations mean that 1 cell in 100,000 people might actually end up with the 35S promoter in its genome. (This is an incredibly generous estimate, but, as we will see, even this generosity cannot save the zealots.)
Now we can turn to the frequency of occurrence of adverse events involving the 35S promoter. Not every promoter recombined or causes chromosome breaks – if this were true, it could not be used as a tool. A lot of empirical observation tells us that such events are not common – while I don't have a number at hand, it's safe to say that fewer than 1 in 1000 such elements would ever undergo such an event once resident in a eukaryotic genome. (This number is too generous, as well. But I'm lazy.) This means that, if 100 million people were to be eating GMO crops, 1 cell in this population (at the very most) might undergo some sort of damage or breakage as a result of the presence of the 35S promoter. That's far, far lower than the natural rate of chromosome alteration – which makes Ho's objections completely irrelevant.
But it's even worse for Ho and her cohort. DNA damage and chromosome breakage in and of itself will not cause cancer (which is Ho's assertion in much of this). Many different events need to occur for cancer to develop. For one thing, the breakage must be in a "strategic" location in the genome. I don't know how many there are – common sense says they are few, otherwise cancer would be rampant in all people. But let's say that there are 3 million such places. That's 0.1% of the genome. This means that, in a population of 100 billion people (20 earths, roughly), 1 cancer might be attributable to the 35S promoter. (The impact on overall cancer rates would, I daresay, be infinitesimally small.)
Then there's the matter of coupling – just because a strategic site has been "hit" doesn't mean that cancer will ensue. Many other events must also occur – such that, very "optimistically", only 1 in a thousand or so of such events would actually contribute directly to the development of cancer.
Which brings us the bottom line, for now – in Ho's worse-case scenario, if 100 trillion people consumed GMO crops that included 35S promoter-containing constructs, 1 person might develop cancer as a direct result of activities associated with this promoter. IMO, that's not much of a risk – certainly, much, much, muchlower than the risk that consumers of organically-grown foods face from, say, contamination by E. coli.
A bibliography pertaining to the transcriptional properties of the 35S promoter:
EMBO J 1989 Dec 20;8(13):4197-204, The ocs-element is a component of the promoters of several T-DNA and plant viral genes. Bouchez D, Tokuhisa JG, Llewellyn DJ, Dennis ES, Ellis JG.
Plant Cell 1989 Dec;1(12):1147-56, ASF-2: a factor that binds to the cauliflower mosaic virus 35S promoter and a conserved GATA motif in Cab promoters. Lam E, Chua NH.
Plant Mol Biol 1994 May;25(2):323-8, The plant transcription factor TGA1 stimulates expression of the CaMV 35S promoter in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Ruth J, Schweyen RJ, Hirt H.
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 1989 Oct;86(20):7890-4, Site-specific mutations alter in vitro factor binding and change promoter expression pattern in transgenic plants. Lam E, Benfey PN, Gilmartin PM, Fang RX, Chua NH.
EMBO J 1990 Jun;9(6):1685-96, Combinatorial and synergistic properties of CaMV 35S enhancer subdomains. Benfey PN, Ren L, Chua NH.
EMBO J 1990 Jun;9(6):1677-84, Tissue-specific expression from CaMV 35S enhancer subdomains in early stages of plant development., Benfey PN, Ren L, Chua NH.
Finally, the abstract I promised:
Comment by Art — August 16, 2006 @ 10:40 pm
August 16th, 2006 at 10:43 pm
Art, most artfully:
Ooooooohhh!!!!!! Such threatiness!
Comment by Joy — August 16, 2006 @ 10:43 pm
August 16th, 2006 at 10:47 pm
Good night, y'all. It's late and I'm tired, and there's a lot of wasted space here. Krauze has spoken, it's his thread, and noise is just noise.
Comment by Joy — August 16, 2006 @ 10:47 pm
August 16th, 2006 at 10:49 pm
Joy:
Notice the misdirection. My point is not about chemistry. Joy believes a small piece of a plant virus can cause cancer if it finds its way from the genome of a genetically-midified plant into a human cell. Yet the manner in which Joy chooses to cultivate her crops means that leafy cruciferae in her garden may contain many orders of magnitude more copies of this same genetic segment than the GMO crops she so despises.
How do you rationalize this, Joy? To yourself as well as your customers?
(We shan't for now get into the chemistry Joy alludes to.)
Comment by Art — August 16, 2006 @ 10:49 pm
August 16th, 2006 at 10:57 pm
Art:
Art is here only to cause trouble, as he has been trying to get TT contributors to fight with each other for over a year now. This is just his latest attempt.
Art is confused about the purpose of TT. We do not present ourselves as "a champion of the poor oppressed scientist." On the contrary, that is the mission of the various "pro-science" blogs that are out there. Now, since Art thinks anti-GMO activists have been far more damaging than animal rights activists when it comes to science, we need only point out that the "pro-science" blogs (and Art) seem to think that ID and creationism pose a more serious threat than the radical environmentalists and the animal rights activists.
Thus, Art nicely shows the "two-faced faux morality" is largely the expression of the ID critics, who, while going on and on about the threatiness of ID, rarely offer any complaints against the destructive tendencies of the extreme environmentalists and animal rights extremists. Richard Dawkins largely symbolizes this sect of "pro-science" advocates. How much ink does Dawkins spill about the animal rights activists? How much ink does Dawkins spill about the anti-GMO activists? How much ink does Dawkins spill about religion?
Comment by MikeGene — August 16, 2006 @ 10:57 pm
August 16th, 2006 at 11:17 pm
I linked to Mae Wan Ho's work on the viral promoters (CaMV and other mosaic viruses) used to defeat natural species defenses against horizontal transfer in this crude technology, and the assessment of dangers the crudeness of the technology presents.
Art: And I debunked the arguments of Ho et al. decisively on ARN. Joy had no answers for these points then, and she won't offer any now. Nor, I daresay, will her TT compatriots.
Art, you've repeatedly linked responses of TTers (I'm assuming this extends to the IDists of this forum) to a side issue dispute involving you and Joy that does not directly impact the larger issue this blog is focused on. If you think this discredits the views of TTers (to use your acronym) then step back and reassess your thinking. The thread containing this exchange highlighted a clumsy scare tactic aimed at ID which you have not directly commented on AFAIK. I don't buy organic food (too pricey although I'm open to arguments about it) however even if Joy is 100% wrong and you are right I'm glad she is growing crops. We could use more small farmers IMO. Since you did write:
"Of course, the issue isn't that organically-grown crops are more or less carcinogenic than "normal" crops."
you indicate that it is her views not her actions that bother you. Let her grow and sell and get onto other things. Do you really believe this threatens scientific progress?
Comment by Bradford — August 16, 2006 @ 11:17 pm
August 16th, 2006 at 11:26 pm
Not at all. I merely point out that the fruits of evolution are real, and are the foundations for business. If you think the process Luther Burbank used to get the Burbank russet potato is the same process GM used to get the Corvette, please stay out of biology.
That's exactly the sort of science misunderstanding that leads to baboon hearts being transplanted into babies with improper tissue matching done, and other medical experiments that lead to death, high costs, and no scientific advance.
Comment by edarrell — August 16, 2006 @ 11:26 pm
August 16th, 2006 at 11:33 pm
Bradford, your points are well-stated. But you shouldn't miss the bigger picture, the reason I have once again spanked Joy. On TT, Joy presents herself as someone who is informed and authoritative when it comes to science. And to boot she imagines herself to be on a higher moral plane than the evil Darwinian genetic deterministic corporate plunderers. I have shown in this thread, as elsewhere, that Joy is blessedly ignorant, that she cares not one whit for facts, and that her moralizing is quite hypocritical.
This post is blunt, but that's how it must be with zealots like Joy. When you (and anyone else) read anything Joy posts here, remember this thread, her responses (or lack thereof) to facts that clearly refute her delusions, and her inability to explain the ethical inconsistencies on her part.
One more thing – read Ed Darrell's blog in its entirety. The gist is rather different from Krauze's clumsy baiting.
Comment by Art — August 16, 2006 @ 11:33 pm
August 17th, 2006 at 12:21 am
Ed: Not at all. I merely point out that the fruits of evolution are real, and are the foundations for business. If you think the process Luther Burbank used to get the Burbank russet potato is the same process GM used to get the Corvette, please stay out of biology.
Burbank's mutated russet potato became a great commercial success. The success is attributable to several factors. 1) the potato itself 2) the match of the potato to ideal growing conditions and 3) some very purposeful and intelligent input into the process. GM also utilizes intelligence to effect outcomes. That's the point of ID. A belief that the same phenomenon (intelligent input) occured with respect to life in geologic time. My inference is invoked at the point of life's origin. It is at that point that well documented mechanisms for change would have been non-existent. My arguments are based on what is known about cells and biochemistry. Nothing sinister about it.
Comment by Bradford — August 17, 2006 @ 12:21 am
August 17th, 2006 at 7:49 am
There's no question that synthesising evolutionary biology with other fields of biology provides extremely profitable avenues for research (hell, it's what I do, so it better…). Nonetheless, there are plenty of researchers out there (in fact the majority, IMO) who are almost completely ignorant of even basic evolutionary theory and yet still do very good research.
Would their research be better if they applied tools from evolutionary biology to it? Often, yes. But to pretend that evolutionary theory is somehow this absolutely crucial keystone of all modern biomedical research, such that without it the whole enterprise of biology would come crashing down, is just silly. MET provides many useful approaches to research problems, but it's not (in any practical sense) the core of biological research. If MET was somehow proven wrong tomorrow we'd still have perfectly good cancer research.
Comment by Mesk — August 17, 2006 @ 7:49 am
August 17th, 2006 at 8:18 am
"If MET was somehow proven wrong tomorrow we'd still have perfectly good cancer research."
'Modern evolutionary theory' is already proven wrong — and everyone knows this. Shoot, you youself have confessed here at TT to the knowledge that 'modern evolutionary theory' is not true. Which is to say, it is wrong.
What you really meant to have said is that "If somehow tomorrow 'modern evolutionaey theorists' were to abandon the failed paradign of 'modern evolutionary theory,' we'd still have perfectly good cancer research."
As a matter of fact, the only "reasearch" that would suffer (i.e. cease to needlessly consume resources better allocated elsewhere) is reasearch attempting the impossible task of proving 'modern evolutionary theory' true.
Comment by Ilion — August 17, 2006 @ 8:18 am
August 17th, 2006 at 11:55 am
Art:
Thanks for the fancy title, Art. Does that mean I can get paid to be an "expert" now? Though I'm having a little trouble figuring out how my refusal to grow genetically modified crops on my few fair acres, or my refusal to eat them if I don't have to (pretty much all non-organic processed foods contain GMO soy, corn sweeteners and oil) presents such a threaty-threat to science. I don't even see why my distaste for the whole profit-intensive scam is a threat to science. It makes no sense to me.
How – exactly – do my beliefs and way of life threaten science? Be specific, because it looks a lot like you're trying to slander me most offensively. You come very close to calling me a criminal – worse, a terrorist, and I absolutely WILL NOT put up with it.
Somebody vandalized a patch of "experimental" corn on Long Island in 2000. This is "terrorism?" Does that mean y'all can send us anti-GMO types off to Gitmo now to be tortured into submission? Sometimes kids vandalize my melon patch. My mailbox gets vandalized every Halloween and New Year's eve. Someone drove right through the school bus shelter one night – on purpose. And one of the shops in town had grafitti spray painted on its picture window last month.
Vandalism is minor criminal behavior. Trying to bomb someone's house is felonious criminal behavior. We have 2.5 cops in our town, and judges over in the county seat who are pretty good at imposing fair settlements, community service and/or jail terms. It doesn't seem to me that this sort of stuff is equivalent to flying airliners into buildings or blowing up commuter trains or suicide bombing crowded markets. And I don't see that it requires tanks, carpet bombing, house-to-house shooting/beating/raping, or even sneaking the culprits out of the country to be tortured.
You sound just like Dick Cheney.
ALF is actually stopping research. And they're certifiably violent. Yet you don't see them as a threat to science nearly as serious as me and my little garden. Why is that, exactly? If I choose not to buy GMO food or seeds, or use the chemical fertilizers and herbicides and pesticides that come with, what's it to ya? And why in the world should Krauze (or Mike, or any other blogger here at TT) care?
Even if you *ARE* Monsanto/Pharmacia you don't need my compliance with your evil plans to rule the world. Honest. You don't need me to grow or eat your genetic curiosities, you don't need me to buy your drugs. The two may be linked strongly together, but I can't afford to play either way so you're not losing a thing from my non-compliance. You should probably get over yourself before you get yourself in trouble by all this ridiculous over-emoting. It's not amusing anymore.
Comment by Joy — August 17, 2006 @ 11:55 am
August 17th, 2006 at 12:22 pm
edarrell:
Burbank reported the russet as a crossbreed selection made by Lou Sweet in 1914. That's more than 20 years before Neo-Darwinism was born. Humans have been selectively breeding crop plants for about ten thousand years, Ed. They didn't need Charlie Darwin to explain it to 'em.
Comment by Joy — August 17, 2006 @ 12:22 pm
August 17th, 2006 at 2:08 pm
Joy:
Art is here only to cause trouble.
Comment by MikeGene — August 17, 2006 @ 2:08 pm
August 17th, 2006 at 4:55 pm
Joy: "Somebody vandalized a patch of "experimental" corn on Long Island in 2000. This is "terrorism?""
Art doesn't actually care about the vandalization against GMO farmers. If he did, he would be at one of the "pro-science" blogs criticizing it, instead of wasting his time here. Art is only interested in getting Joy and me to fight, so that he can write something like this: "TT prides itself of the wide political spectrum among its blogmeisters, but look at this public flogging Joy gets for speaking up against right-wing talking points. Keep telling yourself that ID isn't just the extended arm of the Religious Right, guys. A sad sight, but it's business as usual here at TT."
Comment by Krauze — August 17, 2006 @ 4:55 pm
August 17th, 2006 at 5:06 pm
[...] Mike Gene at telic thoughts reminds us of the perils of funding/endorsing the ID movement. Read about the post here:Â http://telicthoughts.com/?p=866 Filed under: Intelligent Design — Scott @ 4:05 pm [...]
Pingback by Uncommon Descent » ID causes cancer — August 17, 2006 @ 5:06 pm
August 17th, 2006 at 5:11 pm
[...] Read about the post here: here. Filed under: Intelligent Design — Scott @ 4:09 pm [...]
Pingback by Uncommon Descent » ID Causes Cancer — August 17, 2006 @ 5:11 pm
August 17th, 2006 at 5:32 pm
No. MET is not a monolithic entity; it is composed of semi-independent sub-theories that can stand or fall without necessarily affecting the truth of the others. Some of these sub-theories (such as common descent) are extremely well-demonstrated; others (such as "all mutations are random with respect to fitness") are weaker. When I say that I do not believe that MET is true, I mean that I believe it likely that some of the details of some of these sub-theories are probably wrong. This does not mean that I believe the entirety of MET to have been falsified.
Comment by Mesk — August 17, 2006 @ 5:32 pm
August 17th, 2006 at 6:13 pm
I pointed out that Luther Burbank's methods employ evolution theory in applied fashion. Joy responds that Burbank's big russet was bred 20 years before the birth of "neo-Darwinism," by which I presume she means the modern synthesis of evolution.
So what? It's evolution theory applied. It's not intelligent design. Burbank's interventions were to try to push natural processes in a particular direction. This contrasts sharply and greatly with the process of design of manufactured items. My point earlier was that the design of automobiles (or any other manufactured machine) is not analogous with evolution. When Burbank bred his spud doesn't change that fact.
Comment by edarrell — August 17, 2006 @ 6:13 pm
August 17th, 2006 at 6:15 pm
I see that edarrell still refuses to flesh out how exactly intelligent design impedes a cure for cancer.
Comment by Krauze — August 17, 2006 @ 6:15 pm
August 17th, 2006 at 6:34 pm
Completely OT:
Joy said: "That would be Mount Mitchell, thanks." As in the highest pt. east of the Mississippi? Beautiful place. A favorite.
Comment by jrw — August 17, 2006 @ 6:34 pm
August 17th, 2006 at 7:00 pm
edarrell:
No, Ed. It's intelligent design. Mesoamericans began selecting and cross-breeding Teosinte about 7,000 years before Monsanto engineered Roundup Ready corn. Peruvians were irrigating their potato crops around that time, and steadily improving the tubers. Livestock and fowl were selected and selectively bred ~10,000 years ago. No evolutionary theory required – you save the best seeds and cross your best lines.
Point being that Sweet didn't do anything new to produce something new, and he wasn't guided by evolutionary theory to do it. While it's true that a potato isn't a car engine, it is in the hands of a plant breeder a raw material s/he uses to produce a designed thing. I do plant a few hybrids among my truck crops. Potatoes don't revert like tomatoes or peppers do – once bred they'll continue to breed true from tubers. People have known how to design plants and animals for a long, long time.
Comment by Joy — August 17, 2006 @ 7:00 pm
August 17th, 2006 at 7:06 pm
jrw:
South slope (right side of Heartbreak Ridge, looking down) at about 2500 feet. The oldest section of national forest in America is on the other side of the ridge (Curtis Creek). The tower is 9 miles worth of trail from here, but only about 2 miles as the crow flies. It is a beautiful place. §;o)
Comment by Joy — August 17, 2006 @ 7:06 pm
August 17th, 2006 at 8:05 pm
"Every dime spent to advocate ID over evolution is a dime spent against a cure for cancer."
All ID has to do to refute this is make a positive contribution to the fight against cancer. Any IDists here have any idea of when that'll be?
Comment by Sleena — August 17, 2006 @ 8:05 pm
August 17th, 2006 at 8:17 pm
Joy: While it's true that a potato isn't a car engine, it is in the hands of a plant breeder a raw material s/he uses to produce a designed thing. I do plant a few hybrids among my truck crops.
This makes Joy an intelligent designer and the few hybrids, the products of design. Pay close attention Ed.
Potatoes don't revert like tomatoes or peppers do – once bred they'll continue to breed true from tubers. People have known how to design plants and animals for a long, long time.
Our economy runs on intelligence and some fuel to boot. Potatoes are a little like genomes Ed. Design the first one right and it breeds true thereafter. More variety than potatoes but the product of design nonetheless.
Comment by Bradford — August 17, 2006 @ 8:17 pm
August 17th, 2006 at 8:21 pm
Krauze: I see that edarrell still refuses to flesh out how exactly intelligent design impedes a cure for cancer.
It's the big bucks you and the other TTers pull in from this Telic Thoughts gig. The BBs would be better spent on cancer research. Must I interpret everthing for you?
Comment by Bradford — August 17, 2006 @ 8:21 pm
August 18th, 2006 at 7:16 am
Hi Sleena,
"All ID has to do to refute this is make a positive contribution to the fight against cancer. Any IDists here have any idea of when that'll be?"
So "not making a positive contribution to fighting cancer" = "impeding the fight against cancer" Does that mean that since the NCSE hasn't made any positive contribution to protecting scientists and their families from animal rights terrorists, we can conclude that "Every dime spent on the NCSE is a dime spent against protecting scientists from animal rights terrorists"
Comment by Krauze — August 18, 2006 @ 7:16 am
August 18th, 2006 at 7:29 am
Hi Bradford,
"It's the big bucks you and the other TTers pull in from this Telic Thoughts gig. The BBs would be better spent on cancer research."
I'm sorry it took me a while to reply. My laptop fell into the pool, and the only spare laptop was in the west wing. When I find out which one of the maids forgot to stock up on laptops, I'll give her a sound thrashing.
Anyway, your premise is obviously in error. As the hospital said when they used our donation to open a new cancer ward, that money is better placed in the hands of extremely wealthy philanthropists like us than in the pockets of millions of Americans.
Now, if you'll excuse me, Juanita and her twin sister are here to give me my full-body massage.
Comment by Krauze — August 18, 2006 @ 7:29 am
August 18th, 2006 at 5:36 pm
Krauze,
If you read my comment again you'll notice that I didn't say anything about ID "impeding the fight against cancer". All I that said was:
All ID has to do to refute this is make a positive contribution to the fight against cancer. Any IDists here have any idea of when that'll be?
I take it that you don't have any idea when that'll be, but then again I guess that the DI's too busy sneaking ceationists onto school boards to bother with researching the fight against cancer using ID.
Comment by Sleena — August 18, 2006 @ 5:36 pm
August 18th, 2006 at 6:20 pm
Hi Sleena,
"If you read my comment again you'll notice that I didn't say anything about ID "impeding the fight against cancer"."
When someone says that "every dime spent to advocate ID over evolution is a dime spent against a cure for cancer", I have a tendency to take that as saying that ID impedes the fight against cancer. My bad.
But, since you didn't produce any examples of the NCSE making positive contributions to protecting scientists, I guess we can conclude that a dime spent on the NCSE is a dime spent against protecting scientists.
Comment by Krauze — August 18, 2006 @ 6:20 pm
August 18th, 2006 at 6:38 pm
Sleena:
Define "positive contribution to the fight against cancer."
Do you have any evidence to support this claim?
Comment by MikeGene — August 18, 2006 @ 6:38 pm
August 19th, 2006 at 6:45 am
Krauze,
"When someone says that "every dime spent to advocate ID over evolution is a dime spent against a cure for cancer", I have a tendency to take that as saying that ID impedes the fight against cancer. My bad."
Let's recap my orginal post:
"All ID has to do to refute this is make a positive contribution to the fight against cancer. Any IDists here have any idea of when that'll be?"
No idea of when that'll be, Krauze? Funny how when you ask IDists for any positive evidence for *any* ID research the toys start leaving the pram at high velocity. Forget ID research against cancer, how about just any old plain ID research? Nothing? Nobody? Does DaveScot growing mushrooms in his basement really count? Are there at least any plans for research?
Thought not.
MikeGene,
Define "positive contribution to the fight against cancer."
Definition: "positive contribution to the fight against cancer."
(As opposed to a negative or zero contribution as is the status of ID's current contribution.)
"Do you have any evidence to support this claim?"
Kansas.
Comment by Sleena — August 19, 2006 @ 6:45 am
August 19th, 2006 at 10:38 am
Hi Sleena,
"Funny how when you ask IDists for any positive evidence for *any* ID research the toys start leaving the pram at high velocity."
I don't see any toys leaving the pram. I don't claim that there is any ID research, so demanding me to give evidence of it is pointless.
With that out of the way, let's get back to the topic: Every dime spent to support the NCSE is a dime spent against protecting scientists from animal rights terrorists. If the NCSE wants to refute this, all they have to do is to make a positive contribution to protecting scientists from animal rights terrorists.
Do you disagree?
Comment by Krauze — August 19, 2006 @ 10:38 am
August 19th, 2006 at 3:15 pm
Krauze,
"I don't see any toys leaving the pram."
I suggest you take a look at weekly events on this blog and the rest of the ID blogs.
"I don't claim that there is any ID research, so demanding me to give evidence of it is pointless."
Thank you for the confirmation, but are you aware that other IDists are claiming the existence of ID research?
"With that out of the way, let's get back to the topic:"
I wasn't discussing that topic in particular -I merely made a suggestion as to how the IDM could 'easily' refute the claim that every dime spent to advocate ID over evolution is a dime spent against a cure for cancer.
"Every dime spent to support the NCSE is a dime spent against protecting scientists from animal rights terrorists."
I fail to see the parallels you seem so desperate to promote. The NCSE "is a not-for-profit, membership organization providing information and resources for schools, parents and concerned citizens working to keep evolution in public school science education." That's the stated extent of their remit.
Animal rights extremists don't have a problem with mainstream science per se; only with the ethical and moral consequences of experiments/testing on animals. They may argue that the experiments are cruel, pointless, redundant, unethical etc etc. but I've never heard them argue that they are wholly unscientific or that the scientists performing them are doing so only to prove/advance/promote their 'worldview'.
Contrast this with the DI's stated intention to "replace [mainstream science] with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions" -a clearly political, religious-based strategy.
Comment by Sleena — August 19, 2006 @ 3:15 pm
August 19th, 2006 at 3:41 pm
"I don't claim that there is any ID research, so demanding me to give evidence of it is pointless."
Thank you for the confirmation, but are you aware that other IDists are claiming the existence of ID research?
How is research in any way ideological? I use data all the time obtained from researchers whose views about natural history are unpublicized. Data unfavorable to an anti-ID position can be obtained from research. The views of the researchers are irrelevant.
Comment by Bradford — August 19, 2006 @ 3:41 pm
August 21st, 2006 at 3:47 pm
Hi Sleena,
Krauze: "I don't claim that there is any ID research, so demanding me to give evidence of it is pointless."
Sleena: "Thank you for the confirmation, but are you aware that other IDists are claiming the existence of ID research?"
Yes, and? You aren't talking with "other IDists"; you're talking with me.
"With that out of the way, let's get back to the topic:"
"I merely made a suggestion as to how the IDM could 'easily' refute the claim that every dime spent to advocate ID over evolution is a dime spent against a cure for cancer."
There's no need to "refute" that claim; it's just a piece of hysterical rhetoric, as evidenced by the fact that neither you nor edarrell has offered a shred of evidence in support of it.
"I fail to see the parallels you seem so desperate to promote."
Your psychic abilities have failed you. I am not "desperate" to promote anything.
"Contrast this with the DI's stated intention to "replace [mainstream science] with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions" -a clearly political, religious-based strategy."
And? What does all of this have to do with cancer?
Comment by Krauze — August 21, 2006 @ 3:47 pm
August 22nd, 2006 at 10:40 pm
[...] More over at Telic Thoughts. [...]
Pingback by SUMMA PHILOSOPHIAE » Blog Archive » Intelligent Design Causes Cancer!! — August 22, 2006 @ 10:40 pm