Evidence for God from Science

Posted: **Tue Aug 28, 2012 10:58 am**

KBCid, your posts remind me of godslanguage, I've not seen him post here in sometime, and his idea on front loading in particular which he outlined here:
http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... =6&t=33598

Have you read any of John Davidson's work? His papers on Chromosomal rearrangement and evolutionary manifesto might be of interest if a little dated, it was godslanguage who pointed me in their direction. Not so much a direct attack on evolution but moreso that rm & ns were seen as a fine tuning mechanism below, or around, the species level with other mechanisms, such as the proposed chromosomal rearrangement, being responsible for large scale changes at or above the species level.

edit, Davidson & Co. Paper: http://www.uvm.edu/~jdavison/davison-manifesto.html

Posted: **Tue Aug 28, 2012 4:28 pm**

Proinsias wrote:KBCid, your posts remind me of godslanguage, I've not seen him post here in sometime, and his idea on front loading in particular which he outlined here: http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... =6&t=33598

I guess I don't normally think of this as a frontloading situation in the way I have heard it explained but there may be some morsel of truth in the concept. What I see within this system is what I have come to call the "the boyscout arrangement". As a boyscout I learned the value of coming prepared and I have matched this concept to the variation system since its job is to continuously form variations thus enhancing continuation of their existence tremendously. As an analogy one may consider the mars lander another boyscout arrangement in a very limited form. It is designed to have a 'variety' of possible functionalities in order to better withstand the environment. So is that a type of frontload? I guess you could envision it that way if you simply consider it more like a system of adaptability to whatever may come without actually having to know what is coming.
If you or I could design a living form then this would be a logical and methodical way of enhancing the replication systems output as more and more variations come into existence. Thus, creating a virtual shield against the natural environment so that it can't kill all of that kind of life.

Consider further on this point, some lowly ancient bacterial life that is dug up and found to have all sorts of antibiotic resistence for antibiotics that won't actually exist for another 30,000 years....

Antibiotic resistance is ancient
Here we report targeted metagenomic analyses of rigorously authenticated ancient DNA from 30,000-year-old Beringian permafrost sediments and the identification of a highly diverse collection of genes encoding resistance to b-lactam, tetracycline and glycopeptide antibiotics. Structure and function studies on the complete vancomycin resistance element VanA confirmed its similarity to modern variants.
These results show conclusively that antibiotic resistance is a natural phenomenon that predates the modern selective pressure of clinical antibiotic use. http://www.bioexpress.ac.cn/upload/2011 ... e10388.pdf

This is another variation mechanisms shield in action. This is just like our own live defence system. It continuously forms variations of its defence against invaders thus actually defending against a range of possibilities at all times. This actually takes some thought to fully grasp the significance of such a systems power to maintain its existence.

Proinsias wrote:Have you read any of John Davidson's work? His papers on Chromosomal rearrangement and evolutionary manifesto might be of interest if a little dated, it was godslanguage who pointed me in their direction. Not so much a direct attack on evolution but moreso that rm & ns were seen as a fine tuning mechanism below, or around, the species level with other mechanisms, such as the proposed chromosomal rearrangement, being responsible for large scale changes at or above the species level. edit, Davidson & Co. Paper: http://www.uvm.edu/~jdavison/davison-manifesto.html

Nope but I will probly give it a go when I have a bit more time.

Posted: **Tue Aug 28, 2012 9:39 pm**

sandy_mcd wrote:
KBCid wrote:Could it be true?
Philosopher Nagel has held this position since at least 1974. It is not exactly breaking news.http://organizations.utep.edu/portals/1 ... el_bat.pdf

But just because the title of this forum is "God and Science" not "God and Philosophy", i suggest that the interested reader consult a scientist such as Christof Koch.

Up until today's restriction upon "science" being limited to "natural and physical science" (perhaps due to the pervasiveness of philosophical positivism) -- "science" covered much more representing any pursuit of knowledge via intellectual enquiry.

Posted: **Tue Aug 28, 2012 10:34 pm**

Kurieuo wrote:Up until today's restriction upon "science" being limited to "natural and physical science" (perhaps due to the pervasiveness of philosophical positivism) -- "science" covered much more representing any pursuit of knowledge via intellectual enquiry.

Yep it did, 150 years or so ago. I'm old, but not that old, so i didn't expect anybody to be using it in that sense.

Posted: **Tue Aug 28, 2012 11:03 pm**

KBCid wrote:Consider further on this point, some lowly ancient bacterial life that is dug up and found to have all sorts of antibiotic resistence for antibiotics that won't actually exist for another 30,000 years....

Antibiotic resistance is ancient
Here we report targeted metagenomic analyses of rigorously authenticated ancient DNA from 30,000-year-old Beringian permafrost sediments and the identification of a highly diverse collection of genes encoding resistance to b-lactam, tetracycline and glycopeptide antibiotics. Structure and function studies on the complete vancomycin resistance element VanA confirmed its similarity to modern variants.
These results show conclusively that antibiotic resistance is a natural phenomenon that predates the modern selective pressure of clinical antibiotic use. http://www.bioexpress.ac.cn/upload/2011 ... e10388.pdf

This is another variation mechanisms shield in action. This is just like our own live defence system. It continuously forms variations of its defence against invaders thus actually defending against a range of possibilities at all times. This actually takes some thought to fully grasp the significance of such a systems power to maintain its existence.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notro ... -30000-bc/

First, many antibiotics come from natural sources. Penicillin, the first to be synthesised, famously comes from Fleming’s surreptitious mould. These natural antibiotics evolved to keep bacteria at bay between 40 million and 2 billion years ago, so it’s extremely likely that bacteria have been resisting them for just as long.
Second, we know that the environment is teeming with resistance genes. In her own earlier study, D’Costa found that soil bacteria are a massive reservoir for resistance genes – a “resistome “ – which infectious bacteria could draw upon. Meanwhile, Gautam Dantas found that our soils are so full of resistant bacteria that random sampling produced strains that not only resist antibiotics, but actually eat them. He also found that the bacteria in our guts are another reservoir of resistance.

Posted: **Wed Aug 29, 2012 9:09 am**

sandy_mcd wrote:http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notro ... -30000-bc/

And somehow this reference means something? Not sure what exactly.

Posted: **Wed Aug 29, 2012 12:56 pm**

KBCid wrote:
sandy_mcd wrote:http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notro ... -30000-bc/
And somehow this reference means something? Not sure what exactly.

Hmm, it doesn't mean anything?

1)

KBCid wrote:Organisms 30,000 yrs. old were already making antibiotic resistence long before the designed antibiotics ever arose. How do you suppose they could see that far ahead?

2) Although those specific antibiotics did not exist 30,000 years ago, similar molecules did (read the reference). [The antibiotics are based on molecules found in nature. Penicillin was discovered, not invented.]
3) Which of these two conclusions is more likely
a) bacteria had interacted with similar molecules in the past
b) someone built in resistance for use later

Obviously b.

[And resistance is not an either-or proposition. ]

[I am not a Renaissance man like KBCid so i only respond to subjects i find interesting or think i know something about. If KBCid would offer me a fellowship, i would be delighted to take the time to study other areas so i could respond to his demands.]

Posted: **Thu Aug 30, 2012 9:27 pm**

sandy_mcd wrote: Hmm, it doesn't mean anything?

nope

KBCid wrote:Organisms 30,000 yrs. old were already making antibiotic resistence long before the designed antibiotics ever arose. How do you suppose they could see that far ahead?

sandy_mcd wrote:2) Although those specific antibiotics did not exist 30,000 years ago, similar molecules did (read the reference). [The antibiotics are based on molecules found in nature. Penicillin was discovered, not invented.]

Indeed that is what I read too. similar is not the same.

sandy_mcd wrote:3) Which of these two conclusions is more likely
a) bacteria had interacted with similar molecules in the past
b) someone built in resistance for use later
Obviously b. [And resistance is not an either-or proposition. ]

Indeed which of the conclusions is more likely and more importantly what is it based on?
How many examples of ancient bacteria or viruses were found to be using the same antigens that the antibacterial genes would defend against?

Antigen Receptor Diversity
The human genome is presently estimated to contain 20–25 thousand genes. The number of T-cell receptors for antigen (TCRs) that we make is estimated at 2.5 x 10-7; the number of different kinds of antibody molecules (BCRs) is probably about the same.
http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultran ... rsity.html

An antibody (Ab), also known as an immunoglobulin (Ig), is a large Y-shaped protein produced by B-cells that is used by the immune system to identify and neutralize foreign objects such as bacteria and viruses. The antibody recognizes a unique part of the foreign target, called an antigen.[1][2] Each tip of the "Y" of an antibody contains a paratope (a structure analogous to a lock) that is specific for one particular epitope (similarly analogous to a key) on an antigen, allowing these two structures to bind together with precision.

Immunoglobulin diversityVirtually all microbes can trigger an antibody response. Successful recognition and eradication of many different types of microbes requires diversity among antibodies; their amino acid composition varies allowing them to interact with many different antigens.[30] It has been estimated that humans generate about 10 billion different antibodies, each capable of binding a distinct epitope of an antigen.[31]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antibody

The small site on an antigen to which a complementary antibody may specifically bind is called an epitope. This is usually one to six monosaccharides or 5–8 amino acid residues on the surface of the antigen. Because antigen molecules exist in space, the epitope recognized by an antibody may be dependent upon the presence of a specific three-dimensional antigenic conformation

Immunochemical techniques capitalize upon the extreme specificity, at the molecular level, of each immunoglobulin for its antigen, even in the presence of high levels of contaminating molecules.
http://www.millipore.com/immunodetectio ... estutorial

Evidence for God from Science

ID gets a pat on the back from athiest

Re: ID gets a pat on the back from athiest

Re: ID gets a pat on the back from athiest

Re: ID gets a pat on the back from athiest

Re: ID gets a pat on the back from athiest

Re: ID gets a pat on the back from athiest

Re: ID gets a pat on the back from athiest

Re: ID gets a pat on the back from athiest

Re: ID gets a pat on the back from athiest