Evidence for God from Science

jlay wrote:beautiful?
Is that a scientific term.

I should have been an artist... Get a degree in molecular biology with some artistry skills and you could blow away the competition..

Fuz Rana beat you to it

The Wellcome Image Awards for scientific and medical images.

Those are stunning images. My college actually offered a course in electron microscopy, which I wish I had the time and money to take at the time.
It's amazing what the electron microscope has done to both science and art.

zoegirl wrote:Those are stunning images. My college actually offered a course in electron microscopy, which I wish I had the time and money to take at the time.
It's amazing what the electron microscope has done to both science and art.

Do you remember the first day you found out that images from SEMs and various space telescopes were false-coloured?

yeah, but they were still cool...I'm still impressed by the black and white ones.

I 'm teaching respiration and photosynthesis now and when we go over the ATP synthase molecule I'm still in awe of how cool it is. I remember in undergrad back in 93 that it was still relatively recently discovered and how enthusiastic all of the professors were about this tiny little rotor.

Sorry, I know this is off topic...just had to agree about the artistry

I still love the flourescent microscopy on the cytoskeleton. Those are beautiful images. I think the cell and cell functions is my fav topic to teach. But hten again, I think that whenever I start a new topic!!

Could you show us some pics Zoe? That would be nice! I love how we are a bunch of complex cells that are built up to be one living individual, yet every cell is indepently alive. I love biology!!! I can't get enough! It is so nice to look at how the cell works. It really fascinates me, the way they work, the way the divide, the way they each react individualy to some things and together on others! Okay if you keep talking about this you are really going to get me going!

Anyone else find this funny?

Find what funny?

Gabrielman wrote:Could you show us some pics Zoe? That would be nice! I love how we are a bunch of complex cells that are built up to be one living individual, yet every cell is indepently alive. I love biology!!! I can't get enough! It is so nice to look at how the cell works. It really fascinates me, the way they work, the way the divide, the way they each react individualy to some things and together on others! Okay if you keep talking about this you are really going to get me going!

I posted it in another thread so this one could get back on topic

A topic summary: humans and chimps share not one, but about 20 ERVs having the exact same corresponding position in their genomes. An ERV is a retrovirus that inserts its DNA at essentially random chromosome locations. Whether those ERVs are/were functional or not is immaterial. Humans and chimps could not have independently been infected, especially given those many different ERVs. The only consistent sensible explanation is that each of those ERVs infected the human-chimp common ancestor once. Then when humans and chimps split apart over 6 million years ago, each species simply copied those ERVs down to the present through hundreds of thousands of generations.

But how does ID creationism explain those matching ERV chromosome locations without using the obvious, simple, and fact-consistent idea of common descent?

One creationism defense against this common descent evidence is found in this very Ardi topic, viz., simply deny the voluminous field and lab findings and conclusions from every retrovirus scientist. And while doing this complete denial, feel free to misunderstand probability, ignore the main arguments, misrepresent scientific research, state irrelevant facts, and use logical fallacies.

Such a defense is surprisingly effective for some. But the following defense against common descent is even better.

Gman wrote: I believe [ERVs at the same chromosome location were] put there for a purpose, by a creator for both chimps and humans..

Cool! Many years of worldwide science research, confirming ERV evidence supporting common descent, are all for nothing. Why? Because the Intelligent Designer temporarily suspended nature's known (and repeatedly tested) processes to manually and independently insert those 20 or so ERVs into the exact same chromosome locations in humans and chimps. And seemingly all of it was done in an ironic mischievous attempt to mislead scientists.

This "Designer did it" creationism defense is nothing short of exquisite.

The defense requires no thinking, much less years of tedious rigorous research. The defense can retroactively explain any new scientific discovery as supporting creationism. And because the Designer did it that way, answering "why" questions is a pointless waste of time. In fact, with such an impregnable defense, why creationism bothers to waste any time presuming to understand science is the real mystery.

In stark contrast, scientists have to shoulder a heavy albatross named the scientific method, which insists that ANY confirmed contradicting evidence invalidates the hypothesis. Why would any scientist in her right mind want to work in a hostile unforgiving environment like that?

zoegirl wrote:Find what funny?

That Atheists are glorifying the work of the creator without even knowing it.

Igo,

I agree. I'd like to see some answers other than what has been provided. I am not a geneticist, and am trying to understand the info to the best of my ability. However, it is easy to tie a knot in a shoe string. It is not as easy to untie it.

I found one answer here.

http://www.detectingdesign.com/pseudogenes.html

jlay wrote: Igo,

I agree. I'd like to see some answers other than what has been provided. I am not a geneticist, and am trying to understand the info to the best of my ability. However, it is easy to tie a knot in a shoe string. It is not as easy to untie it.

Ditto.

jlay wrote:I found one answer here.

http://www.detectingdesign.com/pseudogenes.html

Great link, J. And I won't bother re-posting the link I provided (and repeated by Gman) as it's been largely ignored. I for one have no issue with any of the sciences and what they show (what the implications are). But unless and until scientists themselves can agree on a particular issue, I will keep questioning it (ironically, they ought to be doing the same thing).

jlay wrote:

zoegirl wrote:Find what funny?

That Atheists are glorifying the work of the creator without even knowing it.

Igo,

I agree. I'd like to see some answers other than what has been provided. I am not a geneticist, and am trying to understand the info to the best of my ability. However, it is easy to tie a knot in a shoe string. It is not as easy to untie it.

I found one answer here.

http://www.detectingdesign.com/pseudogenes.html

You'd better sit down for this: I am not an atheist.

I strongly encourage everyone to keep trying to understand the crux of this ERV argument for common descent. Don't penalize evolution because I cannot explain the concept clearly enough for those who really want to understand.

Keep in mind that Michael Denton (who wrote the creationist manifesto, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis over 20 years ago) later reversed his views on creationism after realizing how powerful the DNA evidence was for common descent.

And as I mentioned in a previous post, your reference does NOT address the key idea about ERVs that makes for such overwhelming evidence for common descent. A response to each of your reference's ERV sub-sections follows:

Section The case for common descent acknowledges that the argument of ERVs in the same chromosome location among humans/apes "seems rather straightforward and even downright obvious at first approximation.

Section Signs of function: says that some ERVs are functional. But as I've said before, functionality is irrelevant. Evolution doesn't prohibit ERV functionality, ERV mutations, or ERV non-functionality. Biology (and probability) does prohibit the same ERV from independently infecting each ape species at the same chromosome location.

Section Origin of ERVs?: a classic case of creationism throwing out red herrings while misinterpreting the real science papers. The section (not the science papers) seems to basically hint that these fragments of ape DNA are the source of the viruses, instead of the other way around. I wouldn't even know where to start to show how absurd that idea is.

Section Non-random viral insertions: repeats Gman's argument, and like Gman, completely ignores the science which shows that the probability of independent ERV infections at the same chromosome location is still essentially zero.

Section The odds against similar ERV germline insertions: claims that an ERV infection propagating to the entire population (biologists call this process "fixation") "does not seem all that likely". Here we have a case of argument from ignorance. The writer of your creationism reference needs to look up a real biology web page describing "fixation".

Section The sheer number of ERVs: the total number of ERVs is irrelevant. The 20 or so human/chimp ERVs that are in the corresponding exact same chromosome location is relevant. And aside from Gman's "the Designer did it" argument, the only reasonable explanation is that those infections occurred in the human/chimp common ancestor.

Section Inconsistent phylogenies: yet another irrelevant discussion, which I also rebutted in an earlier post. The discussed ERVs are not sharing the same exact location in humans and chimps. The clear and unambiguous conclusion of human/chimp common ancestry comes from the ERVs at the same exact corresponding locations.

OK, so what am I ignoring?! Your creationism reference didn't have one relevant or valid criticism.