Modularity and Design

_{Mark

November 16, 2007

Biology}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

The road to modularity Günter P. Wagner, Mihaela Pavlicev and James M. Cheverud Nature Reviews Genetics Volume 8 Dec 2007

“From our reading of the literature, origin of modularity research is still mostly based on model analysis rather than data. It is likely that we have not yet fully explored the range of theoretical possibilities to explain modularity, and more theoretical work will still be valuable. The models reviewed here, however, suggest an emerging theme. It seems that the origin of modularity requires both a mutational process that favours the origin of modularity and selection pressures that can take advantage of and reinforce the mutational bias.”

Hot off the press and freely available, this EvoDevo paper admits that we need a loaded mutational dice to achieve the results that we see in biology. A loaded dice always points to design.

http://ealerts.nature.com/cgi-bin24/DM/y/hhc30TXgoO0Hjc0Bg7i0Ea

Comments

My first quote in my last post should have read MacT [quote] What would be a sequence of events that could not be the result of intelligent design? [/quote]Bettawrekonize_{November 19, 2007
November
11
Nov
19
19
2007
07:27 PM
7
07
27
PM
PDT}

MacT [quote] “ID proponents are arguing that such a highly specific sequence of events is most likely the product of intelligent design” [/quote] ID does not try to detect everything an intelligent agent can do, it tries to detect things that only an intelligent agent can do. Your question is not relevant, we are not trying to determine everything an intelligent agent can do, we are trying to determine which patterns are most likely the product of an intelligent agent. [quote] No. Read the article thoroughly. They do not mention frontloading. Their speculative proposal concerns the role of modularity in biasing selection. This is a natural process. [/quote] Read this sentence "It seems that the origin of modularity requires both a mutational process that favors the origin of modularity and selection pressures that can take advantage of and reinforce the mutational bias." The sentence speaks for itself, it's not a matter of whether or not they explicitely mention frontloading. They do not refer to it as frontloading but they are speculating that these apparently frontloaded sections of DNA came to be because there is some sort of chemical/physical bias to produce them. "Science isn’t equipped to deal with non-materialistic questions." Just because you disagree with something doesn't make it any less scientific. Science != naturalism. What you are describing is naturalism, not science. The purpose of science is to find the best explanation given a phenomena or set of evidence. To do so we apply reason and logic. If the purpose of science is anything but to find the best / most reasonable explanation for a given phenomena or set of evidence, then science is not well suited for finding best explanations and what you have is nonsense. This isn't an issue of how you choose to define "science" for science must be reasonable / logical, it's very purpose must be to find best explanations for it to be well suited to do so. It's purpose is not to find, "best naturalistic explanations that don't include ID" for that would undermine the purpose of science and make it not well suited for finding best explanations. If the evidence points to intelligent design or creationism and science is unable to determine this then science is not well suited for finding best explanations and you are wasting our tax dollars (money that doesn't belong to you).Bettawrekonize_{November 19, 2007
November
11
Nov
19
19
2007
07:20 PM
7
07
20
PM
PDT}

Bob here is Webster's trilobite study: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/reprint/sci;317/5837/499.pdf The closer I look at the study the more solid the evidence becomes for the ID/Genetic Entropy mo^del: Bob, the only "major" deviation away from the predicted decline of the ID/Genetic Entropy mo^del , that I could see, was from two new orders being established: (Is parent species to be considered orders?) specifically this: "then rises to 40% in the Early Ordovician (coincident with the first sampling of the diverse phacopid and proetid orders)" I believe Dr. Behe predicted the "Edge of Evolution" to be somewhere between species and orders. I believe this evidence in the fossil record falls in line with what he found at the molecular level. I would also like to point out Bob, that at no time in 270 million years did any order of trilobite start to become anything other than a trilobite (no trilobites turning into shrimp, fish or anything else, but in much shorter time mammals are "proven" (LOL) to have arisen from reptiles). Going backwards in "within species diversity" is not good news for you Bob. No not good news for you at all!bornagain77_{November 19, 2007
November
11
Nov
19
19
2007
06:08 PM
6
06
08
PM
PDT}

MacT you stated: I can live with your frustration that I don’t accept your pseudo-scientific ramblings on topics that you are not an expert in. Now, I don’t know what “transcendent information” might be. And I admit to knowing next to nothing about quantum non-locality, so I can’t comment on that. I admit I am by no means an expert in brain injuries or anything else for that matter (in fact I'm nothing and nobody but a recovering homeless drunk, i guess that only makes me an expert on how NOT to live your life), but I would like to think I have a basic level of common sense in this (information) matter. You are supporting the materialistic philosophy in your assertion that all there is, is brain and no mind/soul whatsoever, I'm supporting the Theistic philosophy that there is a brain which houses/supports a "primary mind/soul. Thus, since I support the Theistic point of view my observations automatically become psuedo-scientific ramblings to you as well as with most other mainstream scientists. So let's break the list out again and see how materialism has done so far, as far as materialism of science is concerned when compared to Theism. Theistic Philosophy Compared to the Materialistic Philosophy of Science; 1. Materialism did not predict the big bang. Yet Theism always said the universe was created. 2. Materialism did not predict a sub-atomic (quantum) world that blatantly defies our concepts of time and space. Yet Theism always said the universe is the craftsmanship of God who is not limited by time or space. 3. Materialism did not predict the fact that time, as we understand it, comes to a complete stop at the speed of light, as revealed by Einstein's special theory of relativity. Yet Theism always said that God exists in a timeless eternity. 4. Materialism did not predict the stunning precision for the underlying universal constants for the universe, found in the Anthropic Principle, which allows life as we know it to be possible. Yet Theism always said God laid the foundation of the universe, so the stunning, unchanging, clockwork precision found for the various universal constants is not at all unexpected for Theism. 5. Materialism predicted that complex life in this universe should be fairly common. Yet statistical analysis of the many required parameters that enable complex life to be possible on earth reveals that the earth is extremely unique in its ability to support complex life in this universe. Theism would have expected the earth to be extremely unique in this universe in its ability to support complex life. 6. Materialism did not predict the fact that the DNA code is, according to Bill Gates, far, far more advanced than any computer code ever written by man. Yet Theism would have naturally expected this level of complexity in the DNA code. 7. Materialism presumed a extremely beneficial and flexible mutation rate for DNA, which is not the case at all. Yet Theism would have naturally presumed such a high if not, what most likely is, complete negative mutation rate to an organism’s DNA. 8. Materialism presumed a very simple first life form. Yet the simplest life ever found on Earth is, according to Geneticist Michael Denton PhD., far more complex than any machine man has made through concerted effort. Yet Theism would have naturally expected this level of complexity for the “simplest” life on earth. 9. Materialism predicted that it took a very long time for life to develop on earth. Yet we find evidence for “complex” photo-synthetic life in the oldest sedimentary rocks ever found on earth (Minik T. Rosing and Robert Frei, “U-Rich Archaean Sea-Floor Sediments from Greenland—Indications of >3700 Ma Oxygenic Photosynthesis", Earth and Planetary Science Letters 6907 (2003): 1-8) Theism would have naturally expected this sudden appearance of life on earth. 10. Materialism predicted the gradual unfolding of life to be self-evident in the fossil record. The Cambrian Explosion, by itself, destroys this myth. Yet Theism would have naturally expected such sudden appearance of the many different and completely unique fossils in the Cambrian explosion. 11. Materialism predicted that there should be numerous transitional fossils found in the fossil record. Yet fossils are characterized by sudden appearance in the fossil record and overall stability as long as they stay in the fossil record. There is not one clear example of unambiguous transition between major species out of millions of collected fossils. Theism would have naturally expected fossils to suddenly appear in the fossil record with stability afterwards as well as no evidence of transmutation into radically new forms. 12. Materialism predicts animal speciation should happen on a somewhat constant basis on earth. Yet man himself is the last scientifically accepted fossil to suddenly appear in the fossil record. Theism would have predicted that man himself was the last fossil to suddenly appear in the fossil record. So MacT, If you were a betting man how much would you bet against the Theistic philosophy that your materialistic assertion of "only" a brain is true? From the track record I, myself, sure wouldn't bet that much if I were you. Now back to information; Here is a paper to help you understand quantum non-locality, Quantum Nonlocality and the Possibility of Superluminal Effects, Published in the Proceedings of the NASA Breakthrough Propulsion Physics Workshop, Cleveland, OH, August 12-14, 1997 http://www.npl.washington.edu/npl/int_rep/qm_nl.html Though the paper is very interesting and investigates some very interesting possibilities, The important thing is that they are wrestling with the "established fact" that information is not bound by the "speed of light" laws imposed on "material" energy (and even gravity) for entangled wave/particles. How does all this relate to Theism and materialism? Well in materialism they have no valid explanation for information traveling faster than light. It is totally unexpected and gave Einstein fits. In fact quantum non-locality is a severe and crushing enigma for materialism (but HEY they are working on finding a solution so don't you doubt materialism!) Whereas in Theism the evidence of information being transcendent of any physical laws finds a comfortable fit fairly quickly in the hypothesis, for Theism postulates that God is omniscient (God is infinite in knowledge/information; i.e God is perfect in knowledge/information) Quantum non-locality provides solid proof for this postulation of Theism for information. It provides a "mechanism" for the postulation if you will. (As well it provides compelling evidence for the omnipotent postulation.) But the main point being, is that you have absolutely no hard proof that information is a constant physical quantity, as is required by materialism (remember memory is not localized in the brain nor does information have any other constant physical basis) and I have rock hard solid proof in quantum non-locality that information is indeed transcendent of any physical "materialistic" laws! I could probably go into this in much more detail but I think I have made my point very clearly.bornagain77_{November 19, 2007
November
11
Nov
19
19
2007
02:09 PM
2
02
09
PM
PDT}

Bob, I know how adept/crafty evolutionists are at going into the dark corners of science and finding some weird piece of evidence, that is not fully understood yet, and then twisting the weird evidence around a axis, distorting it, and then claiming proof of principle when they have done no such thing, except obfuscate the evidence. So if you got any clear cut evidence go ahead and present it. But I maintain the ID/Genetic Entropy mo^del will hold consistent for all unambiguous evidence you can present! I am confident for this prediction because the mo^del is true to the foundational principles of the second law of thermodynamics and to the law of conservation of information. Whereas evolution has to severely pollute the simplicity and beauty of those foundational laws to be considered valid. As well all the evidence from the fossil record backs this up prediction for the ID/Genetic Entropy : “As Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould pointed out almost three decades ago, the general (consistent) pattern for the evolution of diversity (as shown by the fossil record) follows precisely this pattern: a burst of rapid diversity following a major ecological change, and then a gradual decline in diversity over relatively long periods of time.” Allen MacNeill PhD.; Teaches introductory biology and evolution at Cornell University in Ithaca, NY. So the general pattern of the fossil record fits the mo^del already and falsifies evolution! So bring on your weird evidence.bornagain77_{November 19, 2007
November
11
Nov
19
19
2007
12:06 PM
12
12
06
PM
PDT}

Bob it sure would but I don't think you can provide such an example, because we know that information is always lost or dissipated. Also how do we know that we cannot make a Design Inference if there was such a case, i.e. perhaps this would be evidence of recent Design and as such would be predicted by ID.Solon_{November 19, 2007
November
11
Nov
19
19
2007
10:31 AM
10
10
31
AM
PDT}

What about a rapidly expanding population? I don’t understand where the question addresses the ID/Genetic Entropy model specifically.
It was addressing your claim that evolutionary theory has no explanation. It is one possible explanation.
I’m curious - how do you know that the new mouflon population isn’t a new sub-species? I don’t. Which is why I said, in my entry, that many questions need to be answered such as “How much sub-speciation is possible from (front-loaded into) the parent species?”
My point is that if it is a new sub-species, then surely it would have lost genetic diversity, which would then be a simple falsification of your thesis. In the absence of a way of deciding this, you can't really claim the evidence as supporting your view - it might do totally the opposite.
Would that include a sub-species gaining a trait or a function, for example? For completely novel traits and completely novel functions I would like to think this positively true because of the mutational studies I’ve seen, and the law of conservation of information. Yet again, not knowing exactly how much functional genetic information is “front-loaded” in the parent species hampers me from saying this is absolutely 100% true.
So, if I could point to a species that is definitely a sub-species (we know the parent species it came from), and could show that it had evolved a new function (i.e. it isn't in the parental species), would that be a falsification?Bob O'H_{November 19, 2007
November
11
Nov
19
19
2007
10:21 AM
10
10
21
AM
PDT}

Bob you asked three questions: What about a rapidly expanding population? I don't understand where the question addresses the ID/Genetic Entropy model specifically. I’m curious - how do you know that the new mouflon population isn’t a new sub-species? I don't. Which is why I said, in my entry, that many questions need to be answered such as "How much sub-speciation is possible from (front-loaded into) the parent species?" Would that include a sub-species gaining a trait or a function, for example? For completely novel traits and completely novel functions I would like to think this positively true because of the mutational studies I've seen, and the law of conservation of information. Yet again, not knowing exactly how much functional genetic information is "front-loaded" in the parent species hampers me from saying this is absolutely 100% true. I believe the trilobite study I cited is an excellent starting point to begin discerning stuff like this. If we take a closer look at Webster's work in the article I cited: He specializes in the olenellids, the oldest, most primitive trilobite group ever to evolve (suddenly appear in the fossil record). The olenellids also show a great deal of variation within species. Since it is only a article, We have many questions unanswered that are probably answered in his formal paper. How quick is radiation of sub-species trilobites from parent species trilobites (olenellids) in deep time? Are all basic traits and functions present in olenellids or do some totally novel traits and functions make an appearance upon sub-speciation of olenellids? What is the average rate for disappearance of traits and functions (Genetic Entropy) from sub-species of olenellids in deep time? What is the, best guess, average rate of extinction from Genetic Entropy for all species of trilobites in deep time? etc...etc...etc... So as you can see Bob there is much work to be done, Yet from what I've seen so far, the mo^del is a very promising line of research with much explanatory power. Far more explanatory power than I've seen for the Darwinian theory.bornagain77_{November 19, 2007
November
11
Nov
19
19
2007
09:17 AM
9
09
17
AM
PDT}

The mouflon is interesting in that the Theistic ID/Genetic Entropy mo^del would predict the lack of “genetic bottleneck problems” for a parent species that has not been sub-speciated away from yet. Whereas the materialistic evolutionary theory has no explanation for this anomaly in evidence.
What about a rapidly expanding population? I'm curious - how do you know that the new mouflon population isn't a new sub-species?
This ID/Genetic Entropy mo^del, is falsifiable by showing an increase in genetic information of a sub-species over what was present in the genome of the parent species.
Would that include a sub-species gaining a trait or a function, for example? BobBob O'H_{November 19, 2007
November
11
Nov
19
19
2007
08:13 AM
8
08
13
AM
PDT}

bornagain77: I've replied to several of your comments separately, but my replies appear to be getting hung up in the moderation queue for many hours or even days. Nothing personal!MacT_{November 19, 2007
November
11
Nov
19
19
2007
06:33 AM
6
06
33
AM
PDT}

Bettawrekonize "ID proponents are arguing that such a highly specific sequence of events is most likely the product of intelligent design" What would be a sequence of events that could not be the result of intelligent design? "The point is that they’re trying to say that there is some kind of predisposition for random mutation to favor apparently frontloaded sequences of DNA" No. Read the article thoroughly. They do not mention frontloading. Their speculative proposal concerns the role of modularity in biasing selection. This is a natural process. "The above article does provide evidence for intelligent design (for reasons already stated) despite the extreme secular bias towards not funding and towards censoring anything that opposes their naturalistic presuppositions (while trying to only fund researchers that are committed to naturalism from a scientific perspective with tax dollars that don’t belong to them)." I sit on various grant review committees, for both government and charity bodies, that make recommendations regarding funding of scientific research proposals. There is undoubtedly a bias toward work that implicitly adheres to naturalistic explanations. But that is certainly not the result of some anti-materialist conspiracy to spend your tax money. Science isn't equipped to deal with non-materialistic questions. If we did spend your tax money on non-science issues, we'd be wasting your money, our time, and possibly missing out on truly important new developments in science and technology.MacT_{November 19, 2007
November
11
Nov
19
19
2007
06:29 AM
6
06
29
AM
PDT}

Bob you stated; I don’t see where all these things are taking you. We know that diversity can be lost through bottlenecks, and we don’t need any “genetic entropy” explanations. I also don’t see how Dave Coltman’s mouflon help you. Surely genetic entropy means that they should be loosing genetic diversity! The ID/Genetic Entropy mo^del is robust in that the many surprises that surprise unfalsifiable "evolutionary biology" all find a place in the Theistic ID/Genetic Entropy mo^del. The Theistic ID/Genetic Entropy mo^del holds that Intelligence is implemented into a single male and female parent species. The information in the genome of the parent species is robust and complete in that all future information is "front-loaded" for a radiation of sub-species to come from the parent species. Whereas the Genetic Entropy portion of the model will hold that all sub-speciation events to occur from the original parent species will always come at a cost of functional information in the genome of the sub-species from the parent species, much as we are finding in our preliminary studies of Humans, dogs, and sheep (and pigs according to Irish Father). The mouflon is interesting in that the Theistic ID/Genetic Entropy mo^del would predict the lack of "genetic bottleneck problems" for a parent species that has not been sub-speciated away from yet. Whereas the materialistic evolutionary theory has no explanation for this anomaly in evidence. There are many questions that need to be answered, Such as "How much sub-speciation is possible from a parent species? 'What is the normal rate of "negative mutational load" built up in each class of higher organisms? How much negative mutational load (genetic entropy) can a species withstand before genetic meltdown? This ID/Genetic Entropy mo^del, is falsifiable by showing an increase in genetic information of a sub-species over what was present in the genome of the parent species. Though this following study is not a genetic study, it does clearly highlight the strengths and weaknesses of both the evolutionary and the ID/Genetic Entropy theories. http://www.terradaily.com/reports/The_Cambrian_Many_Forms_999.html of special note: Webster has hunted trilobites from the northwest highlands of Scotland to the deserts of the American Southwest. He specializes in the olenellids, the oldest, most primitive trilobite group ever to evolve. The olenellids also show a great deal of variation within species. "That led me into thinking there's something weird about these very primitive Cambrian trilobites that you don't see in other ones," he said. The only way to verify his hunch was to conduct an analysis that combined the data compiled in previously published reports. "It's too much for one person to look at a thousand trilobite species," Webster said. So for his Science study, Webster combed through 68 previously published studies of trilobites, searching for descriptions of evolving characteristics that could be incorporated into his analysis. After eliminating studies that were inappropriate for inclusion, 49 still remained. He focused on actively evolving characteristics. The trilobite head alone, for example, displays many such characteristics. These include differences in ornamentation, number and placement of spines, and the shape of head segments. His findings: Overall, approximately 35 percent of the 982 trilobite species exhibited some variation in some aspect of their appearance that was evolving. But more than 70 percent of early and middle Cambrian species exhibited variation, while only 13 percent of later trilobite species did so. "There's hardly any variation in the post-Cambrian," he said. "Even the presence or absence or the kind of ornamentation on the head shield varies within these Cambrian trilobites and doesn't vary in the post-Cambrian trilobites." //// Now by all rights Bob, evolution theory should at least be severely questioned, if not outright falsified, with this study and the ID/Genetic Entropy mo^del should find strong support for its basic premises (especially given mutational studies that show a vast rarity of beneficial mutations to genomes!). Hopefully I have made the mo^del clear for you.bornagain77_{November 19, 2007
November
11
Nov
19
19
2007
04:33 AM
4
04
33
AM
PDT}

Bob O’H, how come you are always so difficult with me?
I guess the root cause is that you know very little about evolutionary biology. Now, I don't mind that - there's a lot I don't know about as well. I don't mind helping, but I need to make sure I understand what you're asking about. To whit:
I mean percent genetic diversity as measured by percent sequence divergence as done in this study;
OK, now I see what you want. The problem is that Diversity!=divergence. OK, the authors give estimates of pairwise FST and delta in SI table 5, online. I'm not sure if delta is percent sequence divergence - I doubt it, but it might be similar (I don't do phylogenetics, and the authors don't give a reference). I don't see where all these things are taking you. We know that diversity can be lost through bottlenecks, and we don't need any "genetic entropy" explanations. I also don't see how Dave Coltman's mouflon help you. Surely genetic entropy means that they should be loosing genetic diversity! BobBob O'H_{November 18, 2007
November
11
Nov
18
18
2007
11:06 PM
11
11
06
PM
PDT}

In re: (38). I have a friend who is a shop assistant at a Barnes and Noble in Manhattan. According to an informal poll she conducted, 5 of the shop assistants, including herself, admitted to being evil, but insisted that the "atheist filth" nothing to do with it. 4 were careless, and one insisted that he was actually care-less. Let's here it for science!Carl Sachs_{November 18, 2007
November
11
Nov
18
18
2007
08:45 PM
8
08
45
PM
PDT}

MacT [quote] Mutational bias does not refer to front-loading. [/quote] Within this context it is referring to the speculated mechanisms by which apparently frontloaded sections of the genome came to being. "It seems that the origin of modularity requires both a mutational process that favors the origin of modularity and selection pressures that can take advantage of and reinforce the mutational bias." [quote] Rather, it is the suggested mechanism by which modularity in structure and/or function could be selected for. [/quote] It is their speculated mechanism. [quote] In that particular example, biases are thought to be an important developmental force (though diachronic of course, not synchronic) that leads children to ?choose? groupings of syntactic features that tend to cluster together. [/quote] Or perhaps these biases were designed to occur or perhaps children were designed to make such associations. [quote] It is an alternative to random mutation, although these are not mutually exclusive forces. [/quote] The point is that they're trying to say that there is some kind of predisposition for random mutation to favor apparently frontloaded sequences of DNA. Of course, this is speculation, no one has ever observed random mutation form any such thing. They are admitting that specific a specific sequence of mutations plus a specific sequence of selection pressures are required to form such apparently frontloaded sequences of DNA. ID proponents are arguing that such a highly specific sequence of events is most likely the product of intelligent design (since random mutation nor natural selection nor natural processes care to produce such a thing and the likelihood of them doing so is very small). [quote] The article you cite does not provide evidence in favor of intelligent design in nature; in fact, the contrary is true. [/quote] The above article does provide evidence for intelligent design (for reasons already stated) despite the extreme secular bias towards not funding and towards censoring anything that opposes their naturalistic presuppositions (while trying to only fund researchers that are committed to naturalism from a scientific perspective with tax dollars that don't belong to them). "Until this week I worked at the National Center for Science Education, where we oppose the ID/creationists and develop a finely-tuned sense of the sorts of things they will pluck from the literature and desperately portray as evidence that they aren't completely nuts." http://www.biology-direct.com/content/2/1/21/comments IE: the only thing they don't oppose is that which is consistent with their naturalistic presuppositions, anything else gets opposed (and hence censored).Bettawrekonize_{November 18, 2007
November
11
Nov
18
18
2007
03:08 PM
3
03
08
PM
PDT}

IrishFather, Seeing as I'm trying real hard to see how all this fits together in the ID?Genetic Entropy framework, I would absolutely love to see the study, you worked on, once it is available, If that is ok with you?bornagain77_{November 18, 2007
November
11
Nov
18
18
2007
02:46 PM
2
02
46
PM
PDT}

"It is not surprising, in the least, for me to find that a specific memory cannot be localized to a specific spot in the brain. Whereas materialists were extremely surprised by this." What scientists are surprised by this? Name one, please. Certainly not me, and none that I know of. Most neuroscientists that I know, who know the basics of cognitive neuropsychology, and brain organization, know that distributed networks are the norm, not the exception. I can live with your frustration that I don't accept your pseudo-scientific ramblings on topics that you are not an expert in. Now, I don't know what "transcendent information" might be. And I admit to knowing next to nothing about quantum non-locality, so I can't comment on that.MacT_{November 18, 2007
November
11
Nov
18
18
2007
02:34 PM
2
02
34
PM
PDT}

MacT, It is amazing that two people can view the same evidence and come away with totally different explanations. To me, given informations transcendent nature,(i.e. physical mediums can change drastically, but the meaning of the information always remains constant) It is not surprising, in the least, for me to find that a specific memory cannot be localized to a specific spot in the brain. Whereas materialists were extremely surprised by this. Is information dirt? Is information energy? No of course not, but at the Big Bang we find that transcendent information is encoded onto the energy and matter in the form of unchanging universal constants! And please remember the fact that the universal constants are proven to be unchanging is drastically different from what materialists expected and predicted in the first place! (Do you remember that material has primary authority in materialism ?) Shoot MacT, Quantum Non-locality proves that information can travel instantaneously (faster than the speed of light) anywhere in the universe. That in itself should give you a clue of its uniqueness! Forgive me MacT, but I believe you have some severe materialistic blinders on that are preventing you from discerning the "spiritual" attributes that a higher dimension (Being) has placed on this universe.bornagain77_{November 18, 2007
November
11
Nov
18
18
2007
02:10 PM
2
02
10
PM
PDT}

BA77, don't take offense at my minor suggestion or the loopy way it was offered. I'm a big fan of poetry: there should be more of it on UD.getawitness_{November 18, 2007
November
11
Nov
18
18
2007
02:06 PM
2
02
06
PM
PDT}

BA77 . . . regarding #30 . . . I recently delved into sequence divergences within pigs. It also supports your claim. I came across this because I have a brother who works with genetics at the University of Utah. I love math and helped him with the equations. The evidence clearly indicates frontloading. DNA markers are commonly used for large-scale evaluation of genetic diversity in farm animals (just like dogs). AFLP (a type of genetic marker) are useful for such studies as they can be generated relatively simply. In a study of 59 pig breeds. The average proportion of monomorphic populations was 63% (range across loci: 3%–98%). The variance of sequence divergences across pigs also significantly exceeded the variance expected under the hypothesis of evolutionary relationships alone.IrishFather412_{November 18, 2007
November
11
Nov
18
18
2007
02:02 PM
2
02
02
PM
PDT}

If atheist books are wrapped in brown or black bags and put high up on the shelf, it'll only make them seem more enticing. On the other hand, maybe it'll be a disappointment when they finally are allowed to buy atheist literature once they turn 18. "What? I bet those aren't even her real arguments!"Carl Sachs_{November 18, 2007
November
11
Nov
18
18
2007
02:00 PM
2
02
00
PM
PDT}

BA77, I think you mean "Books, O books" etc, not "o'books." The "o" with an apostrophe is either used in Irish names, as in "Frank O'Connor," or as a short version of "of," as in "I'll have me a bottle o' tequila and a bucket o' limes, my good man."getawitness_{November 18, 2007
November
11
Nov
18
18
2007
01:53 PM
1
01
53
PM
PDT}

Redo: Books o’ Books Books o’ books upon the shelf; revealing deep wisdom once hidden by stealth; bestow us a new secret; bestow us a new wealth; make known as is daylight to eyes in good health! Books o’ books, full of virtues so fine; make de^ath the tyrant destroyed for all time; destroyed of its power; destroyed of its hell; YES!, Tell us this secret; Do tell and Tell well! But alas, books o’ books; no life of yourself; why beg of you from life’s priceless wealth; be it real plain and too easy to see; of that which is de^ad; only God can set free! Acts 26:8 “Why should it be thought incredible by you that God raises the de^ad ?”bornagain77_{November 18, 2007
November
11
Nov
18
18
2007
01:42 PM
1
01
42
PM
PDT}

Sorry baby sitter ate this: make de^ath the tyrant destroyed for all time,bornagain77_{November 18, 2007
November
11
Nov
18
18
2007
01:39 PM
1
01
39
PM
PDT}

Books o' Books Books o' books upon the shelf; revealing deep wisdom once hidden by stealth; bestow us a new secret; bestow us a new wealth; make known as is daylight to eyes in good health! Books o' books, full of virtues so fine; make the tyrant destroyed for all time; destroyed of its power; destroyed of its hell; YES!, Tell us this secret; Do tell and Tell well! But alas, books o' books; no life of yourself; why beg of you from life's priceless wealth; be it real plain and too easy to see; of that which is ; only God can set free! Acts 26:8 "Why should it be thought incredible by you that God raises the ?"bornagain77_{November 18, 2007
November
11
Nov
18
18
2007
01:37 PM
1
01
37
PM
PDT}

(33) That atheistic filth is shocking, I agree. For goodness sake, the next generation is at stake. I don't know who is more to blame, the parents who don't know, or the careless (or evil?) shop assistants at Borders.MacT_{November 18, 2007
November
11
Nov
18
18
2007
12:52 PM
12
12
52
PM
PDT}

(31) Poachy, how is withholding books from the public going to help things? I am sure there are some atheists who would rather have the christian/jewish/etc sections hid away. As for parents not knowing, that is the parents' fault. The remedy should be parental guidance- not a big brother policy. If you hid the books away, you are only give kids the impression that there is something you fear.bork_{November 18, 2007
November
11
Nov
18
18
2007
12:48 PM
12
12
48
PM
PDT}

Carl Sachs: I think thats a great place for it. However, at my local B&N there seems to be an abundancy of "religious" books in the science section. I use religious loosely to include atheism. Now, I enjoy my science, and I enjoy the religion debate- but I'd rather they move all those books out of the science section. Maybe a science/faith section far away from the science section? I am sure christians and atheists alike get sick of seeing the stuff constantly.bork_{November 18, 2007
November
11
Nov
18
18
2007
12:40 PM
12
12
40
PM
PDT}

(31) I'm stunned speechless. I don't know what to say. Are you being serious?Carl Sachs_{November 18, 2007
November
11
Nov
18
18
2007
12:35 PM
12
12
35
PM
PDT}

they put The God Delusion in the “atheism” sub-category in the Religion section. Would that be objectionable to anyone here? Only that Borders shouldn't have an atheism section out where children could see it. I bet most parents don't know that filth is out on display in their local "friendly" bookstore.poachy_{November 18, 2007
November
11
Nov
18
18
2007
12:24 PM
12
12
24
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply