Do scientists think more about sex or ID? That was an Enter Laughing question at Evolution News and Science Today but it prompts reflection on why some people in science seem driven around the bend by the idea of design in nature. And others alter their message to avoid confronting the questions:
First, if the critics are right to say ID is “dead,” why devote so much time to it? Evolution News reported in 2014 that an article in the journal Nature admitted that scientists self-censor criticisms of neo-Darwinism to avoid lending credence to ID. As Laland et al. (2014) conceded: “Perhaps haunted by the spectre of intelligent design, evolutionary biologists wish to show a united front to those hostile to science.” In 2017 we observed how Laland followed his own advice, refusing to admit in a report published in Trends in Ecology and Evolution that the 2016 Royal Society meeting included strong critiques of the neo-Darwinian paradigm. Clearly, ID arguments are potent, and evolutionary biologists are aware of this — which is why they admit they don’t like to acknowledge problems in the evolutionary consensus.
Second, intelligent design’s supposed negative impact is hyped beyond reason. The notion that “financing of research” in the U.S. is being hurt by ID is laughable. ID research gets exactly zero dollars from the Federal Government. From other sources, the amount of money available to fund ID research, though not trivial, is minuscule compared to the amount of money available for evolutionary science. No evolutionary scientist has any right to complain.
Third, it’s a shame that “20 percent of their time and brain power” is going to ID because the trend in thought is now running toward government-backed censorship.
Evolution News, “Scientist Admits Biologists Are Obsessed with Intelligent Design” at Evolution News and Science Today
Ah yes. Mutterings about the need for censorship. When we don’t have a reasonable response to a troubling topic, first, we self-censor. Then we censor anyone who raises it. Sure, guys. That’ll work.
The questions are still there but only for those capable of addressing them.
We can see this phenomenon right here at UD too:
ID Is Dead But We Have To Perpetually Spam It And Oppose Everything About It.
All with apparently complete unawareness they are doing it.
And someone thinks a rational conversation can be had?
Andrew
Science should be thinking about ID because it is the right comparison for examining many of the events in evolutionary history.
Asauber @1:
That’s a good question.
A fool takes no pleasure in understanding, but only in expressing his opinion. Proverbs 18:2 (ESV)
NIV Study Bible Notes
NKJV MacArthur Study Bible, 2nd Edition
Do not speak in the hearing of a fool, for he will despise the good sense of your words. Proverbs 23:9 (ESV)
NIV Study Bible Notes
NKJV MacArthur Study Bible, 2nd Edition
Reformation Study Bible provided by Ligonier Ministries.
Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest you be like him yourself.
Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own eyes.
Proverbs 26:4-5 (ESV)
NIV Study Bible Notes
NKJV MacArthur Study Bible, 2nd Edition
Reformation Study Bible
Perhaps they want it dead and buried?
Any good, useful, healthy theoretical pursuit is built around punching holes in one’s understanding. It’s the failures that are sought. In this, I can’t help but feel that ID is, in essence, the actual science, the actual empirical study of evolution, whereas that which is named as evolution is just a weird (and long obsolete) interpretation.
Even if we were to assume, for the sake of argument, that evolution the metaphysic would emerge victorious, ID would at least be the work debt that evolutionary theory has thus far evaded. It’s going to come due; you can’t put it off forever.
Is @4 an example of what is said @3 ?
😉
Alexa ranks…….top%…….top%
EN:……. 235,528…….0.3%…….1%
UD:……. 661,690…….0.7%…….1%
TO:……. 672,565…….0.7%…….1%
SW:……. 1,109,295…….1.2%…….2%
PT:……. 1,470,590…….1.5%…….2%
PS:……. 4,635,300…….4.7%…….5%
TSZ:……. 6,755,069…….6.8%…….7%
Based on 100M active websites.
Comparable peers according to Alexa associations and inter contributions.
Curiously SW was less than 100K behind UD very recently, but suddenly worsened. What happened?
Seversky
Perhaps it has more to do with the complete lack of any evidence to support Darwinism. The scientific method is not complicated to understand. A hypothesis remains a hypothesis until such a time as it has been observed and the results replicated. No one has ever witnessed macro-evolution and the results have never been replicated. In other words, macro-evolution remains a hypothesis.
A multiverse has never been witnessed and the results never replicated. Should we skip the steps and call the multiverse a scientific theory?
That’s a panic reaction.
Are they anxious because the have to find a Darwin’s successor?
“Perhaps they want it dead and buried?”
Sev,
They sure do. Why? What is it about ID that motivates some to require an extreme Final Solution for it?
Get your psychology notes out. 😉
Andrew
In order for ID to be dead, someone has to come up with a viable scientific alternative. And no one has. That says it all, really.
It is a good thing that scientists are obsessed with Intelligent Design for three reasons. First, although ID proponents have attempted to argue that ID is not religiously based (viz. biblically based), recent events show that it is not just implicitly Christian-based, but explicitly so. A few weeks back, on the podcast Unbelievable, James Tour, the ID chemist, went off on a five minute, pre-discussion rant about being a Christian, his strong faith, how religion informs science, etc. He was debating Lee Cronin, famed biochemist at the U of Glasgow, and even Justin Brierley seemed a bit uncomfortable and embarrassed by Tour’s tirade. Tour’s comments were completely inapposite and added nothing to the conversation except to demonstrate that Tour is a Christian zealot. Second, ID kingpin, Stephen Meyer was scheduled to publish his new opus this spring “Return of the God Hypothesis.” There is nothing even remotely ambiguous about the title of Meyer’s book. He is also a Christian zealot. For unexplained reasons, publication of the book has been delayed a year. Finally, even a superficial poll of the members of the Discovery Institutes so called Center for Science and Culture, demonstrates that every board member, scholar and staff member is an evangelical Christian or Catholic. The only exception is the always-annoying, David Berlinski who purports to be agnostic.
The conservative, Christian pedigree of the ID movement has never been scientifically neutral, it has always been religiously motivated. The judge in the Dover trial quickly discovered that fact. If ID were to confine itself to operating within the scientific community (where it is universally ignored), it likely would not survive a couple more years. HOWEVER, the reason that it is important for scientists to stay obsessed with ID pertains to its continual attempts to invade the public schools, particularly high schools. State school boards in radicalized, evangelical dominated states continue to try and ban the teaching of evolution, at worst, or have it placed on par with ID, at best. These attempts, if successful would destroy science education in the US. According to PEW, “among the 35 members of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, which sponsors the PISA [Program for International Student Assessment] initiative, the U.S. ranked 30th in math and 19th in science.” These scores are appalling for the richest and most technologically advanced country in the world.
So I cheer the scientists that are ever vigilant about ID, they are doing what needs to be done to protect the integrity of science education in the US.
ID is not religiously based. One can be an atheist and accept ID. One cannot be a materialist and accept ID, though.
And there isn’t any scientist that argues against ID who can present a scientifically viable alternative. And that is very telling
The US is ranked low in science due to the fact that the US teaches the unscientific evolutionism is science classrooms.
Chuckdarwin,
Thank you for illustrating your position. You oppose Christianity. What a surprise.
Andrew
BR
Except for comparative anatomy, the fossil record, genomics, cladistics, proteomics, geology, stable isotopes analysis, antibiotic resistance, molecular biology, plate tectonics, ….
ET: One cannot be a materialist and accept ID, though.
I think alien being can fit into a materialist world view nicely. Or are you saying ID is not about aliens?
According to ID neither natural selection, drift nor any other materialistic, i.e. blind and mindless, process can produce living organisms. The same holds for the systems and subsystems that make up living organisms.
But yes, ID is OK with an extraterrestrial OoL for the Earth.
Acartia Eddie:
None of which support Darwinism. Comparative anatomy doesn’t say anything about a mechanism. The fossil record doesn’t say anything about a mechanism. Genomics doesn’t say anything about a mechanism. Cladistics doesn’t say anything about a mechanism. Proteomics doesn’t say anything about a mechanism. Darwinism is all about the mechanism.
The main evidence for macroevolution, over on talk origins, is absent a mechanism. Which is strange because their “evidence” is pattern based and patterns depend on mechanisms. But the point is their evidence does not support Darwinism.
Clearly Acartia Eddie is just a clueless troll. Acartia Eddie is just a grand equivocator, oblivious to what is actually being debated. And clearly quite content with his willful ignorance.
Chuckdarwin @ 12
The majority of the fathers of modern science were Christians who had no issue speaking up for Jesus. I don’t see the problem.
In any case, appeal to motive is simply ad hominem. Hit me good with the predictive usefulness of evolutionary theory; something that doesn’t expound on arbitrary mythology outside of empiricism; make claims about entropy that are simply nonsense in any applied field; or reach for teleology that doesn’t even belong to it; and I, too, will fear for its loss.
ET @ 18
Nice response to a Darwinist who fails to see the lack of evidence and points to everything as evidence where none exists.
Chuckdarwin @12:
The problem with Dr Lee Cronin is that in his appearances at Unbelievable? he has not been able to show anything that gives at least a hint of how he could attempt to win the coveted Evo2.0 OOL $10M prize. James Tour’s main point was that every discovery in biology research is taking the finish line farther away from Dr Cronin. The hard problem he’s facing is getting harder with every discovery reported in the research literature these days. That’s what transpires from watching the Unbelievable? program. Dr Tour scored the slam dunks while Dr Cronin couldn’t even hold the ball in his hands. Regardless of the brand of the sneakers the players were wearing. That’s on the side. Dr Cronin got three strikes and was out. Pretty soon the game should be over.
BobRyan- Their equivocation is pathetic. All alleged evidence for “evolution” is automatically also evidence for Darwinism, i.e. blind watchmaker evolution. “Ed George” is infamous for that sort of cowardly equivocation. It, along with lying and bluffing, are all they have. So they play them to the fullest.
When ID proponents use the term “intelligent,” they simply seek to indicate that a structure has features requiring a mind capable of forethought to design the blueprint. But does intelligent design require perfect design?
CD @ 12
That was an interesting and concise overview of a popular anti-ID position. You brought together the key points, that have been made somewhat continually, since Dover, at least.
1. Christians support ID and therefore it is biased and not scientific
2. True (Darwinian) scientists are obsessed with ID because there are continual attempts for ID to enter schools.
There are some contradictions, however.
Point #1 above is not a scientific critique, but rather, a sociological one. ID is a scientific proposal, so what difference does it make if all its supporters are Christian? Most Darwinists are materialists, so is that enough to falsify it as a biased research project? It could be, but ID actually looks at the Darwinian claim of science and finds it lacking.
ID is a non-materialist viewpoint, so why should it be troublesome that ID supporters are non-materialist (most are Christian)? David Klinghoffer who runs Evolution News is Jewish. But why not just say that most IDists are theistic? Isn’t that the same criticism? “ID is false because most of its scientists believe that God exists”. Ok, that’s a nonsensical argument.
The other contradiction that I see all the time is that ID is “trying” to get into schools. However, thanks to vigilant Darwinists, this doesn’t happen. Dover made it illegal. There are no ID biology books being used in schools. ID has no standing in the scientific community (in your perspective.
However, with all of that, you site statistics:
That’s the contradiction. Blame for the “appalling” results in science falls directly on the Darwinists (at least in biology). But the anti-ID argument is going to try to say that “because people are unsuccessfully trying to infiltrate science classrooms, the Darwinists who run things cannot teach properly”?
No. Darwin rules unopposed in the classroom. The results are an appalling ignorance. ID has not been tested or measured in the classroom.
I think you can see that you just refuted yourself. What “integrity in science education” are you talking about? The “integrity” that caused a ranking of 19 out of 35 in science?
You can’t have it both ways.
ID will be falsified the day somebody could show how to get -without the guidance of any conscious agent- biological systems that have things like this :
Signal transmission through elements of the cytoskeleton form an optimized information network in eukaryotic cells
Or this:
The cell-wide web coordinates cellular processes by directing site-specific Ca2+ flux across cytoplasmic nanocourses
[emphasis added]
Any news from the OOL front lately?
Have Dr Cronin and Dr Szostak made any progress in the pursue of the coveted Evo2.0 OOL $10M prize? There yet? 🙂
Did Dr Cronin finally get the point of what Dr Tour told him at their “Unbelievable” chat?
Did the penny drop yet?
Or still struggling to understand it?
🙂
ID could be falsified the day somebody would show how to get -without the guidance of any conscious agent- biological systems that have things like this :
Choreography of molecular movements during ribosome progression along mRNA
Alexa ranks
EN:……. 235,112
TO:……. 654,740
UD:……. 697,964
SW:……. 949,491
PT:……. 1,471,061
PS:……. 2,593,807
TSZ:….. 6,757,500
PS has shown a substantial improvement
Intelligent Design explains the laws of physics, the existence of math, any origin of the universe which does include Big Bang, the uniqueness of man, the difference between the brain and the mind, the origin of life, the existence of every species that has ever existed and our ability to wonder about the heavens. Remove the intelligence and you have no explanation for any of it. Is it really difficult to believe something with far greater intelligence than man is responsible for everything?
BobRyan: the uniqueness of man
Interesting thought: if we someday discover aliens just as intelligent as ourselves would you assume they were also intelligently designed? (You”d have to I think ’cause you believe there is an intelligence behind everything.) So, would man then still be unique?
Yes, humans will still be remarkable, special, or unusual.
Here are some of the most recent attempts to figure out how water got into the coconuts:
Circular Code Motifs in the Ribosome: A Missing Link in the Evolution of Translation?
The primordial tRNA acceptor stem code from theoretical minimal RNA ring clusters
Comparisons Between Small Ribosomal RNA and Theoretical Minimal RNA Ring Secondary Structures Confirm Phylogenetic and Structural Accretion Histories
Origin and Evolution of the Universal Genetic Code
Evolution of Life on Earth: tRNA, Aminoacyl-tRNA Synthetases and the Genetic Code
Hey, at least they’re trying hard.
🙂
ET: Yes, humans will still be remarkable, special, or unusual.
On what basis?
What if an alien culture had a record of a saviour who died for their sins and was resurrected?
Is it not possible for an alien culture to have equal standing as humans?
JVL
ID would not have a problem with this. 99% of ID proponents, however, would. Makes one wonder about the origin of ID.
Acartia Eddie:
Liar. Does lying about other people make you feel better?
The two don’t have anything to do with each other. Obviously Acartia Eddie is proud to be a desperate fool
JVL:
The diversity of life on Earth alone is enough.
That wouldn’t make us any less remarkable, special or unusual. Our planet already hit that mark. It wouldn’t matter if a million earth like planets were found. Compared to the vastness of the universe, they would all still be remarkable, special and unusual.
Of course it is. Perhaps you should buy a dictionary so you can understand what words mean.
ET: The diversity of life on Earth alone is enough.
And if the diversity of life on another planet was the same?
That wouldn’t make us any less remarkable, special or unusual. Our planet already hit that mark. It wouldn’t matter if a million earth like planets were found. Compared to the vastness of the universe, they would all still be remarkable, special and unusual.
But then humans would not be so unique would they?
Of course it is. Perhaps you should buy a dictionary so you can understand what words mean.
I understand the definitions; I”m just trying to be sure you are applying them.
Again, here is the question: If we found out that there was another whole bunch of alien beings who had the same orgin stories as us and the same saviour stories as us then could we say that humons are special in any way?
Here’s another way of putting it: is it possible that the Christian saviour appeared to many different cultures and races and beings? So that there was no one chosen race or species or beings?
JVL:
That just makes my point. Humans and human-like aliens would be remarkable, special and unusual, when compared to the vast abundance of other life.
Gibberish. In the vastness of the universe all humans and human-like ETs would be remarkable, special and unusual.
I don’t think you do understand the definitions.
Now, if every planet in the universe had humans and human-like populations, then no, we humans on earth wouldn’t be unique at all.
ET: Now, if every planet in the universe had humans and human-like populations, then no, we humans on earth wouldn’t be unique at all.
So, where is the line between unique and common?
I think it’s easily possible that any alien beings we meet might have similar orgin stories and feel they are just as special as we are. So, where is the line?
You’re a mathematician, figure it out. I would say that if humans make up 1% of all living organisms in the universe they would all still be remarkable, special and unusual. And 1% is very high, given what we know.
ET: I would say that if humans make up 1% of all living organisms in the universe they would all still be remarkable, special and unusual. And 1% is very high, given what we know.
Would you say that any other intelligent alien species was also a product of design?
JVL:
The odds favor it. But we have to wait and see.
Dr Tour and Dr Swamidass discuss OOL?
https://youtu.be/yJgr38h_3H0
ET: The odds favor it. But we have to wait and see.
Whoa! Hold the phone! You think fine-tuning says the universe was designed but you think it’s possible that complex life arose without being designed?
ET:
You may want to read carefully what is said @3
JVL @ 40
You state, “I think it’s easily possible that any alien beings we meet…” Does that mean you believe intelligent life exists in the universe? There is no evidence of their existence. What are you basing your belief on? I’m going to guess that it’s the vastness of the universe and there must be alien life out there somewhere.
BobRyan: Does that mean you believe intelligent life exists in the universe? There is no evidence of their existence. What are you basing your belief on? I’m going to guess that it’s the vastness of the universe and there must be alien life out there somewhere.
I agree: there is ZERO evidence that there are any other highly intelligent beings in the universe except humans.
I would be more surprised if there are not other intelligent beings than if there are because of the incredibly immense number of solars systems in the universe.
What do you think?
Can someone explain how in the world the biological cells could have gotten these mechanisms established?
Please note that the question is not how they got it but how it could be done. Thanks.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7104864/#!po=0.396825
BobRyan,
You may want to read carefully what is said @3
Why do ID objectors usually refrain from engaging in scientific discussions (at technical level)? Is it lack of knowledge? Is it lack of humility? Is it lack of honesty? Is it something else?
Strong evidences that clearly support ID are popping up all over the map in research literature:
Mechanistic insights into transcription factor cooperativity and its impact on protein-phenotype interactions
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6949242/
Folks, by now the issue, manifestly, is not weight or balance of evidence. That was settled once it was clear that alphanumerical algorithmic code was in the heart of the cell, complete with cases of interwoven code. The standard reaction as we saw in recent weeks? Obfuscation and denial. We are dealing with a mortally wounded dominant and domineering ideology lashing out even as it begins to bleed out. The willful unresponsiveness to manifest facts tells us all we need to know. KF
JVL:
LoL! We do NOT know, yet, if it is complex life, do we? That’s why I said what I did.
JVL:
That is pure nonsense.
That has nothing to do with it.
KF @53:
“ We are dealing with a mortally wounded dominant and domineering ideology lashing out even as it begins to bleed out. ”
Spot on.
KF @53:
“ by now the issue, manifestly, is not weight or balance of evidence. That was settled once it was clear that alphanumerical algorithmic code was in the heart of the cell, complete with cases of interwoven code. ”
Spot on.
JVL @ 48:
“I would be more surprised if there are not other intelligent beings than if there are because of the incredibly immense number of solars systems in the universe.”
Letting the scenario be purely probabilistic and not worrying ourselves about deterministic exclusion, it reduces to a numerator over a denominator. The numerator is “incredibly immense”. How about the denominator?
But isn’t this just headlining one term in Drake’s equation?
Drake’s equation has been superseded by that of the Rare Earth hypothesis- rare earth equation. And the Rare Earth equation has been augmented by the Privileged Planet equation
When we first started looking for exoplanets the technique used could only detect very large planets (eg Jupiter) in close orbits. If we stopped there, we would have concluded that solar systems with earth like planets are extremely rare. We now have techniques that can detect Solar systems with earth sized planets. Needless to say, we now have confirmed that earth sized planets are far more common than we could previously confirm.
EG, the resources of the observable cosmos, stars and all are nowhere near enough to make alphanumeric code using life even remotely plausible on blind forces. KF
LoL! @ Acartia Eddie- “Earth size” does not mean “Earth like”. Venus is “earth size”.
How secret conversations inside cells are transforming biology
ID evidence galore
ID evidence galore
Here, there, and everywhere: The importance of ER membrane contact sites
Footnote:
ER: endoplasmic reticulum
MCS: Membrane Contact Site
More ID evidences:
Ribosome-associated vesicles: A dynamic subcompartment of the endoplasmic reticulum in secretory cells
More ID-supporting evidences:
Crosstalk between Mitochondria and Cytoskeleton in Cardiac Cells
More discoveries supporting ID:
Fission and fusion machineries converge at ER contact sites to regulate mitochondrial morphology
KF @ 61:
And this is with the generous assumption that it’s a nothing more than a matter of probability, i.e. we actually have states and sequences of states that map to the whole of the necessary set of gene sequences and could actually produce them with sufficient recombination; or, similarly, that physical processes will necessarily exhaustively search the genomic space rather than falling into some cyclic and/or deterministic output whose range likely excludes large portions of the genome.
The need for evolution to appeal to undefined/undefinable distributions, magical “randomness”, is rather damning for anything that would be called a “theory”; after all, a theory is not a statement of truth; its value lies purely in its ability to make predictions.
JC, yup, and they don’t even realise how generous the assumptions are. Start with, thermodynamics of highly endothermic molecules with bonds in a vulnerable energy range. Ask yourself how a viable abiotic soup could reasonably come about and be sustained, then how right molecules of right geometry — chirality! — would be assembled and protected. Notice, ATP and the enzyme that synthesises it, the one with the rotary mechanism. As a beginning. KF
KF,
“they don’t even realise how generous the assumptions are.”
Excessively generous.
Imagine a person having to swim from Odessa (Ukraine) to any beach in Hawaii. No auxiliary boat going next to the swimmer.
What Dr Cronin, Dr Szostak and other distinguished OOL scientists are trying to achieve seems like finding a way to getting a pair of fins, a mask and snorkel for the swimmer.
The alternative models they present sound like determining whether the swim should start from Jaffa (Israel) instead. Quite a major improvement.
Other discussions try to determine whether the swimmer should go (model a) through the Gibraltar strait to the Atlantic Ocean and the Panama Canal out to the Pacific Ocean or (model b) through the Suez Canal out to the Indian Ocean.
In the model “a”, the ultimate breakthrough would be to find a way for the swimmer to start from Heraklion (Crete).
In the model “b” the ultimate breakthrough would be to find a way for the swimmer to start from Ismailia (Egypt).
They may have the swimmer wear a necklace with a shark tooth as a talisman.
That’s it. Good luck. Cross your fingers. Knock on wood. Whatever.
What are the odds?
Low? Very low? Extremely low?
Total nonsense.
🙂
@70,
But many could argue that we don’t understand, because it’s not about one swimmer, but a huge number of them attempting the same trick. And moreover, the experiment is repeated gazillion times. And the swimmers have to their disposition all the time they can use.
That makes a difference, doesn’t it?
Yeah, right.
In their dreams.
Jawa, even if they were to start from LA or from Singapore it would make no difference. The truth is, the debate over the design inference as best current and prospective explanation was decided once it became clear that Science was not fettered to a priori ideological evolutionary materialistic scientism AND — logic operator — we realised that there is complex, coded algorithmic alphanumeric information in the heart of the cell’s operations. There is just one serious explanation for such and once the ideological blinkers are removed, question begging is removed. Design is well warranted. The real onward issue is when the proud tower will crumble enough for its intimidation to lose power to suppress the manifest. Beyond, lies how can we reverse engineer as part of industrial civ 2.0. KF
PS: The observed cosmos does not have enough search resources to plausibly discover FSCO/I beyond 1000 bits by blind forces.
KF:
“The observed cosmos does not have enough search resources to plausibly discover FSCO/I beyond 1000 bits by blind forces.”
Exactly.
And yet some folks out there still believe that “somewhere, out there…” some evidences could be found that would support their wishful thinking.
Who’s really worshiping some fictional gods of the gaps?
The table has turned around.
The first verse of the first chapter of the first book of the Christian Bible doesn’t say that in the beginning God created the things that are unknown.
The first few verses of the first chapter of the fourth book in the NT confirm that Logos is God, who made the whole enchilada and the whole nine yards and their cousins. Everything. We worship the God of the entire show.
God reveals His creation through the things that are known. The better we understand things, more of God’s work is revealed.
Undoubtedly most scientific discoveries, specially in biology, increasingly point to our amazing Creator.
Perhaps that’s a reason why most ID objectors refrain from engaging in any discussion that deals with recent biology research papers?
Dunno.
KF,
“even if they were to start from LA or from Singapore it would make no difference.”
Good point. Agree 100%.
However, if that were the case, then the pop-sci journals would gladly display large puffed up headlines affirming that they’re almost there! 🙂
Sonic Hedgehog is not a limb morphogen but acts as a trigger to specify all digits
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.05.28.122119v1.full
Limb patterning by Sonic hedgehog (Shh) is among the most highly touted and studied models of “morphogen” function1. Yet how Shh instructs distinct digit types (index to little finger) remains controversial.
What would make the ID objectors engage in a discussion in this thread?
What is keeping them away?
Is it the fact that recent research papers have been cited as evidence that supports ID?
Don’t they have any argument against that affirmation?
The transcription factor E2A drives neural differentiation in pluripotent cells
https://dev.biologists.org/content/early/2020/05/29/dev.184093
The intrinsic mechanisms that link extracellular signalling to the onset of neural differentiation are not well understood.
Our results suggest a crucial role for E2A in establishing neural lineage commitment in pluripotent cells.
A ubiquitin-based mechanism for the oligogenic inheritance of heterotaxy and heart defects
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.05.25.113944v1.full
developmental patterning events can be tightly regulated by mechanisms in target cells that function to precisely tune sensitivity to extracellular morphogens.
left-right patterning (and cardiac and limb development) depend on a just-right “goldilocks” level of Hh signal amplitude or duration.
The ubiquitination of receptors by membrane-tethered E3 ligases represents an attractive post-transcriptional mechanism to control the sensitivity of tissues to signaling ligands during development or tissue renewal.
the MGRN1 family of RING E3 ligases can associate more generally across eukaryotes with single-pass TM proteins with conserved cytoplasmic motifs, each of which function as a substrate adaptor to target the ubiquitination of specific receptors or transporters
Hello!
Any ID objector out there?
Are they afraid of scientific discussions?
Can they invite an academic objector to come and lecture us?
🙂
Darwin’s Desperation?
https://evolutionnews.org/2020/06/darwins-desperation/
@67:
Fission and fusion machineries converge at ER contact sites to regulate mitochondrial morphology
235
More evidences supporting ID:
Mitochondria as intracellular signaling platforms in health and disease
More research is needed… we look with much anticipation to reading future papers on new discoveries… it’s exciting.
KF @72:
“The real onward issue is when the proud tower will crumble enough for its intimidation to lose power to suppress the manifest.”
Spot on.
Apparently this thread got so technically boring that it’s practically shutdown. 🙁
As we know we’ll, the ID objectors shun scientific discussions. They seem allergic to serious science.
More ID evidences:
Gene network reverse engineering: The Next Generation
Transcriptional Profiles and Regulatory Gene Networks
Gene regulatory network inference resources: A practical overview
Highlights
•
Gene Regulatory Networks (GRNs) control all aspects of cellular behavior.
•
Several approaches exist to infer GRNs. These can be broadly categorized based on the input data.
•
GRN inference can stem from: coexpression, sequence motifs, ChIP-Seq, orthology, literature and Protein-Protein Interaction.
•
We provide an extensive and commented list of >90 current GRN inference tools.
•
Best Practices and Examples of GRN inference using multiple methods are described.
Which came first, the transcriptional regulator or its target genes? An evolutionary perspective into the construction of eukaryotic regulons
This article is part of a Special Issue entitled: Transcriptional Profiles and Regulatory Gene Networks edited by Dr. Federico Manuel Giorgi and Dr. Shaun Mahony.
Non-coding RNA regulatory networks
Highlights
•
Transcriptional regulatory networks regulate cell physiology and may determine pathologies.
•
Network analyses could provide new insights on gene regulation and dysfunction mechanisms.
•
Several ncRNAs (miRNAs, lncRNAs and circRNAs) have been shown to be involved in regulation.
•
Integration of ncRNAs into regulatory networks is essential to identify molecular driver events.
Here’s another evidence that supports ID:
Profiling of Pluripotency Factors in Single Cells and Early Embryos
https://www.cell.com/cell/fulltext/S0092-8674(19)30276-4
Anybody dares to object?
Here’s another evidence that supports ID:
The 3D genome
https://www.nature.com/collections/rsxlmsyslk
Any objections?
Another set of evidences supporting ID:
Physical and data structure of 3D genome
https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/6/2/eaay4055?rss=1
Any objections?
@88:
Haven’t we heard this before?
“previously well-accepted concepts have been continuously challenged by new experimental discoveries”
@88:
interphase DNA explores the great genomic landscape as a complex network rather than a simple polymer.
opens an exciting new paradigm to understand genomic organization and presents many new questions
grand challenge of life science
No ID objectors here yet?
Where did they all go?
Did they run for the hills?
🙂
ID is the only empirically known cause for this:
Ionic amplifying circuits inspired by electronics and biology
@92:
ID on steroids
@93:
Undoubtedly ID
Any objector out there?
No objectors in this thread?
ID unleashed
Deciphering eukaryotic gene-regulatory logic with 100 million random promoters
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41587-019-0315-8
How transcription factors (TFs) interpret cis-regulatory DNA sequence to control gene expression remains unclear, largely because past studies using native and engineered sequences had insufficient scale.
TF activity depends on binding-site strand, position, DNA helical face and chromatin context.
ID unleashed
Subcellular Spatial Transcriptomes: Emerging Frontier for Understanding Gene Regulation
http://symposium.cshlp.org/con.....40352.long
ID unleashed
“what sets the tempo and manages the order of developmental events? Are the order and tempo different between species? How is the sequence of multiple events coordinated?“
https://dev.biologists.org/content/145/12/dev164368
ID unleashed
“Robust organ size requires robust timing of initiation orchestrated by focused auxin and cytokinin signalling”
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41477-020-0666-7
@99:
PDF full text of paywall paper:
https://www.researchgate.net/prwaklofile/Mingyuan_Zhu4/publication/341628298_Robust_organ_size_requires_robust_timing_of_initiation_orchestrated_by_focused_auxin_and_cytokinin_signalling/links/5edeab5e45851516e661912b/Robust-organ-size-requires-robust-timing-of-initiation-orchestrated-by-focused-auxin-and-cytokinin-signalling.pdf
ID unleashed
Ubiquitin chain-elongating enzyme UBE2S activates the RING E3 ligase APC/C for substrate priming
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41594-020-0424-6
“unexpected model for the mechanisms”?
There they go again.
What else did they expect?
@101:
ID unopposedly unleashed
tightly controlled?
Hmm…
I’ve been criticized for taking advantage of the scientific weaknesses of the ID objectors because it’s well known they lack valid arguments to engage in a serious discussion here.
Sorry for making that impression, but I’m just offering a friendly invitation to present objections.
They could invite the distinguished scientists Dr Art Hunt and Dr Larry Moran to come back and present their counter arguments. They know they’re always welcome here. It’s not my fault that they can’t stand the heat and run for the hills.
🙂
Jawa @ 103
Don’t you know challenging their beliefs are verboten. There is nothing scientific about Darwinists worldview. Cult members never like to be called out for being part of a cult. They believe the universe magically came into existence, since the universe created itself out of nothing. They believe life originated by magic. They believe macro-evolution to be fact, when there are no facts in science. Since science is based on what is observable at any given time, future generations may observer something that contradicts existing hypothesis and theories. They cannot even bring themselves to admit this simple truth regarding science.
@102:
precise regulatory control?
ensures the specificity and timing?
coordinate to control accurate cell cycle timing?
How?
BobRyan @104:
I agree. Very interesting point. Thanks!
We’ve had professors Art Hunt (u Kentucky) and Larry Moran (u Toronto) engaged in discussions here in UD, but for some reason they quit when the discussion gets too technical. What kind of science professors are they?
Jawa:
You’re welcome. Darwinists throw out logic and reason, which is the reason for the birth of the whole WOKE nonsense.
BobRyan @107:
Wow! That’s a really interesting association I didn’t realize. Thanks!
We’ve had professors Art Hunt (u Kentucky) and Larry Moran (u Toronto) engaged in discussions here in UD, but for some reason they quit when the discussion gets too technical. What kind of science professors are they?
How can they still rule academics while being so scientifically weak?
Does anybody understand it?
Did somebody notice the trend in biology research discoveries lately? It seems increasingly to be in the area of controls. Is this a correct perception?
If this is the case, what does it mean for whatever is left of the Darwinian micro-2-macro extrapolation?
Jawa:
If truth and fact are removed, you can replace it with anything you wish. Socialists do not value either, since neither supports their belief in the idea of Marx over the reality of what has been tried. Men and women are biologically different. Men have more gray matter, women have more white matter. Testosterone produce more calcium then estrogen, which leads to stronger and denser bones in men. Men have a lung capacity 50% greater than women.
There is a Rabbinical saying that goes along the lines of the following, God did not choose to take a bone from Adam’s foot, since he did not want man to trample on a woman. God did not choose to take a bone from Adam’s head, since he did not want woman to lead man. God chose the rib from Adam so man and woman can stand side by side. Men and women balance each other out.
A boy who is taught there is no difference between boys and girls does not learn the important lesson of not hitting girls. They are not told that women are physically weaker than men due to biology and men should respect women. We are seeing an increase in domestic abuse by these same boys who grew up in a world without differentiation between the two sexes.
BobRyan @111:
Very well stated. Again. Thanks!
Evidences that support ID keep coming out of research:
Discovery of genes required for body axis and limb formation by global identification of retinoic acid–regulated epigenetic marks
There are many direct or indirect ID evidences in this paper:
Strategies and prospects of effective neural circuits reconstruction after spinal cord injury
@44:
Dr Swamidass would require that ID doesn’t limit to pointing to design but rather explains how the design was done. I respect his opinion, but that’s just his opinion. When I open the hood of a 2020 RAV4 XLE AWD Hybrid and someone explains to me very roughly how that engine works, I must conclude that what I’m looking at must have been designed. However, I still don’t have to know much, or anything at all, about how the design was done or the identity of the designer.
Actually, given the average Joe’s poor knowledge of mechanical engineering, chemical engineering and electrical engineering, which are disciplines I assume associated with designing such a car, a rough technical explanation of how the design was done could easily blow Joe’s mind.
In the case of biology, the problem increases in complexity by orders of magnitude.
If we see how some complex object functions, we may imply design even without understanding who designed it or how it was designed.
AiG:…….47,223…….
EN:…….296,884…….
TO:…….769,013…….
UD:…….805,441…….
SW:…….1,367,722…….
PT:…….1,419,233…….
PS:…….2,651,165…….
What happened to TSZ? Fell off the Alexa radar?
Game over! ID wins by KO!
Studying DNA Double-Strand Break Repair: An Ever-Growing Toolbox
More evidences favoring ID
Enhancer transcription identifies cis-regulatory elements for photoreceptor cell types
More support for ID
Mapping the cis-regulatory architecture of the human retina reveals noncoding genetic variation in disease
More ID evidences
OTX2 represses sister cell fate choices in the developing retina to promote photoreceptor specification
ID is the only empirically reasonable explanation for this:
Neurogenesis and Specification of Retinal Ganglion Cells
Alexa ranks in global internet engagement
AIG:………..47,242……CMI, ICR
CMI:………151,923…….AIG, BL, EN
ICR:……..200,369…….CMI, AIG, TO
EN:………..302,714…….TO, UD, BL
BL:…………319,667…….EN, IGH, AIG
RTB:…….335,069……IGH
UD:………..745,610…….EN, TSZ
TO:………..763,600…….EN, ICR, CMI
IGH:…….1,223,524…….RTB, BL
SW:…….1,379,954…….UD
PS:………..1,395,116…….TSZ
PT:……….1,431,438…….UD
TSZ:…….[no rank]…….UD, PS
PS has shown a tremendous increase in internet traffic lately.
TSZ has done so poorly that it’s off the Alexa radar.
AIG: Answers in Genesis
BL: Biologos
CMI: Creation Ministries International
EN: Evolution News
ICR: Institute for Creation Research
IGH: Is Genesis History?
PS: Peaceful Science
PT: Panda’s Thumb
RTB: Reasons to Believe
SW: Sandwalk (Dr Larry Moran)
TO: Talk Origins
TSZ: The Skeptical Zone
UD: Uncommon Descent
@122:
Another way to see the relations according to Alexa stats:
——-AIG—BL—CMI—EN—ICR—IGH—PS—PT—RTB—SW—TO—TSZ—UD
AIG:———O——X————-X———————————————————–
BL: —-X————O——X————-X—————————————————
CMI:—X—–X————-X—–O——————————————O—————
EN:———–X—–O———————————————————X————-X-
ICR:—-X————X———————————————————X—————
IGH:———-X————————————————X——————————-
PS:————————————————————————————-X——–
PT:——————————————————————————————–X-
RTB:—————————————-X—————————————————
SW:——————————————————————————————-X-
TO:——————-X——X——X———————————————————-
TSZ:————————————————X—————————————–X-
UD:————————–X—————————-O————O————X——–
——-AIG—BL—CMI—EN—ICR—IGH—PS—PT—RTB—SW—TO—TSZ—UD
@123:
Another way to see the relations according to Alexa stats:
AIG————BL——————-IGH——————-RTB
|……\………………|………………………………|………………………………/
|……….\…………..|………………………………|……………………………./
|…………..\……….|………………………………|…………………………../
|………………\…. |……………………………….|…………………………/
|…………………\. |……………………………….|………………………./
|…………………CMI…………………………….|……………………../
|…………………./..|..\……………………………|……………………/
|………………../….|……\………………………..|…………………./
|………………/……|……….\……………………..|………………./
|……………./……..|………….\…………………..|……………../
|…………../……….|……………..\……………….|……………/
|…………/…………|………………..\…………….|…………./
|………./…………..|…………………..\………….|………../
|……../…………….|………………………\………|………/
|……/………………|…………………………\……|……/
|…/…………………|……………………………\…|…/
ICR———-TO———————-EN
…………………………………………………………..|
……………………………………………PT——UD——SW
……………………………………………………………|
………………………………………………………….TSZ
…………………………………………………………….|
…………………………………………………………..PS
Alexa ranks in global internet engagement
Web………….rank…………….tsli*
AIG:………..46,750………….4,136
CMI:………161,817…………….1,884
ICR:……..207,115…………….2,329
EN:………..311,392…………….999
RTB:………316,803………….1,018
BL:…………330,966…………789
UD:………..706,183………….804
TO:………..827,407…………3,013
IGH:…….1,119,605……….72
SW:…….1,379,237………..501
PS:………..1,394,344………16
PT:……….1,502,748………..1,175
TSZ:…….[no rank]………57
tsli: total sites linking in
For the first time PS has ranked higher than SW and PT!
Dr Swamidass is getting more online traffic in his website.
But TSZ sank so deep that got off Alexa radar – what happened?
AIG:……. 46,947
RTB:……. 292,858
EN:……. 309,663
MM:……. 532,604
UD:……. 707,799
TO:……. 825,582
PS:……. 1,397,637
SW:……. 1,450,061
PT:…… 1,506,678
Updated list of acronyms:
AIG: Answers in Genesis
BL: Biologos
CMI: Creation Ministries International
EN: Evolution News
ICR: Institute for Creation Research
IGH: Is Genesis History?
MM: Mind Matters
PS: Peaceful Science
PT: Panda’s Thumb
RTB: Reasons to Believe
SW: Sandwalk (Dr Larry Moran)
TO: Talk Origins
TSZ: The Skeptical Zone
UD: Uncommon Descent
Alexa Internet ranks
AIG:…….47,336
CMI:…….157,446
ICR:…….207,705
RTB:…….289,060
EN:…….319,159
BL:…….333,297
MM:…….534,166
UD:…….714,898
TO:…….890,997
IGH:…….1,203,371
PS:…….1,402,140
SW:…….1,454,927
PT:…….1,512,057
Alexa Internet ranks
AIG:……. 48,115
CMI:……. 157,759
ICR:……. 204,627
RTB:……. 285,515
EN:……. 318,883
BL:……. 346,506
MM:……. 521,238
UD:……. 716,976
TO:……. 919,958
PS:……. 1,406,582
IGH:……. 1,457,809
SW:……. 1,459,858
PT:……. 1,517,080
TSZ…….[internet traffic dropped too low – off the radar]
Jawa, such results are doubtless heavily biased by the censoring impact of biased search engine algorithms. We have a major war being waged by ideologues against truth. KF
KF, I see your point. It makes sense. Still it’s interesting to see Answer in Genesis, and other creationist websites (CMI, ICR) having relatively much higher volume of internet engagement than anti-ID websites like TO, SW, PT, despite the he censoring impact of biased search engine algorithms.
Also, it’s interesting to see how those numbers fluctuate so often in all directions. Perhaps this confirms what you wrote about the censoring impact of biased search engine algorithms.
Lastly, it’s interesting to see TSZ having so little traffic that it’s out of Alexa’s radar. Not long ago PS was in that situation, but it has gone up quite rapidly lately.
More ID on display here:
The acquisition of positional information in the developing cochlea
More ID displayed here:
Evaluation of BMP-mediated patterning in a 3D mathematical model of the zebrafish blastula embryo
…….
Reverse engineering biological processes? Huh? 🙂
Engineering in Development and Aging
Obvious ID on display here:
BMP Signaling Gradient Scaling in the Zebrafish Pectoral Fin
Alexa Internet ranks
AIG:……. 52,021
CMI:……. 152,656
ICR:……. 226,008
RTB:……. 271,555
EN:……. 306,383
BL:……. 356,068
MM:……. 480,673
TO:……. 842,175
UD:……. 902,119
SW:……. 1,404,957
PS:……. 1,684,357
IGH:……. 1,885,604
PT:……. 2,084,078
TSZ…….[internet traffic dropped too low – off the radar]
Updated list of acronyms:
AIG: Answers in Genesis
BL: Biologos
CMI: Creation Ministries International
EN: Evolution News
ICR: Institute for Creation Research
IGH: Is Genesis History?
MM: Mind Matters
PS: Peaceful Science
PT: Panda’s Thumb
RTB: Reasons to Believe
SW: Sandwalk (Dr Larry Moran)
TO: Talk Origins
TSZ: The Skeptical Zone
UD: Uncommon Descent
Note:
it’s interesting to see Answer in Genesis, and other creationist websites (CMI, ICR) having relatively much higher volume of internet engagement than anti-ID websites like TO, SW, PT, despite the censoring impact of biased search engine algorithms.
Also, it’s interesting to see how those numbers fluctuate so often in all directions. Perhaps this confirms what KF wrote @130 about the censoring impact of biased search engine algorithms, but could there be other factors involved here too?
Lastly, it’s interesting to see TSZ having so little traffic that it’s out of Alexa’s radar. Not long ago PS was in that situation, but it has gone up quite rapidly lately.
Here’s a interesting observation about a website that perhaps does not exactly qualify to be in the above list, but shows that their internet traffic increased substantially around the time their founder passed away. Over two months after that event, the traffic hasn’t decreased.
https://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/rzim.org
An old paper that shows abundant evidences for ID:
Alternative pre-mRNA splicing: the logic of combinatorial control
(published 20 years ago)
Jawa there are a few big Creationist orgs. which antedate the web. They built their own platforms, and their web engagement is really secondary. KF
KF,
Yes, that seems to be the case.
Alexa ranks:
AiG:……. 54,612
CMI:……. 152,722
RTB:……. 243,699
ICR:……. 246,139
EN:……. 318,123
BL:……. 388,769
MM:……. 474,500
UD:……. 823,033
TO:……. 1,085,205
SW:……. 1,677,682
PS:……. 1,729,263
IGH:……. 2,284,628
PT:……. 3,227,929
After noticing that TSZ hasn’t been ranked by Alexa, I looked into it and found that they haven’t had a new article posted for over 1.5 month.
Why?
@141:
Apparently PT sank so deep after having server problems that kept them off for a long time. They’re back on and their Alexa stats could improve soon.
ID all over
🙂
Clock-controlled rhythmic transcription: is the clock enough and how does it work?
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/21541264.2019.1673636
ID on steroids:
Chromatin information content landscapes inform transcription factor and DNA interactions
Obviously, all that functional information was the result of unguided processes, random variations and natural selection.
@145:
Forgot the link to the paper:
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/777532v2.full
The sequence of nucleotides in DNA could serve as a code for amino acids (used later at the tRNA-aaRS/ribosome level) or a code for regulatory ncRNA or a code for pre-mRNA (before post-transcriptional modifications) or a code for transcriptional regulation (TF binding sites, promoter, enhancer and the whole nine yards). Then apart we have the epigenetic marks, including the ones associated with the nucleosomes, and so on and so forth. Then we have the splicing code. Then the post-translational modification code. What else?
But the most important thing is that all of the above came to be as result of undirected processes. How?
Reverse engineering directed gene regulatory networks from transcriptomics and proteomics data of biomining bacterial communities with approximate Bayesian computation and steady-state signalling simulations
https://bmcbioinformatics.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12859-019-3337-9
I thought you could reverse-engineer what has been engineered first. Where did I get this wrong? Did I miss something?
A paradigm shift in medicine: A comprehensive review of network-based approaches
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1874939919302500?via%3Dihub
Another confirmation of ID
“Materialism” is dead.
Say hello to hylemorphism.
Materialism’s Failures: Hylemorphism’s Vindication. (Aristotle is back).
Truthfreedom,
Interesting article.
Alexa ranks (update):
Top 0.1%
AiG:……. 57,240
Top 1%
CMI:……. 174,850
RTB:……. 231,021
ICR:……. 295,589
EN:……. 297,307
BL:……. 363,848
MM:……. 388,600
UD:……. 662,559
Top 2%
TO:……. 1,060,561
SW:……. 1,663,253
PS:……. 1,947,079
Top 8%
PT:……. 7,485,326
TSZ:……. [insignificant traffic]
Why has PT lost so much traffic recently? Their server was down but has been restored. Any thoughts?
The situation of TSZ is quite puzzling too. They lost so much traffic.
PS has gone up significantly from the bottom of the ranks (at one point was off like TSZ is now).
TO and SW have been within the 1% range but have lately sunk into the 2% level recently. It could be temporary.
Note that the % refers to the top 100 million active websites.
Hyperacetylated chromatin domains mark cell type-specific genes and suggest distinct modes of enhancer function
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-18303-0
@152:
Correction:
TO and SW have been within the 1% range before, but have lately dropped to the 2% level recently. It could be temporary.
@153:
That recent paper shows that the plot thickens and the bad news for the Darwinian (macroevolutionary) ideas keep getting worse. 🙂
Why don’t ID objectors post their strong counter arguments here?
Simply because they lack what it takes to engage in serious scientific discussions. That’s all.
Their case is doomed.
@153, 155:
“the super-enhancer concept tends to oversimplify more complex patterns of gene regulation.”
Isn’t that what we see in many cases?
🙂
Here it goes again:
ENCODE discovers many new transcription-factor-binding-site motifs and explores their properties
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature28170
Video on YouTube
Dr Sue Biggins interviews Dr Leland Hartwell.
Video published 2019-02-19
2020-09-16 only 2,340 views and one comment
Cell Division Cycle (CDC)
2001 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine
Define Cell Cycle Checkpoints:
@159:
What did Dr Hartwell mean by
“ the extent to which evolution has driven the accuracy of biological processes is really enormous. ”
???
How could that have happened?
Any clues?
What is this for:
“Approval Ready Consulting –
Dissertation Writing Service”
???
ID on steroids?
Cellular Dialogues: Cell-Cell Communication through Diffusible Molecules Yields Dynamic Spatial Patterns
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6975168/
ID galore
Emergence of cooperative bistability and robustness of gene regulatory networks
ID on steroids?
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0959437X1730028X
ID galore?
A model to decipher the complexity of gene regulation
A goal:
Discovery:
models to decipher complexity
ID upon ID
Chromatin three-dimensional interactions mediate genetic effects on gene expression
RE: Regulatory Elements
ChIP-seq: chromatin immunoprecipitation sequencing
CRD: cis-regulatory domain
TAD: topologically associated domains
TRH: trans-regulatory hubs
eQTL: expression quantitative trait loci
We’re missing GPuccio’s insightful technical OPs and comments.
ID galore
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fcell.2020.00591/full
Let’s repeat it for the folks with poor reading comprehension:
“an orchestration of integrated biological networks functions to drive stem cell fate decisions and regulate metabolism.”
Better read the entire paper. No doubt that ID is the only explanation
ID magnified
Key control mechanism allows cells to form tissues and anatomical structures in the developing embryo
https://phys.org/news/2020-10-key-mechanism-cells-tissues-anatomical.html
“adhesion codes” ?
Another code ?
ID upon ID
An adhesion code ensures robust pattern formation during tissue morphogenesis
Convergence of paradigms yields patterns
Abstract
another code?
ID magnified
The Origin of Land Plants Is Rooted in Two Bursts of Genomic Novelty
And again?
EN: Scientific Paper Reaffirms New Genes Required for Cambrian Explosion
More ID?
Genes with spiralian-specific protein motifs are expressed in spiralian ciliary bands
ID magnified?
Vision Changes the Cellular Composition of Binocular Circuitry during the Critical Period
https://www.cell.com/neuron/fulltext/S0896-6273(20)30746-7?dgcid=raven_jbs_aip_email
ID magnified?
Cell-Cycle-Dependent ERK Signaling Dynamics Direct Fate Specification in the Mammalian Preimplantation Embryo
https://www.cell.com/developmental-cell/fulltext/S1534-5807(20)30715-2?dgcid=raven_jbs_aip_email
Websites that deal with Common Design (both for and against)
Alexa ranking for comparable websites among the top 100 million active websites:
AiG:…….52,803
CMI:…….189,155
EN:…….222,462
RTB:…….275,900
MM:…….279,670
ICR:…….280,945
BL:…….380,056
DI:…….408,585
TO:…….815,994
SW:…….1,360,069
IGH:…….1,989,933
PS:…….3,008,511
TSZ:…….4,143,753
PT:…….6,824,100
Alexa ranking for comparable websites among the top 100 million active websites:
AiG:…….52,803
CMI:…….189,155
EN:…….222,462
RTB:…….275,900
MM:…….279,670
ICR:…….280,945
BL:…….380,056
DI:…….408,585
TO:…….815,994
SW:…….1,360,069
IGH:…….1,989,933
PS:…….3,008,511
TSZ:…….4,143,753
PT:…….6,824,100
@175: links to each website.
Missed UD:…….704,831 should be inserted between DI and TO.
@175
Another way to look at this ranking:
AiG:…….006
CMI:…….020
EN:…….030
RTB:…….030
MM:…….030
ICR:…….030
BL:…….040
DI:…….050
TO:…….090
SW:…….140
IGH:…….200
PS:…….400
TSZ:…….500
PT:…….700
ID magnified again
A flexible repertoire of transcription factor binding sites and diversity threshold determines enhancer activity in embryonic stem cells
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.17.046664v2.full
It is known that transcription factor binding sites (TFBS) are required for enhancer function, and that transcription factors, modulate enhancer activity in a cell type specific manner; however, the precise sequence code conferring enhancer activity in each cell type remains unknown.
the sequence code conferring enhancer activity remains unknown.
These findings reveal a TFBS diversity threshold overrides the need for optimized regulatory grammar and individual TFBS that bind specific master regulators.
Alexa ranking for comparable websites among the top 100 million active websites:
<Alexa link>::<Site Link>::TSLI=<tsli>::AS={s1,s2,…}::<rank>
TSLI: Total Sites Linking In
AS: Associated Sites (according to Alexa)
Alexa::AiG::TSLI=3,044::AS={CMI,ICR}::52,398
Alexa::CMI::TSLI=1,465::AS={AiG,ICR,BL,EN}::202,707
Alexa::EN::TSLI=833::AS={DI,TO,UD,BL}::219,613
Alexa::RTB::TSLI=788::AS={IGH}::259,957
Alexa::ICR::TSLI=1,751::AS={CMI,AiG,TO,BL}::267,172
Alexa::MM:TSLI=37::AS={}::277,264
Alexa::DI::TSLI=1,313::AS={EN}::362,614
Alexa::BL::TSLI=628::AS={CMI,EN,IGH,AiG,ICR}::365,581
Alexa::UD::TSLI=702::AS={EN,DI,TSZ}::730,919
Alexa::TO::TSLI=2,509::AS={EN,ICR,CMI}::946,327
Alexa::SW::TSLI=456::AS={UD}::1,360,878
Alexa::IGH::TSLI=54::AS={RTB,BL}::1,991,862
Alexa::PS::TSLI=41::AS={TSZ}::3,006,785
Alexa::TSZ::TSLI=58::AS={UD,PS,DI}::4,141,030
Alexa::PT::TSLI=1,127::AS={UD}::6,827,764
What is a gene, post-ENCODE? History and updated definition
The classical view of a gene as a discrete element in the genome has been shaken by ENCODE
Massive project reveals complexity of gene regulation
mystery of bombardier beetles’ hot, toxic spray
Biosynthetic origin of benzoquinones in the explosive discharge of the bombardier beetle Brachinus elongatulus
PubMed
ID galore
Bacterial Associates of a Gregarious Riparian Beetle With Explosive Defensive Chemistry
Functional anatomy of the explosive defensive system of bombardier beetles (Coleoptera, Carabidae, Brachininae)
I remember reading in this website a discussion where Dr Larry Moran affirmed that he knew exactly how morphogen gradients form. Does anybody remember when was that? How can one locate that discussion?
Apparently the Canadian professor was right on target.
Check this out:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7328709/#!po=0.427350
Interplay between morphogen-directed positional information systems and physiological signaling
Dev Dyn. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2021 Mar 1.
Published in final edited form as:
Dev Dyn. 2020 Mar; 249(3): 328–341.
Published online 2019 Dec 20. doi: 10.1002/dvdy.140
PMCID: PMC7328709
NIHMSID: NIHMS1601446
PMID: 31794137