UD open post for community concerns and miscellaneous topics

And a propos nothing in particular..., but absolutely priceless: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1018514751 Axel

@BM40 #32 Where do you see the problem, BM40? Axel

BA77

and what does the following video on DNA ‘tell you’? DNA – Replication, Wrapping & Mitosis

what does the following fact about DNA ‘tell you’? DNA: The Ultimate Hard Drive – Science Magazine, August-16-2012

Sorry, but I couldn't find those parts of the video and the article that state that left-handed DNA adds another layer of information. BM40

Is Crisis Magazine's catholicism really compatible with ID? E.g., their recent article Protecting God’s Word From “Bible Christians” BM40

Something close to our hearts, here, in Crisis Magazine: 'Irrational Disbelief. The Hypocrisy of Scientific Atheism' http://www.crisismagazine.com/2014/irrational-disbelief-hypocrisy-scientific-atheism Axel

Human lincRNA Regions Vastly Different from Chimpanzee by Jeffrey Tomkins, Ph.D - 2014 Excerpt: My recent research report describes the use of regions of the human genome that correspond to three different human lincRNA datasets and one vlincRNA (very long intergenic non-coding RNA) dataset in an exhaustive comparison to the chimpanzee genome. In summary, the short human lincRNA regions (less than 600 DNA bases in length) were about 75% to 79% similar to chimpanzee, while the larger lincRNA regions (greater than 600 bases) were about 71% to 74% similar. And the human vlincRNA genomic regions were only 67% similar to chimpanzee. To provide a high-similarity contrast for this study, I also compared the protein-coding regions of the human genome, called exons, that were between 300 and 599 bases in length—the ideal size for optimally aligning them to chimpanzee DNA without having to slice them into smaller pieces. In contrast to the lower similarity observed for the lincRNA and vlincRNA regions, all known human protein-coding exons 300 to 599 bases in length were 86% similar to chimpanzee. These data included the fact that over 6% of human protein-coding exons of this size have no similar counterpart in the chimpanzee. http://www.icr.org/article/8227/ bornagain77

Clavdivs as to your comment at 22: "If ID aspires to be respected as science then it needs to embrace robust – even hostile – criticism, same as every other area of science." Could you run that by me again after reading this Nature article? Nature Admits Scientists Suppress Criticisms of Neo-Darwinism to Avoid Lending Support to Intelligent Design - Casey Luskin October 8, 2014 Excerpt: "The number of biologists calling for change in how evolution is conceptualized is growing rapidly. Strong support comes from allied disciplines, particularly developmental biology, but also genomics, epigenetics, ecology and social science. We contend that evolutionary biology needs revision if it is to benefit fully from these other disciplines. The data supporting our position gets stronger every day. Yet the mere mention of the EES often evokes an emotional, even hostile, reaction among evolutionary biologists. Too often, vital discussions descend into acrimony, with accusations of muddle or misrepresentation. Perhaps haunted by the spectre of intelligent design, evolutionary biologists wish to show a united front to those hostile to science. Some might fear that they will receive less funding and recognition if outsiders -- such as physiologists or developmental biologists -- flood into their field." (Kevin Laland, Tobias Uller, Marc Feldman, Kim Sterelny, Gerd B. Müller, Armin Moczek, Eva Jablonka, and John Odling-Smee, "Does evolutionary theory need a rethink? Yes, urgently," Nature, Vol. 514:161-164 (October 9, 2014) ) http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/10/nature_admits_s090321.html bornagain77

More evidence for creationism and Intelligent Design posted on ICR's website here:http://www.icr.org/article/8364/

Were Intestines Designed for Bacteria? by Brian Thomas, M.S. * Scientists purposefully made mice sick to test how the creatures’ intestines—and the microbes they harbor—would react. They discovered details behind a remarkable relationship that, when working well, keeps both parties healthy. Intestinal germs form part of a complicated digestive system, with different species lining up in ordered but dynamic layers to help break down food products so the host can more efficiently absorb nutrients.1 In exchange, these helpful microbes get a nice place to live. But what happens when illness threatens this well-lubricated microbial machinery? Scientists publishing in Nature found that during illness, mouse intestines manufacture a special food for their bacteria.2 Without this sugary food source—called fucose—sick mice may lose their helpful microbes.3 .... Not only do these different gut bacteria depend on each other, but this study confirmed interdependence between mammal and microbe. Mouse gets sick. Mouse makes fucose to feed friendly bacteria. Bacteria block pathogens from accessing mouse tissue. Mouse recovers fast. Bacteria help the mouse, and the mouse gives bacteria a place to stay. Could anything but intentional design reasonably explain this kind of elaborate cooperation?5 Here in this microscopic world within mouse intestines, precisely designed enzymes and transporter proteins anticipate the needs of two totally different organisms. This amazing display of creation confirms that germs and intestines were made for each other.

Original source Pickard, J. M. et al. Rapid fucosylation of intestinal epithelium sustains host-commensal symbiosis in sickness. Nature. Published online before print, October 1, 2014. www.uchospitals.edu/news/2014/20141002-chervonsky.html tjguy

Moro num país tropical, abençoado por Deus E bonito por natureza, mas que beleza :) Dionisio

#24 correction #16 Querius Interesting suggestion. Thanks. Dionisio

#22 CLAVDIVS Apparently you misunderstood what it was said. That was not it. You may read the related posts again, but more carefully, if you want to. Specially pay attention to post #16 by Querius. Dionisio

#16 Queries Interesting suggestion. Thanks. Dionisio

Has anyone here used Mind Meister or a similar tool? Did you like it? Dionisio

Those on this thread who wish to ban critics and dissenters should think twice. If ID aspires to be respected as science then it needs to embrace robust - even hostile - criticism, same as every other area of science. CLAVDIVS

Found an interesting 2009 piece while research something similar comparing genes of a tree in strategies for coping with drought to computer programs and files. In fact the researchers doing much of the work were bioinformaticians and the terms Evolution or Darwinian were never used and would have added nothing of value or import to the study. "Each gene is like a line of code in a computer program" says Campbell, a plant biologist. "Depending on which lines of code are used, the tree can create a different program to respond to environmental stimuli, like drought." The use of different combinations of genes creates different programs. The combination of genes that trees use in response to a stress, like drought, determines whether the tree can survive this stress or not." And this, "Surprisingly, working together with University of Toronto bioinformaticians, the team found that trees used different drought response gene programs at different times of day. That is, the drought response gene program that the trees used in the middle of the day was different from the program used in the middle of the night." Here is the link: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/11/091123114815.htm . DavidD

OK guys, sorry for the numerous posts, but here is another one. I love the way Dave Coppedge from Creation Evolution Headlines (and of JPL ID lawsuit fame)summarizes the problem of science that creationists, IDers, and evolutionists all face here:

Here at CEH, we have profound respect for data, but (from experience) profound skepticism about interpretations of data. Cosmologists have been so wrong so many times, we wonder why anybody pays them mind, especially the far-out wackos who speak glibly of things they cannot possibly know. Even the legit astronomers who do their work as carefully as they can often lean on smoking reeds that might be falsified next year. Elliptical galaxies evolve from disk galaxies — wait!—it’s the other way around. There’s a black hole at the center of yonder galaxy — wait!—black holes are impossible. The universe is 13.7 billion years old, accurate to 3 decimal places — wait!—the supernovas we were counting on may vary in brightness, throwing off our calibrations, and we still don’t understand why they explode. Star formation is slow, except when it’s fast and furious. Well, what do you know? The 1920 Shapley-Curtis debate was just one example of complete overhauls of our view of nature a hundred years ago. Take any scientific field: geology, psychology, biology, genetics, planetary science, geophysics, mechanics, atomic physics, sociology, human evolution, biological evolution—every one of these has been mangled, reversed, or overhauled to the point of being unrecognizable today. Newtonian physics was “the” model of scientific reliability in 1900, right as Planck was undermining it and starting the quantum revolution, and Einstein was starting the relativity revolution. Even in mathematics, human knowledge has been pliable. Euclidean geometry was the best example of deductive logic in the world for almost two millennia, till some mathematicians (e.g., Riemann)began exploring curved space and non-Euclidean geometries in the late 19th century. Some lingering positivists think, “Well, that was then, and this is now. We have better instruments and more knowledge these days.” That’s a half-truth. We do have better data gathering capabilities, without question: we are looking at molecular machines in the cell at nanometer scales, and observing galaxies with the Hubble telescope above atmospheric distortion. The capacity for human self-deception, though, and for professional groupthink, remain unchanged. These news stories show that many things we thought we know are shaky at best, wrong at worst. We can have no confidence that, 100 years from now if the earth endures, future experts will not look back at how ignorant scientists were in 2014. There is something that has remained solid and reliable since the beginning: God’s Word. It may not discuss black holes or cosmic rays directly, but it provides a reliable framework for knowledge that doesn’t shift with every fallible human speculation.

http://crev.info/2014/09/of-stars-and-significance/ tjguy

http://www.icr.org/article/8361/ From an article entitled Australopith Child Gets an Academic Spanking:

The Taung child skull (discovered in 1924), is an australopithecine juvenile estimated to be about 3 to 4 years of age and thought to represent the best and earliest evidence of hominid brain evolution during development. It was also recently hypothesized that the Taung skull contained signs of delayed cranial sutures that were not fully closed during a preliminary analysis of an endocast (internal cast of the skull).2 However, in this new study, researchers questioned the previous crude analysis of the endocast and performed a more exacting and advanced analysis of the skull using techniques that included high-resolution computed tomography.1 .... The problems with the previous study, as noted by the authors of the current effort, are three-fold. 1) The endocast had numerous calcite [mineral] deposits on it that obscured the real contours of the surface. 2) The remnants of the inside of the cranium that adhered to the endocast also obscured the true surface. 3) The discoverer of the fossil skull damaged it by the "exuberant use of his wife's knitting needles to extricate the fossil from the surrounding breccia [rock material] may have scarred the surfaces, forever obliterating some of the original features of the natural endocast."1 Essentially, the cranium is too obscured and damaged to make any reasonable observations without advanced imaging techniques that circumvent these issues—such as those done in the current study. Strong evidence suggests that this young Australopithecus skull comes from an ape—just like the rest of its genus. Once again, when scrutinized by advanced imaging technology, the highly subjective field of anthropology vindicates the scientifically accurate biblical claim that mankind is created uniquely in the image of God.

A couple thoughts. In light of the problems with the specimen, why did the researchers automatically assume that what they could not detect was actually present? Was this an example of overly enthusiastic scientists trying too hard to find evidence to support their evolutionary beliefs? Another way to put "overly enthusiastic scientists" would be "heavily biased scientists". Perhaps the technology to do a more thorough study was not available back then. That's fine. But that means that they should not have made the claims that they made because they didn't have the evidence to do so. How many "evidences" used by evolutionists to support their ideas are similar to this? The original claim receives great press, but the debunking remains in the obscurity of the scientific journals where it is published. I could be wrong, but I didn't notice Live Science or any of the science news outlets reporting on this new discovery that is not favorable for evolutionary dogma. tjguy

BM40 "It’s quite telling that the video starts with a left-handed DNA molecule." Exactly what do you think it is telling you? and what does the following video on DNA 'tell you'? DNA - Replication, Wrapping & Mitosis https://vimeo.com/33882804 what does the following fact about DNA 'tell you'? DNA: The Ultimate Hard Drive - Science Magazine, August-16-2012 Excerpt: "When it comes to storing information, hard drives don't hold a candle to DNA. Our genetic code packs billions of gigabytes into a single gram. A mere milligram of the molecule could encode the complete text of every book in the Library of Congress and have plenty of room to spare." http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2012/08/written-in-dna-code.html bornagain77

I was reading an article entitled "Constructing Habitable Worlds" today on astrobiologyfutures.org today and found this definition of habitability:

What makes an environment habitable? Habitability has been defined as the potential of an environment (past or present) to support life of any kind. .... A habitable environment is one with the ability to generate life endogenously — using solely available resources — or support the survival of life that may arrive from elsewhere. That ability may depend on inputs such as radiation energy or the delivery and accumulation of volatiles and nutrients by meteors and other exogenous (outside) sources.

Using that definition of habitable, I don't think anywhere in this universe is habitable. I used to think that habitable meant "capable of supporting life". Now even that has changed! tjguy

Maybe the filter should be a pattern of abusive statements. The problem is that many people are adamant about their opinions. To StephenA's point, questions should be treated gently. I like Dr. Tour's style (the first link under Popular Posts). Maybe more questions such as "Help me understand how you came to that conclusion," would be more conducive to discussion and understanding. -Q Querius

13 StephenA I think I see your interesting point. Thanks. Perhaps somehow part of post #14 relates to what you wrote? Dionisio

11 Querius

From my perspective, there are two categories of ID dissenters here: 1. Honest skeptics: Willing to discuss scientific issues without stupid ad hominems and derogatory comments. Assertions supported by facts or logic. Beneficial and fine with me. 2. Trolls: Combat, deceit, and disruption. A complete waste of everyone’s time and energy.

Yes, you have made an important distinction. Agree. Maybe one way to determine which case we are dealing with is to ask simple questions right at the beginning, so that the interlocutors get an opportunity to reveal their true motives. Perhaps noticing that an interlocutor seems evading those simple questions could indicate the given interlocutor is not interested in a serious discussion? Definitely this 'screening' demands an additional effort from everyone here in order to help the moderators, or the OP authors, with the difficult decision. This is quite a learning experience to me, because it allows me to see different discussion styles and it clarifies the requirements for communication to flow smoothly both ways. Perhaps one of the most difficult human endeavors is communicating with other human beings. Sometimes the obstacle is not the language barrier, but the personality or the worldview. Two persons sharing the same worldview and similar personality could communicate better, even speaking different languages, than two persons sharing the same language, but having opposite worldview positions or personalities. Then there's the difference between oral and written communication. Using visualization tools or not. Establishing a pace that accommodates the slowest of the involved parties. Agreeing on a communication protocol that takes into consideration personalities and cultural background. What else? What human activity is more difficult than communicating? It is much easier to study difficult scientific materials, even lacking solid educational background on the given subject, than to communicate with another person. Perhaps there are mistakes in what I just wrote. Corrections are welcome! :) Any comments, suggestions? Thanks. Dionisio

Querius, I tend to agree, but simply banning trolls is likely to drive away any honest skeptics. Someone that is honestly searching for the truth wants to hear both sides put forth their strongest case, so banning people that persistently disagree is likely to create the impression that they won't find what they are looking for here. The nature of honest seekers makes them much more unlikely to post though. Someone who wants an answer will stop asking the question once they get it, or if it becomes clear that they won't get it. They may have follow on questions, but eventually they have what they came for and stop posting. Trolls on the other hand will just keep needling forever. StephenA

10 bornagain77 September 28, 2014 at 7:35 pm “Lights Out” S1 (Episode 3) – with Jonathan McLatchie – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rogalhi1KcU&list=PLk7gMGOsK0fXN1puEUHwS3uocm4SdK9D2&index=3

It's quite telling that the video starts with a left-handed DNA molecule. BM40

Dionisio,

Discussions between opposite irreconcilable worldview positions tend to turn into never-ending senseless arguments that usually lead nowhere, hence become a waste of precious time.

From my perspective, there are two categories of ID dissenters here: 1. Honest skeptics: Willing to discuss scientific issues without stupid ad hominems and derogatory comments. Assertions supported by facts or logic. Beneficial and fine with me. 2. Trolls: Combat, deceit, and disruption. A complete waste of everyone's time and energy. -Q Querius

"Lights Out" S1 (Episode 3) - with Jonathan McLatchie - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rogalhi1KcU&list=PLk7gMGOsK0fXN1puEUHwS3uocm4SdK9D2&index=3 bornagain77

#6 Mapou I think your proposition should be seriously considered. Discussions between opposite irreconcilable worldview positions tend to turn into never-ending senseless arguments that usually lead nowhere, hence become a waste of precious time. Discussions where both sides are highly interested in finding the truth about the discussed issue might be very interesting and benefit all involved parties, and even the lurkers. Don't we have examples of both cases in this site? Dionisio

#5 Eric Anderson I think I see Eric's point. It seems to make sense. Dionisio

Here’s one possible reason why Eric Holder is resigning ahead of the mid-term elections. Excerpt: U.S. District Court Judge John D. Bates has denied a request from the Department of Justice to delay the release of a list of Operation Fast and Furious documents being protected under President Obama’s assertion of executive privilege.,,, https://winteryknight.wordpress.com/2014/09/26/why-is-attorney-general-eric-holder-is-retiring-now/ Must be something in them since they fought to have the release delayed until the election. we will see bornagain77

It bothers me when I see Darwinists/materialists freely post their lies on UD. Not that I am telling anybody what to do here but I would ban all of them if I were in charge. We don't need them. There is enough disagreement between various ID factions already to last us a century. Only friends should disagree amongst themselves, IMO. What is the point of arguing with enemies? Anyway, that's the way I see it but then again, I've always been a rebel and a loon. Mapou

One concern, which I have raised several times, relates to News postings. This in no way impugns the great work Denyse does to bring relevant news stories to everyone's attention, but it would be helpful to have news feeds posted in a separate side column so that major discussion threads can enjoy a much longer timeframe on the home page. It is not uncommon for news feeds to overwhelm the home page and push other active discussion threads off the home page within 1-2 days. It is of course unintentional, but the unfortunate side effect is that active, lively discussions inevitably die out very quickly after they fall off the initial home page view. If a news-related thread gets a certain number of comments, say more than 5 or 6, then it could get promoted to the discussion threads Eric Anderson

Taung Child's brain development not human-like? CT scan casts doubt on similarity to that of modern humans - August 25, 2014 Excerpt: By subjecting the skull of the famous Taung Child to the latest CT scan technology, researchers are now casting doubt on theories that Australopithecus africanus shows the same cranial adaptations found in modern human infants and toddlers.,, The Taung Child has historical and scientific importance in the fossil record as the first and best example of early hominin brain evolution,,, Comparisons with the existing hominin fossil record and chimpanzee variation do not support this evolutionary scenario.,,, http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/08/140825152556.htm Smithsonian Evolution Storytelling - Sept. 18, 2014 Excerpt: Discovered in 1924 in South Africa, models of the skull have long since been duplicated for natural history museums as evidence for human evolution worldwide, including the Smithsonian. Found near Taung, South Africa, the lynchpin skull was tagged with the common name of Taung Child because of the fossil’s estimated age of 3 years, then, later named Australopithecus africanus meaning the “southern ape from Africa.” Hollow’s new high-resolution CT scan images, however, undermine the long-held pre-Homo fossil status of the skull.,,, In the words of ScienceDaily, the Taung skull was once “South Africa’s premier hominin… the first and best example of early hominin brain evolution.”,, The evidence undermines the the long-held pre-Homo status of the skull. In an article published in the John Hopkins News-Letter entitled “Taung child’s skull compared to human’s,” writer Elli Tian points to the glaring problem for human evolution – “The evolution of our species, and what makes us human, is much more complicated than we’ve assumed in the past.” http://www.darwinthenandnow.com/2014/09/smithsonian-evolution-storytelling/ bornagain77

I had something, KF, but have forgotten what it was, so I'm disappointed by your timing. Nevertheless, I won't hold it against you, but will endeavour to remember it. Axel

Well, I can't think of anything but some recent news-worthy item about a famous character referenced here on the UD site. Neil de-grasse Tyson and his being caught lying and fabricating stories in the promotion of his cherished worldview. This was published back on the 22nd: http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/09/22/does-neil-degrasse-tyson-make-up-stories/# . DavidD

Feel free . . . kairosfocus