Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Intelligent Design is NOT Creation[ism]
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 121 of 189 (145091)
09-27-2004 2:55 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by ID man
09-27-2004 12:34 PM


Re: Percy Wrong, Joe Meert says he's a Theistic Evolutionist
ID man writes:
Not really. If the evidence points to a divine being then it is not religious in nature. Also ID doesn't say anything about the ultimate creator. Biological ID just cares about life on Earth.
How are you going to make people believe this? One of the first questions one thinks of when hearing of ID is, "Who is the intelligent designer?" When you respond that it's not important it raises alarm bells and makes people wonder what you're hiding. This isn't a formula for successful persuasion.
Your approach contrasts distinctly with legitimate science, and you raise this issue next:
Yeah right. As if the theory of evolution doesn't limit inquiry by saying we don't care how life first started on Earth. Double-standards Percy.
But we do care very much how life started on Earth. Evolution and abiogenesis are both legitimate areas of inquiry within biology. For you to have an analogous situation you would have to claim that ID and the designer are both legitimate areas of inquiry, but that they are separate areas of research. But that's not what you're saying. You're saying intelligent design can be investigated but the designer itself is not of interest.
I haven't asked Joe or Ken but every other alleged christian evolutionist I have discussed this with tells me that humans were the intent of God. That would mean random had no part in bringing forth humans. IOW humans were a goal.
If I find a minute I'll drop Joe a line. My own beliefs are far less specific. I believe in God, but I have no idea what his role is, what his plans are, and what our role in those plans are, if any.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by ID man, posted 09-27-2004 12:34 PM ID man has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 137 by ID man, posted 09-28-2004 12:19 PM Percy has not replied

  
Dr_Tazimus_maximus
Member (Idle past 3217 days)
Posts: 402
From: Gaithersburg, MD, USA
Joined: 03-19-2002


Message 122 of 189 (145093)
09-27-2004 2:57 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by ID man
09-27-2004 12:34 PM


Re: Percy Wrong, Joe Meert says he's a Theistic Evolutionist
Little problem here
quote:
As if the theory of evolution doesn't limit inquiry by saying we don't care how life first started on Earth
First off, it is not so much that we do not care it is that the origination of life does not neccessarily reflect on how life changes. They can be and in fact are separate areas of study. The study of evolution follows the methods by which it occurs, namely natural selection, which does not require any knowledge of how life first arose. The same does not hold true of ID. ID maintains that the intelligence is an integral part of the HOW of the change of life. In fact ID goes further. ID draws a direct correlation with the function of an organ or system and the apparent "design" of the same organ or system. A better analogy would be that evolution can no more be discussed without discussing natural selection than ID can be discussed without discussing the designer as, within the ID school of thought, the designer is the chief moving force of the system. And this would be correct, we do not discuss evolution as a field of study without discussing NS, you can not truly discuss ID with out the D.

"Chance favors the prepared mind." L. Pasteur
and my family motto
Transfixus sed non mortis
Taz

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by ID man, posted 09-27-2004 12:34 PM ID man has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 138 by ID man, posted 09-28-2004 12:21 PM Dr_Tazimus_maximus has not replied

  
Joe Meert
Member (Idle past 5679 days)
Posts: 913
From: Gainesville
Joined: 03-02-2002


Message 123 of 189 (145112)
09-27-2004 4:01 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by Percy
09-26-2004 7:58 PM


Re: Percy Wrong, Joe Meert says he's a Theistic Evolutionist
It's been a while since I posted. Been busy with Hurricanes, field work and travel (posting from Finland this evening). Anyway, I'll give you my definition of theistic evolution (as I mean it). I simply mean that God set up the universe in such a manner as to allow for evolution as a driver for biologic change. God does not interfere in the process (ala ID as I see it); there is no such thing as irreducible complexity because God did not put up barriers that would require his interference. So, I guess it depends on how one views TE, but mine is pretty much hands off. I suppose one could argue that my stance does away with the need for a God once things got rolling and I think that's true as far as the natural world is concerned. Ideally, we do the same thing in that we would hope our 'inventions' would run perfectly forever once we make it. We're not all that good at perfecting systems so are required to tinker. If God is perfect and set things up to work as it does, there is no need for him/her to tinker. Anyway, that's how I see it.
Cheers
Joe Meert

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by Percy, posted 09-26-2004 7:58 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 124 by Percy, posted 09-27-2004 4:25 PM Joe Meert has not replied
 Message 135 by RAZD, posted 09-28-2004 8:58 AM Joe Meert has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 124 of 189 (145119)
09-27-2004 4:25 PM
Reply to: Message 123 by Joe Meert
09-27-2004 4:01 PM


Re: Percy Wrong, Joe Meert says he's a Theistic Evolutionist
Hi Joe!
Good to hear from you. Thanks for the clarification. The hurricanes were so bad you fled to Finland, huh!
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by Joe Meert, posted 09-27-2004 4:01 PM Joe Meert has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 126 by crashfrog, posted 09-27-2004 5:11 PM Percy has not replied

  
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 125 of 189 (145120)
09-27-2004 4:28 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by ID man
09-25-2004 11:41 AM


Re: ID is not Creation
quote:
You are wrong, again. The black box is the cell. We can now peer inside of the cell and see what is going on.
I always understood it differently. The term "black box" has always meant a mechanism that is hidden, where all we see is the input and the output. How the "black box" produces the output from the input is known as then unknown mechanism. The phrase "Darwin's Black Box" then means that Behe is doubting the mechanism of random mutation and natural selection. That is, the input is random mutation and the output is complexity. The observation of complexity and IC is the output, not the black box itself. Either way, the argument is the same.
quote:
LM if you or anyone else can show the bacterial flagellum arose by nature acting alone then do it and stop whining.
I am still waiting for Behe to show the bac flag coming about in one fell swoop. Why shouldn't he be required to have the same weight of evidence?
quote:
Assertions like that are meaningless. Sure we can deduce the metaphysical from the evidence.
How can we deduce a supernatural designer in the absence of evidence for such an entity? Even if life is designed this does not rule out a designer whose origins are natural.
quote:
How can we test the premise that life arose from non-life by nature acting alone?
By simulating conditions on an early, lifeless earth. We already know that RNA and proteins can form in abiogenically, so all we have to do is show that random polymers of RNA or protein can result in a simple replicator. Once there is a replicator evolution takes over. The result of evolution is then complexity and irreducible complexity, as has been shown by numerous computer simulations and real world experiments. However, we have yet to cross the first hurdle, the construction of a random polymer capable of self replication. Does this mean that one doesn't exist? Possibly. Is it possible that we just haven't found the right combination of polymers? It is possible. This is why ID jumps to the wrong conclusion, and does so because of the need to further political and religious goals.
quote:
For example if life could arise by natural processes, only IF some initial conditions are met and those initial conditions could not be met without life, then we can deduce the metaphysical.
Why is it necessary for life to be present for life to arise? Where do you get this idea from? Certainly not from actual research.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by ID man, posted 09-25-2004 11:41 AM ID man has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 140 by ID man, posted 09-28-2004 12:28 PM Loudmouth has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 126 of 189 (145135)
09-27-2004 5:11 PM
Reply to: Message 124 by Percy
09-27-2004 4:25 PM


The hurricanes were so bad you fled to Finland, huh!
Fled?
The hurricanes were so bad, that's where he woke up afterwards!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by Percy, posted 09-27-2004 4:25 PM Percy has not replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5032 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 127 of 189 (145148)
09-27-2004 6:38 PM
Reply to: Message 112 by crashfrog
09-27-2004 1:09 PM


But if you CAN cut an organISM with a macrokinetic knifvfe AND a mathematical perversion (twist in phone chord) was behind the governance of it NOT TODAY getting funded (because Creationists DONT USE GOV money and Evos dont think this deep structurally on the whole)then we might indeed have biological change on these ropes (of Galelio, Maxwell, Gladyshev) and the Gordian NUT would be the knot. It is a lot easier to screw up than it is to cut loose in our Hedonic world. Now for IC to be DEFINED thus 'as a process systematically bound but unable to change' (the notion of "contraint" by the way in Salthe's "Evolving Hierarchical Systems") IT WOULD HAVE TO BE BOTH true that Natural Selection $was not$ oversold and NO MATTER THE EQUIVALENT SOPHISTICATION of the mind able to %instruct% such defintion of words that dont fight #that# Wolfram was mistaken about irreducibility of universality, but as I have not finished circumscribing if the region is 4-D in the UNDERSTANDING of an extra dimension I have not addressed the nonneutrality that the math (say if I was wrong and it was not a perversion governing the changes)that niche construction WOULD trace implicitly and thus CONSTRAIN my own understanding IN THE BODY, this complex logic instead seemed "cicular" to you which should have been some formation of projective geometry (on the surface of a cone most likely)where the circle was actually a spiral but when looked at from above overlaps into a circle! Sorry for the turbo, but kissing cousins are nonsuch.Yes you cant point to "THE SYSTEM" and THEN say it IS IC but I KNOW that Philip Kitcher's use of the existence of evolution argument confused with the processes DOES NOT APPLY in this temporal scene graph and will spell the final lexic use of Scott's reliance on Eldgredge but again I get past may self and only debate myself for 90mins say rather than dialogue on the topic as I would have preferred if people dared@
http://EvC Forum: Evolution Vs. Creationism -->EvC Forum: Evolution Vs. Creationism
I have been looking for ways f
http://home.wxs.nl/~gkorthof/kortho26.htm
or years to get at Kitcher's philosophy of mathematics and tag teaming here with ID, man, that might be the ticket. Any way, I can talk to myself but I hate being the CULUNATICofIthacaCollege I see. While Kitcher might not be "debunking" religion. Scott's USE of Eldredge IN TOTO attempts to ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^STEAL_by simply peeling away the information about natural history that my Grandfather ALREADY passed on to me and was adviced be solved first psychologically by Cornell. The evos are now attempting to invert the horizontal with a creationist vertical. I am a bit a protoceratops when it comes to mastering that TRICK. BUT IT IS A TRICK. My brother played cornet. I played SAx.
It is possibly true however. Hold the horses please and pass the DECANTOR if you will. I have started to indicate in the review that the whole reference to "evidence" is a ruse and not even the legal theory that my next distilliation via VRMLhistory Texture NODES as N=D in Gladyshev equation (5) linked to EVC will remand NO MATTER THE POLITICS. Sorry I am so far off the beaten path could be if it was understood WHAT SECULAR/Sectarian purpose it has. We wouldnt know this unless both the VRML app was a "killer" for w3c/d
Web3D Consortium | Open Standards for Real-Time 3D Communication
and it became as ubiquitous as Texas Intruments regression calculators for most freshman across the founded country. Beyod this development period is where the discussion goes stray.
On reading Scott's book, I RECOgnized that what I did in Video Format (I dont know that anyone here has seen them but I did send a copy for the ICR library)is segue indistinguishable from a missedTaken understading of Dembski's specified information
triple
but this is not good enough for mutual exclusivity which is required at the ID IC level. I had displayed this logical division of his IN COLOR CODES on TV but this gets lost on any net medium I have participated in so far.
This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 09-27-2004 05:46 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by crashfrog, posted 09-27-2004 1:09 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 128 of 189 (145167)
09-27-2004 8:02 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by ID man
09-27-2004 1:05 PM


This...
I seriously doubt your alleged christianity. Why would you worship a liar and deciever? That is what the christian God would be if the theory of evolution equaled reality. Jesus spoke of the flood as a real event. He spoke of Adam & Eve as real people.
and this...
Even The Bible doesn't say only one day.
...leave me a bit puzzled. I thought you said you were a Buddhist?
Does anyone else remember IDman saying he was a Buddhist? Did he reverse this at some point?

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by ID man, posted 09-27-2004 1:05 PM ID man has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 129 by Asgara, posted 09-27-2004 8:10 PM Silent H has replied

  
Asgara
Member (Idle past 2302 days)
Posts: 1783
From: Wisconsin, USA
Joined: 05-10-2003


Message 129 of 189 (145169)
09-27-2004 8:10 PM
Reply to: Message 128 by Silent H
09-27-2004 8:02 PM


http://EvC Forum: Meyer's Hopeless Monster
Actually he said he was a "budhist".

Asgara
"Embrace the pain, spank your inner moppet, whatever....but get over it"
http://asgarasworld.bravepages.com
http://perditionsgate.bravepages.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by Silent H, posted 09-27-2004 8:02 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 130 by Silent H, posted 09-28-2004 5:22 AM Asgara has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 130 of 189 (145309)
09-28-2004 5:22 AM
Reply to: Message 129 by Asgara
09-27-2004 8:10 PM


Actually he said he was a "budhist".
Oh, that's right.
Is that the religion where God is your best bud? "Hey bud, how about some peace on earth?" and things like that?
Or is that where they worship Budweiser?You know where the three weiser men gathered together in a barn to consecrate that King of Kings of all Beers?

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by Asgara, posted 09-27-2004 8:10 PM Asgara has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 131 of 189 (145310)
09-28-2004 5:33 AM
Reply to: Message 76 by ID man
09-27-2004 11:14 AM


IOW it would be just a strange coincindence by materialistic naturalism standards.
Why? ANY given finite physical and temporal location is bound to give any entity at that location a unique perspective on some events.
What is so objectively important about a solar eclipse that it beats all of the other phenomena we have missed and will miss in the future?
Add that to all the other strange coincidences that also lend themselves to scientific discovery discussed in that book and the question arises, "are these all just strange coincidences or is there some underlying metaphysical implication that Earth was designed for scientific discovery?"
I find this interesting as the thrust of your argument so far has been that we are horribly misplaced for scientific discovery. Remember how the fossil record can show us nothing about how previous life actually existed, and that we can never know about the beginning of life (much less the big bang)?
I assume, since you are now verging fully into anticommon descent, and great flood that you also have problems with radioactive dating? So how are we placed for scientific discoveries again?
This message has been edited by holmes, 09-28-2004 04:34 AM

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by ID man, posted 09-27-2004 11:14 AM ID man has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 132 of 189 (145311)
09-28-2004 6:12 AM
Reply to: Message 80 by ID man
09-27-2004 11:32 AM


holmes please at least try to follow along.
I believe I'm doing quite nicely.
You continually blasted evolutionary theory and methodological naturalism (or materialistic naturalism) as inherently biased and unwilling to see that ID is right and has detected design. You went on to posit Del Ratzsch's book as proof of this. You have also said that ID has greater weight as a theory than evo.
Yet at an ID website I saw quotes from Del, countering what you said. And this is not quote mining, I am giving you the source to double check. Once again...
All quotes from Del at: http://www.iscid.org/del-ratzsch-chat.php
{The position that ID is scientifically sound is}... not equivalent to the view that current design proposals have demonstrated scientific fruitfulness, that opponents of design theories are of necessity confused, irrational, blinded by naturalistic upbringings, or anything of the sort.
I think a lot of Bill's work, and certainly do not mean to denigrate it. But I suspect that to the extent that specified complexity captures the right domain (and it is certainly in the right area) that it does so because it is assuming some of the very materials in question...
I think that one can be honestly convinced that design offers no significant scientific promise and that it represents significant scientific risk... Boyle, for instance - thought that it was a serious mistake to mix "final causes" with "efficient causes"
I think that ID may very well have things to offer science, but I think that it is too early for ID to claim that it has done so. I don't think that it is just obvious that ID will contribute substantively to science...
After quoting one of the above to counter one of you claims, you said you agreed with him on it. But that is contradictory.
I am just stating facts here, not even making an argument.
If I am not following along please let me know where I got derailed.
No that is not correct.
Well it is correct that Del said it was a valid position to hold. Are you saying Del is incorrect that the position can be valid, that Del did not say this, or that while he said it and is correct, you personally aren't of the stated position?
Nothing in the fossil record suports that assumption.
This is a very curious position. So you are wholly against common descent then? And that makes you a creationist?
But let's address your assertion above. I said that science is studying the nature of change and its underlying mechanisms in living entities. The assumption being made is that those same mechanisms were working in the past.
While the fossil record is incapable of producing evidence for specific (particularly biochemical) mechanisms, it certainly contains evidence for the same pattern of parent/child reproductive cycles. Unless you doubt fossilized eggs or fossilized pregnant organisms?
That is all that is NECESSARY for us to validly project backward. And what is great is that the fossil record is capable of providing counterexamples... BUT HAS NOT. So far fossils have maintained consistency with the theory.
Do we even know how the fossil record was formed?
You are now doubting the formation of the fossil record itself???? Uh, yeah we do know how fossils are formed. Unless they were "designed" to fool us, fossilization is pretty well understood.
You are now clearly departing from Behe's position. Can you tell me which ID theorist you are using as your model of ID theory?
I might add that if you are doubting the fossil record... how it is formed... what can we know about anything?
Again, curious given your signature quote which suggests we are designed for discovery.
Have we ever observed a procaryote involved with a symbiotic relationship with another procaryote that led the organism to become something other than a procaryote?
You have an odd view of positive evidence. I'm uncertain how you believe chemists and physicists do their work... or geologists? Most of their work is wholly out of physical viewing of actual phenomena.
I have already said that organizational behavior has been seen. It would take time to cement this into symbiotic relationships to such an extent individual organisms fully surrender their identity. However we do have some evidence that this HAS HAPPENED.
The reality shows the mitochondria fall well short of the symbiosis hypothesis. IOW the mitochondria we now observe have much shorter sequences than any bacteria we have ever observed. Suer they might have similarities but the differences are vast.
Citations please. And can I ask why you feel that an entity which has lost, or is losing its individuality to its symbiont would NOT start losing sequence structures? I think that's part of the point.
Again it all depends on the mechanism, as I have stated before. Also it could be the eucaryotes were one of the first populations.
How could eukaryotes have been the first population? This does not fit the fossil record does it?
And your statement "it all depend on the mechanism" is not an answer to my questions.
If ID is supposed to be a theory that HAS a COMPETING MODEL such that it challenges evolutionary theory... what is that model? What are some general descriptions of the mechanisms? How did life transition from pro to eu?
And if you have a problem with common descent, the time to tell is NOW! Otherwise I can only assume that you are obfuscating for a reason. Behe is for common descent. No matter the underlying mechanism for change at the biochemical level, at the macro level it is common descent or not. Which is it?

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by ID man, posted 09-27-2004 11:32 AM ID man has not replied

  
Ooook!
Member (Idle past 5815 days)
Posts: 340
From: London, UK
Joined: 09-29-2003


Message 133 of 189 (145312)
09-28-2004 6:20 AM
Reply to: Message 95 by ID man
09-27-2004 12:26 PM


OK, one final attempt to clarify my position, in the hope of getting some kind of response.
Intelligent Design, as presented in debates and ID-friendly websites is not a scientific theory. It may want to be viewed as one, and uses lots of scientific sounding language to try and persuade people, but it does not use scientific method.Examples of this has been provided by you in this debate: where is the positive evidence for the design of mitochondria and the bacterial flagellum?
I have already presented a model for how I define scientific methodology (Observation, hypothesis, testing, refining) and so far your response is that I don't know much about science , which is not an adequate response. If you think I'm wrong show me how I am wrong, if you can't then provide examples of how ID fits into that model.
So far, your best response to crashfrog's real positive evidence is that
quote:
Because they were designed that way.
Let's go over that again. Life was designed to make it look like the mitochondria were once fully functioning organisms?!?
Your comment about the mitochondria genome being too small to support the hypothesis is plainly nonsense - what would you expect to see in the genome of something that has grown to rely almost entirely on the genome of its' host to look like?. There's even a variation in the amount of mitochondrial genes (3-67 proteins) encoded in the genome which shows that there are mitochondria at different stages of reliance. How is this meant to be interpretted any other way? You're ignoring data, or at the very least playing down it's importance - hardly scientific!
So, if it's not a scientific theory, it's a non-scientific theory.
More than that, it's a non-scientific theory, which absolutely requires the existance of a godlike designer.
Ring any bells? Creation 'science' ?
If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it probably is a duck!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by ID man, posted 09-27-2004 12:26 PM ID man has not replied

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6475 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 134 of 189 (145313)
09-28-2004 6:33 AM
Reply to: Message 99 by ID man
09-27-2004 12:40 PM


quote:
The orgenelles in question are much shorter in sequence than the procs we now observe. What happened to truncate them? Please provide the evidence for this truncation event.
Presumably, ID Man means the organellar genomes have smaller genomes than those of free living bacteria. Given the long threads of completely science free posts thus far from ID Man he may be referring to something else. However, the truncation event is the ongoing transfer of organellar genes to the nucleus. This is an ongoing process with the observable fact that pseudogene copies (Numts) are accumulating in the nuclear genome of many different species and many mitochondrial specific functional genes were transferred long ago to the nucleus. Both are observable facts. Why would a symbiont need to duplicate function i.e. not lose functions, if its host does it for it? That is the point of symbiosis anyway. The truncation issue is painfully simple if one bothers to do some research as opposed to asserting "goddidit..oops I mean ID dididit"
1: Ricchetti M, Tekaia F, Dujon B. Related Articles, Links
Continued colonization of the human genome by mitochondrial DNA.
PLoS Biol. 2004 Sep;2(9):E273. Epub 2004 Sep 07.
PMID: 15361937 [PubMed - in process]
2: Richly E, Leister D. Related Articles, Links
NUMTs in sequenced eukaryotic genomes.
Mol Biol Evol. 2004 Jun;21(6):1081-4. Epub 2004 Mar 10.
PMID: 15014143 [PubMed - in process]
3: Thalmann O, Hebler J, Poinar HN, Paabo S, Vigilant L. Related Articles, Links
Unreliable mtDNA data due to nuclear insertions: a cautionary tale from analysis of humans and other great apes.
Mol Ecol. 2004 Feb;13(2):321-35.
PMID: 14717890 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
4: Bensasson D, Feldman MW, Petrov DA. Related Articles, Links
Rates of DNA duplication and mitochondrial DNA insertion in the human genome.
J Mol Evol. 2003 Sep;57(3):343-54.
PMID: 14629044 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
5: Hazkani-Covo E, Sorek R, Graur D. Related Articles, Links
Evolutionary dynamics of large numts in the human genome: rarity of independent insertions and abundance of post-insertion duplications.
J Mol Evol. 2003 Feb;56(2):169-74.
PMID: 12574863 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
6: Tourmen Y, Baris O, Dessen P, Jacques C, Malthiery Y, Reynier P. Related Articles, Links
Structure and chromosomal distribution of human mitochondrial pseudogenes.
Genomics. 2002 Jul;80(1):71-7.
PMID: 12079285 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
7: Olson LE, Yoder AD. Related Articles, Links
Using secondary structure to identify ribosomal numts: cautionary examples from the human genome.
Mol Biol Evol. 2002 Jan;19(1):93-100.
PMID: 11752194 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
8: Bensasson D, Zhang D, Hartl DL, Hewitt GM. Related Articles, Links
Mitochondrial pseudogenes: evolution's misplaced witnesses.
Trends Ecol Evol. 2001 Jun 1;16(6):314-321.
PMID: 11369110 [PubMed - as supplied by publisher]
9: Bensasson D, Zhang DX, Hewitt GM. Related Articles, Links
Frequent assimilation of mitochondrial DNA by grasshopper nuclear genomes.
Mol Biol Evol. 2000 Mar;17(3):406-15.
PMID: 10723741 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
10: Lopez JV, Culver M, Stephens JC, Johnson WE, O'Brien SJ. Related Articles, Links
Rates of nuclear and cytoplasmic mitochondrial DNA sequence divergence in mammals.
Mol Biol Evol. 1997 Mar;14(3):277-86.
PMID: 9066795 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
11: Lopez JV, Cevario S, O'Brien SJ. Related Articles, Links
Complete nucleotide sequences of the domestic cat (Felis catus) mitochondrial genome and a transposed mtDNA tandem repeat (Numt) in the nuclear genome.
Genomics. 1996 Apr 15;33(2):229-46.
PMID: 8660972 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
12: Lopez JV, Yuhki N, Masuda R, Modi W, O'Brien SJ. Related Articles, Links
Numt, a recent transfer and tandem amplification of mitochondrial DNA to the nuclear genome of the domestic cat.
J Mol Evol. 1994 Aug;39(2):174-90. Erratum in: J Mol Evol 1994 Nov;39(5):544.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by ID man, posted 09-27-2004 12:40 PM ID man has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 135 of 189 (145319)
09-28-2004 8:58 AM
Reply to: Message 123 by Joe Meert
09-27-2004 4:01 PM


Re: Percy Wrong, Joe Meert says he's a Theistic Evolutionist
joe writes:
I simply mean that God set up the universe in such a manner as to allow for evolution as a driver for biologic change. God does not interfere in the process ...
(gray for percy)
sounds like Deism to me ...

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by Joe Meert, posted 09-27-2004 4:01 PM Joe Meert has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 136 by PaulK, posted 09-28-2004 9:09 AM RAZD has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024