Origins Thread

[PlunkettsGhost]

View: https://x.com/StephenCMeyer/status/1809277177109835922

 

[Tiger]

Understanding how genes turn on and off in different cell types remains a fundamental question in biology.

This intricate dance is orchestrated by cis-regulatory elements (CREs), which are regions of DNA that act as control switches for gene expression.

This newfound detail challenges the notion of a single, static gene controlling a specific trait as with the theory of evolution.

Instead, CREs act as a dynamic regulatory layer, potentially explaining how the same genes can give rise to diverse cell types within an organism. This challenges major tenets of neo-Darwinism – the linear relationship between genes and traits.

Cis-Regulatory Elements: Unveiling the Hidden Language of Gene Control

The article "Characterizing cis-regulatory elements using single-cell epigenomics" by Preissl et al. (2023) explores a powerful...

modsynreview.blogspot.com

 

[Tiger]

Evolutionists are Retarded - Vox Popoli

It’s almost astonishing to read the papers and presentations of the 1966 Symposium and see how a) biologists simply do not understand the logical and mathematical criticisms of their vacuous tautologies, and b) how their futile defenses of evolution by natural selection haven’t substantively...

voxday.net

 

[Tiger]

Blind Cavefish: Evolutionary Icon, or an Example of Preprogrammed Adaptation? - by Emily Reeves

Blind Cavefish: Evolutionary Icon?

There is another model that could explain the transformations of the cavefish. This model is called continuous environmental tracking and it is design-based.

evolutionnews.org

However, there is another model that could explain the transformations of the cavefish. This model is called continuous environmental tracking (CET) and it is design-based. The model presupposes that organisms actively track conditions within specific environments and self-adjust based on predesigned adaptation trajectories. Similar to human engineered agile systems, organisms can make internal changes within a range in response to external changes. This model posits: ...

 

[Tiger]

So flagella is so common and simple that it originated independently in bacteria and archaea?

https://www.cell.com/cell/fulltext/S0092-8674(22)00996-5?_returnURL=https%3A%2F%2Flinkinghub.elsevier.com%2Fretrieve%2Fpii%2FS0092867422009965%3Fshowall%3Dtrue&fbclid=IwY2xjawEUmPlleHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHWc2Tgxb0dRLnKYnHW4H_flyRxZt3LBiNDFJMeVW023vHmZJqa7sn4EXPg_aem_Ydj3gHV0IlODKjoPKhkkAQ

 

[Tiger]

No random mutations, no imaginary selection
Bacteria Quickly Fix a Faulty Motor by Rearranging DNA - In a couple of days.


The ability of bacteria to quickly reconfigure their genomes to restore flagellar function exemplifies the profound intelligence inherent in biological design. These processes are far too intricate and rapid to be the product of random mutations and slow evolutionary pressures. Instead, they reveal a purposeful and highly organized approach to genetic information management, affirming the concept of intelligent design.

This discovery not only challenges the traditional evolutionary paradigm but also provides a deeper understanding of the remarkable capabilities embedded within the DNA's passive, yet meticulously organized information library.

The rapid genetic changes observed in bacteria serve as a testament to the inherent intelligence and foresight embedded in the blueprint of life.

No random mutations, no imaginary selection

DNA rearrangement, bacterial motors

sciencerefutesevolution.blogspot.com

 

[Myles O'Reilly]

Tiger I don't understand your obsessiveness with this topic.

 

[Tiger]

Tiger I don't understand your obsessiveness with this topic.

That’s understandable Myles.

 

[Tiger]

Queen bees and worker bees are genetically identical organisms. They become two different life forms because the queen eats 'royal jelly'. The same principle is seen in humans.


It's an intricate balanced system where genes are coded themselves by other sources of information

What you eat can reprogram your genes

The latest evidence suggests that food “talks” to our genome, which is the genetic blueprint that directs the way the body works.

bigthink.com

 

[Tiger]

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AuWRkRseF2c

 

[Tiger]

DNA “grammar” discovered!

DNA is considered the language of life and has bases that we often refer to as letters. In genes, the letters make up 3 letter words (codons) that code for amino acids. When the DNA of a gene is “read” (or transcribed and translated) the amino acids make a protein which has a specific structure and function. Of course, all these processes are highly regulated! You have the same DNA in brain cells and liver cells, but you want brain cells to produce brain proteins and liver cells to produce liver proteins.

It appears an important part of that regulation is “spatial grammar.” The activity of transcription factors (proteins that turn genes “on or off”) depends on the location of their binding site relative to the gene. We used to think transcription factors (TFs) acted as only activators OR repressors, but it turns out their activity is based on SPACING in the DNA sequence. The article linked in this post stated, “this research shows the function of transcription factors is far more complex.”

Exactly! Far more complex than anyone would imagine something that supposedly came about by random chance over eons of time. There are layers and layers of information that we continue to discover.

Scientists discover new code governing gene activity

A newly discovered code within DNA—coined "spatial grammar"—holds a key to understanding how gene activity is encoded in the human genome.

medicalxpress.com

 

[Tiger]

It's much more complex than anyone could imagine

Nature Reviews Genetics: This Review describes the roles of individual histone variants in multiple processes, including gene regulation, DNA replication and DNA repair, and the cellular consequences of their dysfunction.

Multifunctional histone variants in genome function - Nature Reviews Genetics

In this Review, the authors provide an overview of the roles of individual histone variants in multiple processes, including gene regulation, DNA replication and DNA repair, and the cellular consequences of their dysfunction.

www.nature.com

 

[Professor]

Origin of The Big Bang?? - God knows it's The Big Crunch

 

[jpc]

Queen bees and worker bees are genetically identical organisms. They become two different life forms because the queen eats 'royal jelly'. The same principle is seen in humans.


It's an intricate balanced system where genes are coded themselves by other sources of information

What you eat can reprogram your genes

The latest evidence suggests that food “talks” to our genome, which is the genetic blueprint that directs the way the body works.

bigthink.com

So then!
A millennial consumption of soy latte over decades?

 

[Tiger]

So then!
A millennial consumption of soy latte over decades?

Ha, yeah. If you ‘are what you eat’, then someone should be taking a careful look at diets of young people in the last few decades.

 

[jpc]

Ha, yeah. If you ‘are what you eat’, then someone should be taking a careful look at diets of young people in the last few decades.

That's switching on and off a few gene sequences all right.

 

[Tiger]

The fact that queen bees are queen bees because of what they consume is news to.. absolutely fucking nobody (I can post a video of Dawkins (who's a biologist) saying this)

Can you please expand on how this expounds your intelligent design thesis?

Jambo. Why is it that nuance seems to escape you like a well-hidden Easter egg? Not everything needs to come with a step-by-step manual.

The point isn’t just that food can change how bees grow, but that this shows how carefully their bodies are made to work.

Of course the development of queen bees through their consumption of royal jelly is well-established and widely understood, I’m not claiming otherwise.

However, the point I’m making in relation to Intelligent Design (ID) is not about the fact of the queen bee's development, but rather what this kind of precise, programmed response suggests about the underlying biological systems. The question isn't whether environmental factors influence development, but whether the intricacy of these mechanisms, like epigenetic switches and highly coordinated gene expression, could plausibly arise from random evolutionary processes alone (they can't), or whether they point to a pre-installed, purposeful design. Such highly specific and finely tuned biological systems — where a single environmental input can dramatically alter an organism's development — suggests strongly a guiding intelligence behind life's architecture. The fact that this process works so seamlessly and reliably is what expands the discussion beyond known biology into questions about the origins of such complexity.

The concept of epigenetics, wherein gene expression is dynamically regulated by external factors, aligns with ID claims of "directed adaptability." Instead of emerging through random evolutionary processes, such complex and highly coordinated regulatory networks are viewed as exhibiting characteristics of irreducible complexity, with multiple interacting components working seamlessly to produce a coherent biological response. This adaptability, framed within the larger context of fine-tuning, supports the argument that life is the product of intentional design, as the intricate balance between organism and environment is far too precise and specific to have arisen purely by chance. Thus, the capacity for diet and other environmental factors to reprogram genetic expression strengthens the ID argument for a purposive, intelligent origin of life systems.

 

[Coal Gas and peat]

I'm guessing origins uncensored is coming back soon

 

[Tiger]

I'm guessing origins uncensored is coming back soon

Ah yes, the one-man show thread, where Jambo spends the whole day debating himself about topics that somehow manage to dodge evolution entirely.

 

[Tiger]

Tiger, let's get real here.

You're an obvious plagiariser

I could have a civil chat with you about this stuff if you were in any way honest

You couldn’t have a civil chat with Schrödinger’s cat.

You’ve never offered a single coherent argument amid the barrage of your empty contributions. You just ask questions about things you don’t understand and put smiley faces on every post.

You derail every thread you contribute to.

 

[PlunkettsGhost]

I'm guessing origins uncensored is coming back soon

No one will notice, as usual. Raging into the void on that one.

 

[Tiger]

The scary thing is, I think you actually believe your nonsense

See

Another vacuous contribution.

 

[Tiger]

Does it take a genius to figure out that replying to a question (from a human) with copy paste spam followed up with ad hom really isn't much?!..

That's our Tiger 4 u

Anything that you’re too stupid to understand is automatically a ‘copy and paste’, which is obviously a weak tactic to avoid having to actually reply.

I’ve simplified explanations for you in the past and can do it again. However, you’re not interested in anything other than to derail.

You’ve contributed nothing to this thread today as usual.

 

[Tiger]

View: https://www.youtube.com/live/nuvWIhgLd0A

 

[Myles O'Reilly]

^^
Half an hour without even a sentence from the poster on WTF its about.

 

[Tiger]

^^
Half an hour without even a sentence from the poster on WTF its about.

Again Myles, it’s about the finer points of the mating rituals of Llamas.

Right up your inebriated street.

 

[AN2]

^^
Half an hour without even a sentence from the poster on WTF its about.

Same as the video

 

[AN2]

An interesting discussion broke out on another thread regarding the origins of humans and life in general.

I think this deserves its own thread.

The tapestry of human origins is woven with threads of inquiry, speculation and awe. A question as old as time is, where did we come from?

The traditional and deeply rooted beliefs in creationism posit a divine hand sculpting humanity, while the modern scientific discourse of evolution posits that life has arisen from natural processes.

Others believe that our existence is the result of extraterrestrial interventions, with beings from distant galaxies planting the seeds of life on earth.

Oooh.. I'm not banned here (yet)

Okay, let's test your tolerance, lack of bigotry..

I'm reminded of our conversation yesterday in the General Chat thread (that I'm shamefully banned from) regarding aliens and your % assertion that they don't exist (which I believe is a religious belief) so you've kinda ruled that one (above) out, haven't you?

By the way, it (the theory) is known as panspermia.

Which isn't exactly the notion that Little Green Men put lifeforms on a rock and then pushed it towards Earth.

Also too, do you accept that evolution doesn't posit anything about the origin of life, so it isn't exactly relevant to a discussion on life's origin?

So, which one is true?

Here is the place to discuss it.

 

[Tiger]

Oooh.. I'm not banned here (yet)

Okay, let's test your tolerance, lack of bigotry..

I'm reminded of our conversation yesterday in the General Chat thread (that I'm shamefully banned from) regarding aliens and your % assertion that they don't exist (which I believe is a religious belief) so you've kinda ruled that one (above) out, haven't you?

By the way, it (the theory) is known as panspermia.

Which isn't exactly the notion that Little Green Men put lifeforms on a rock and then pushed it towards Earth.

Also too, do you accept that evolution doesn't posit anything about the origin of life, so it isn't exactly relevant to a discussion on life's origin?

James. This is the kind of questioning post is perfectly welcome on this thread. So, thank you for posting it.

I am fully familiar with panspermia; and rest assured, my understanding extends beyond the 'Little Green Men' rendition.

As for the evolution-versus-origins distinction, that’s indeed a classic point, but it’s also a bit of a philosophical sidestep. I would argue that evolution, by describing the modification of early life forms, is implicitly tied to questions about their initial emergence. Origins and adaptations aren't mutually exclusive discussions; they’re pieces of a larger puzzle.

As for aliens, my position is less a 'religious belief' and more a working hypothesis grounded in Occam’s razor and current evidence—though I’m always open to credible surprises. Until then, I'll gladly take the safer cosmic bet

 

[AN2]

James. This is the kind of questioning post is perfectly welcome on this thread. So, thank you for posting it.

Thanks for your reply, and I hope you've enjoyed your few days off.

I also hope we can continue this conversation (at least for a bit) in a contesting but reasonably civil manner..

I am fully familiar with panspermia; and rest assured, my understanding extends beyond the 'Little Green Men' rendition.

As for the evolution-versus-origins distinction, that’s indeed a classic point, but it’s also a bit of a philosophical sidestep.

Now here's where I start asking questions, what does "philosophical sidestep" mean?

It is a common misapprehension that evolution (of species) posits anything about the origin of life.

I would argue that evolution, by describing the modification of early life forms, is implicitly tied to questions about their initial emergence. Origins and adaptations aren't mutually exclusive discussions; they’re pieces of a larger puzzle.

As for aliens, my position is less a 'religious belief' and more a working hypothesis grounded in Occam’s razor and current evidence—though I’m always open to credible surprises. Until then, I'll gladly take the safer cosmic bet

You claim, with complete authority, that aliens do not exist.

I'm saying that that's a/your religious belief.. but you're saying that it's a "cosmic bet"? What does that mean?

 

[Tiger]

Thanks for your reply, and I hope you've enjoyed your few days off.

I also hope we can continue this conversation (at least for a bit) in a contesting but reasonably civil manner..



Now here's where I start asking questions, what does "philosophical sidestep" mean?

It is a common misapprehension that evolution (of species) posits anything about the origin of life.



You claim, with complete authority, that aliens do not exist.

I'm saying that that's a/your religious belief.. but you're saying that it's a "cosmic bet"? What does that mean?

Well, when discussing origins on an Origins thread, addressing the interplay between life’s beginning and its evolution is not only relevant but foundational.

By entirely separating evolution from the question of life’s origin, we risk what I’d call a 'philosophical sidestep'—an attempt to compartmentalise these concepts to avoid the broader, and often more challenging, implications.

This isn’t about merging the two into one theory but rather acknowledging the natural continuity between them. Evolution presupposes a starting point, and understanding that foundation is critical to any full explanation of how evolutionary processes could even begin.

Disengaging evolution from origins can feel like an intellectually comfortable shortcut.

 

[AN2]

Well, when discussing origins on an Origins thread, addressing the interplay between life’s beginning and its evolution is not only relevant but foundational.

By entirely separating evolution from the question of life’s origin, we risk what I’d call a 'philosophical sidestep'—an attempt to compartmentalise these concepts to avoid the broader, and often more challenging, implications.

This isn’t about merging the two into one theory but rather acknowledging the natural continuity between them. Evolution presupposes a starting point, and understanding that foundation is critical to any full explanation of how evolutionary processes could even begin.

Disengaging evolution from origins can feel like an intellectually comfortable shortcut.

Evolution is separated from the question of life's origin

Any word on cosmic bet?

 

[Tiger]

Evolution is separated from the question of life's origin

Any word on cosmic bet?

The separation between evolution and the origin of life is recognised in terms of distinct scientific inquiries—abiogenesis focusing on life’s inception, and evolutionary theory on the diversification of life thereafter.

However, the two are of course, naturally intertwined when considering life as a continuum; evolution presupposes a biological framework upon which it operates, and exploring that framework’s emergence helps to contextualise evolution’s earliest mechanisms. So, while these fields are technically separated, they complement each other in understanding life’s full arc.

As for my ‘cosmic bet,’ I’d say it’s a cautious wager, given our current evidence. While some theorise life’s origins could involve cosmic contributions, like panspermia, I find the more immediate evidence of life’s terrestrial beginnings a less speculative grounding.

Still, should new evidence emerge and if you have evidence against my view, feel free to post it.

 

[AN2]

The separation between evolution and the origin of life is recognised in terms of distinct scientific inquiries—abiogenesis focusing on life’s inception, and evolutionary theory on the diversification of life thereafter.

However, the two are of course, naturally intertwined when considering life as a continuum; evolution presupposes a biological framework upon which it operates, and exploring that framework’s emergence helps to contextualise evolution’s earliest mechanisms. So, while these fields are technically separated, they complement each other in understanding life’s full arc.

I'm perfectly content that what I said is factual. So we can leave it at that

As for my ‘cosmic bet,’ I’d say it’s a cautious wager, given our current evidence. While some theorise life’s origins could involve cosmic contributions, like panspermia, I find the more immediate evidence of life’s terrestrial beginnings a less speculative grounding.

Still, should new evidence emerge and if you have evidence against my view, feel free to post it.

Your claim is 100%, without doubt, that aliens don't exist

My evidence against that is that you don't have any evidence for it

 

[Tiger]

I'm perfectly content that what I said is factual. So we can leave it at that


Your claim is 100%, without doubt, that aliens don't exist

My evidence against that is that you don't have any evidence for it

It’s interesting to see you have a reluctance to engage with questions about life’s origin and the evidence that surrounds it, especially given the depth such discussions can offer to our understanding.

As for the 'cosmic bet,' my particular stance on extraterrestrial life is not an absolute claim but a view based on current empirical evidence, or rather, the lack thereof.

The absence of proof isn’t proof of absence; it simply reflects the limits of our exploration so far. I prefer conclusions grounded in observed data. This isn’t about ruling out unknown possibilities but about respecting the weight of evidence—or the lack of it—when we make assertions.

 

[AN2]

It’s interesting to see you have a reluctance to engage with questions about life’s origin and the evidence that surrounds it, especially given the depth such discussions can offer to our understanding.

First of all, the origin of life is unknown

Secondly, I'm perfectly willing to engage in a discussion about it with a religious person like you. The only fault you can lay at my doorstep is that it's akin to shooting fish in a barrel

As for the 'cosmic bet,' my particular stance on extraterrestrial life is not an absolute claim

Please stop lying

Post in thread 'General Chat.' https://www.sarsfieldsvirtualpub.com/threads/general-chat.1021/post-117499

but a view based on current empirical evidence, or rather, the lack thereof.

The absence of proof isn’t proof of absence; it simply reflects the limits of our exploration so far. I prefer conclusions grounded in observed data. This isn’t about ruling out unknown possibilities but about respecting the weight of evidence—or the lack of it—when we make assertions.

 

[Tiger]

First of all, the origin of life is unknown

Please stop lying

Post in thread 'General Chat.' https://www.sarsfieldsvirtualpub.com/threads/general-chat.1021/post-117499

Saying that I don’t think aliens exist isn’t lying. That’s what I think.

I also said that I’m happy to be proven wrong which tallies with my position above. I notice that you didn’t quote that post.

Post #228

 

[AN2]

Saying that I don’t think aliens exist isn’t lying. That’s what I think.

You say -

Aliens don't exist

Not -

I don't believe that aliens exist

Is the difference between an absolutism and a belief too subtle for you?

I also said that I’m happy to be proven wrong which tallies with my position above. I notice that you didn’t quote that post.

Post in thread 'General Chat.'

As I tried to explain to you, you are not proven wrong with the assertion -

Aliens do exist

 

[Tiger]

You say -

Aliens don't exist

Not -

I don't believe that aliens exist

Is the difference between an absolutism and a belief too subtle for you?


As I tried to explain to you, you are not proven wrong with the assertion -

Aliens do exist

James, this conversation feels like more evidence that you might be on the spectrum.

Your tendency to hyper-focus on specific posts without fully absorbing the broader context is making it challenging to have a productive conversation. Even when follow-up explanations are provided, you repeatedly fixate on one word or sentence, which detracts from the overall discussion.

For us to move forward constructively, I’d encourage you to consider the conversation as a whole. Otherwise, I have to regard your contributions to this thread as counterproductive and that you are effectively spamming the thread like an autistic person.

Let’s try and get the conversation back on track….given your strong belief in evolution as the sole explanation for life’s complexity, how do you address the origin of matter itself or the fine-tuning of universal constants?

Is there room in your view for questions evolution doesn’t answer, or do you believe science alone can eventually explain everything?

 

[AN2]

James, this conversation feels like more evidence that you might be on the spectrum.

Your tendency to hyper-focus on specific posts without fully absorbing the broader context is making it challenging to have a productive conversation. Even when follow-up explanations are provided, you repeatedly fixate on one word or sentence, which detracts from the overall discussion.

For us to move forward constructively, I’d encourage you to consider the conversation as a whole. Otherwise, I have to regard your contributions to this thread as counterproductive and that you are effectively spamming the thread like an autistic person.

Gearing up for the ban I see

Let’s try and get the conversation back on track….given your strong belief in evolution as the sole explanation for life’s complexity, how do you address the origin of matter itself or the fine-tuning of universal constants?

What do they have to do with each other?

Am I "philosophically sidestepping" again by asking you that question?

Is there room in your view for questions evolution doesn’t answer, or do you believe science alone can eventually explain everything?

No, I don't believe that science will answer everything, to be quite honest