Comment #16874

Posted by Henry J on February 18, 2005 03:22 PM (e) (s)

The eyes have it!

Comment #16888

Posted by Fernmonkey on February 18, 2005 04:29 PM (e) (s)

See, this is why I don’t get the whole creationism thing.

Evolution is just so much cooler.

Comment #16899

Posted by Bryson Brown on February 18, 2005 05:37 PM (e) (s)

This is just so much more satisfying than ‘Poof, God did it!’.  Different hypotheses, a detailed study, and it turns out that natural selection is likely to be the cause (in this particular case), with a little help from pleiotropy.  Wonderful.

Comment #16967

Posted by steve on February 19, 2005 10:02 AM (e) (s)

Agreed. Magic is not satisfying.

Comment #16968

Posted by Enough on February 19, 2005 10:15 AM (e) (s)

David Blaine’s magic is real!

Comment #16971

Posted by steve on February 19, 2005 10:44 AM (e) (s)

It was certainly better than the competition’s, on South Park.

Comment #17010

Posted by Creationist Timmy on February 19, 2005 04:00 PM (e) (s)

How does one group of animals evolve one of these new molecules? One way is to borrow it. Joram Piatigorsky of the National Eye Institute and his colleagues have identified many of the molecules that make up the lens and cornea of humans and other animals. These molecules are practically identical to molecules found elsewhere in the body. Some are essential for the development of the head in an embryo. Others protect our cells from heat and other stress, others detoxify poisons that would otherwise build up in the blood.

Originally, the evidence indicates, many of the molecules found in eyes today were only produced in other parts of the body. But then, thanks to a mutation, the same gene began producing its molecule in the developing eye. It just so happened to have the physical properties that made it well suited to being in an eye. In later generations, natural selection favored mutations that made it work better in the eye.

This is impossible. Islands of functionality are separated by insurmountable distance, according to the leading ID Theorists. I’m sure they wouldn’t have just made such a thing up. Joram Piatigorsky must be part of the global conspiracy to hide the truth.

Comment #17028

Posted by Creationist Jimmy on February 19, 2005 08:51 PM (e) (s)

But then, thanks to a mutation, the same gene began producing its molecule in the developing eye. It just so happened to have the physical properties that made it well suited to being in an eye.

This is, of course, impossible. Even if there are systems in an organism that might have the potential to beneficially modify other systems just by mutation, it is clearly impossible for this to happen by the Second Rule of Intelligent Design. Or is it the Third Rule?

Can someone remind me of the rules of ID? I seem to have forgotten the basic theory behind it.

CJ

Comment #17057

Posted by Randall Wald on February 20, 2005 05:28 AM (e) (s)

Creationist Jimmy wrote:

This is, of course, impossible. Even if there are systems in an organism that might have the potential to beneficially modify other systems just by mutation, it is clearly impossible for this to happen by the Second Rule of Intelligent Design. Or is it the Third Rule?

Can someone remind me of the rules of ID? I seem to have forgotten the basic theory behind it.

CJ

No, you meant the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Since the earth is a closed system to first order approximation.

Comment #17062

Posted by Bob Maurus on February 20, 2005 08:37 AM (e) (s)

God help us - Timmy has a twin brother! Does anyone know which one is the evil one?

Zimmer’s pieces were, as usual, excellent. I recently reread his “At The Water’s Edge,” about lobefin and whale evolution.

Comment #17065

Posted by Creationist Timmy on February 20, 2005 10:34 AM (e) (s)

I’ve never seen my comrade before. Maybe he’s just riding on the coattails of fame and renoun.

Comment #17066

Posted by Marcus Good on February 20, 2005 10:43 AM (e) (s)

I wonder if there’s an anti-Carl.

Creationist Zimmy.

Comment #17071

Posted by Bob Maurus on February 20, 2005 10:59 AM (e) (s)

Perhaps in league with Pim’s anti?

Creatonist Pimmy?

Comment #17098

Posted by steve on February 20, 2005 02:00 PM (e) (s)

I seem to remember a creationist named Barley Zagner who used to come around here. Used to talk about how his VCR never put itself together. Supposedly had something to do with evolution, though I can’t remember what or how at the moment.

I recently reread his “At The Water’s Edge,” about lobefin and whale evolution.

I want to read that. For the moment I’m still reading the Mayr book, and a big pile of quantum, electronics, some old english stuff like Chaucer, for school, but also a good book for Eng 425 called Best American Science Writing 2004. Highly recommended.

Comment #17099

Posted by steve on February 20, 2005 02:03 PM (e) (s)

Speaking of Pimmy, where is he? You’d think that with John Davison, DaveScot, Dave Heddle, Empiricist, etc. around, he’d be typing so fast he dents the keys.

Comment #17208

Posted by Frank J on February 21, 2005 10:33 AM (e) (s)

Can’t resist another groaner. How about “Creationist gimmee”:

http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/theftovertoil/theftovertoil.h…

Comment #17623

Posted by curious on February 23, 2005 06:58 AM (e) (s)

Being utterly convinced and being right are two different things guys, oh yea, you’re biologists.

Comment #17630

Posted by Bob Maurus on February 23, 2005 08:20 AM (e) (s)

Steve,

Following Zimmer’s, I reread Gee’e “In Search of Deep Time” - same subjects, different perspective. Interesting.

Post a Comment