Search This Blog

Loading...

Sunday, April 09, 2006

Hot Rod Linkin'

"Son, you're gonna drive me t' drinkin',
If you don't quit drivin' that - Hot ... Rod ... Lincoln!"

Music and lyrics copyright 1955, Charlie Ryan. All rights reserved

Iraq and the Middle East

Words and Pictures about Iraq Liberation Day.

This just confirmed:
In 1942-Nazis planned Holocaust to extend into
British-controlled Palestine, to continue Holocaust.


End the unjust Jewish occupation of Arab land?

Mom Holds Out Hope for Missing Soldier

Conservatives versus Moonbats

Even more documents show Saddam targeted US interests

Washington Post Editorial: Bush Was Right To Leak, And Joe Wilson Is A Liar

Mentally unstable Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez is now threatening to expel U.S. Ambassador William Brownfield from the country... for the crime of having been hounded by a Venezuelan mob.

Canada's Open Borders


Actual Science

‘“Cosmologists are often wrong,” the Russian Nobel Prize-winning physicist Lev Landau put it, “but never in doubt.”’

‘Evolution in action’ turns out to be nothing of the sort.

Tiny Machines, Eiffel Tower, and Gecko Feet

5 comments:

WomanHonorThyself said...

soon as i figure out how to add yer link i will..heh

Jeffahn said...

I like the bit about 'Actual Science', with the links to AiG & ICR.

When is this blog joining the comedy blog ring?

Too funny.

Jeffahn said...

Sorry about the double post, but this is in response to the AiG article you linked to (courtesy of 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank at http://makeashorterlink.com/?O170540FC ):

"My standard respose to the “genetic information can’t increase” baloney:

According to the creationists, all humans alive today are
descended from 8 people who got off a Really Big Boat. Anyone who
understands junior high genetics will know that 8 people have between
them a maximum possible of 16 different alleles for each genetic
locus (in reality, the 8 people on the Big Boat would have had even
FEWER, since some of them were descended from others and thus shared
alleles, but for the sake of argument we will give the creationists
every possible benefit of the doubt and assume that they were ALL
heterozygous and shared no alleles at all in common). That means, if
the creationists are correct that “most mutations are deleterious”
and that “no new genetic information can appear through mutation”,
there can not be any human genetic locus anywhere today with more
than 16 alleles, since that is the MAXIMUM that could have gotten off
the Big Boat.

But wait ————— today we find human genetic loci (such as
hemoglobin or the HLA complex) that have well over *400* different
alleles (indeed some have over *700* different alleles). Hmmmm.
Since there could have only been 16 possible on the Big Boat, and
since there are over 400 now, and since 400 is more than 16, that
means that somehow the GENETIC INFORMATION INCREASED from the time
they got off the Big Boat until now.

That raises a few questions ——- (1) if genetic mutations always
produce a LOSS in information, like the creationists keep telling us,
then how did we go from 16 alleles to over 400 alleles (perhaps in
creationist mathematics, 400 is not larger than 16). (2) if these
new alleles did not appear through mutations, then how DID they get
here.

But wait — there’s more:

Not only, according to creationists, must these new alleles have
appeared after the Big Boat, but, according to their, uh, “theory”,
all of these mutations must have appeared in the space of just *4,000
years* — the period of time since the Big Flood. That gives a rate
of BENEFICIAL MUTATIONS, which add NEW GENETIC INFORMATION, of one
every 10 years, or roughly two every generation ———- a much higher
rate of beneficial mutation than has ever been recorded anywhere in
nature. Nowhere today do we see such a rate anywhere near so high.
So not only would I like to know (1) what produced this
extraordinarily high rate of non-deleterious mutations, but (2) what
stopped it (indeed, what stopped it conveniently right before the
very time when we first developed the technological means to study
it).

But wait —- we’re not done YET ……

Since less than 1% of observed mutations are beneficial (the vast
majority of mutations are indeed deleterious or neutral and have no
effect), that means for every beneficial mutation which added a new
allele, there should have been roughly 99 others which did not. So
to give us roughly 400 beneficial mutations would require somewhere
around 40,000 total mutations, a rate of approximately 100 mutations
in each locus EVERY YEAR, or 2,000 mutations per locus for EACH
GENERATION. Do you know what we call people who experience mutation
rates that high? We call them “cancer victims”. The only people
with mutation rates even remotely comparable were victims of
Chernobyl.

But wait, we’re STILL not finished ……

In order for any of those mutations to be passed on to the next
generation to produce new alleles, they MUST occur in the germ cells -
- sperm or egg. And since any such high rate of mutation in a
somatic cell (non-sperm or egg) would have quickly produced a fatal
case of cancer, if the creationists are right this mutation rate
could ONLY have occurred in the germ cells and could NOT have
occurred in any of the somatic cells.

If one of our resident creationists can propose a mechanism for me
which produces a hugely high rate of mutation in the germ cells while
excluding it from any other cells, a Nobel Prize in medicine surely
awaits —- such information would be critically valuable to cancer
researchers. But alas, no such mechanism exists. The rate of
mutations made necessary by creationist “arguments” would certainly
have killed all of Noah’s children before they even had time to have
any kids of their own. In order to produce 400 beneficial alleles in
just 4,000 years, humanity would have been beset with cancers at a
rate that would have wiped them all out millenia ago."

There's loads more on the 'no new information' argument, but I thought that that was a bit nifty.

creeper said...

jeffahn,

that's a nice contribution from Lenny Frank. I'm looking forward to Radar's imminent evasion and obfuscation.

radar said...

"Radar's imminent evasion and obfuscation."

Creeper, got another whine? I do try to remain civil in the blog, but you just go on and on, even if I devote an entire post to a few questions I have received. When will you understand that disagreement with you is neither evasion nor obfuscation?

Jeff,

I will have to research your post. The great thing about this topic is that commmenters cause me to research areas that I was not terribly familiar with and therefore increase my level of knowledge. Thanks for the challenge!

(Of course Creeper will say I am evading because I am not immediately answering without doing some resarch and having an actual answer.)

As for the "comedy blog" remark, your derision adds nothing to your argument but rather makes you look less civilized. Don't bother telling me that the people from AIG and ICR are not actual scientists who happen to disagree with you unless you intend to lose your credibility entirely.