﻿<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Debating in an Echo Chamber</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.uncommondescent.com/evolution/debating-in-an-echo-chamber/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.uncommondescent.com/evolution/debating-in-an-echo-chamber/</link>
	<description>Serving The Intelligent Design Community</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 13 Feb 2012 08:41:46 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	
	<item>
		<title>By: whoisyourcreator</title>
		<link>http://www.uncommondescent.com/evolution/debating-in-an-echo-chamber/comment-page-1/#comment-334511</link>
		<dc:creator>whoisyourcreator</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 19 Sep 2009 14:43:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.uncommondescent.com/?p=8673#comment-334511</guid>
		<description>FYI: Molecular switch count goes up as we read:

&quot;Using a specifically developed technology the scientists were able, for the first time, to search for acetylation sites in the whole protein inventory of the cell. All in all, they identified more than 3600 of these switching points in almost 1800 proteins - this proves that acetylation is much more important than previously supposed and that it has broad regulatory functions. &quot;Our results have expanded the number of known acetylation switches by a factor of six, and give us for the first time a comprehensive insight into this type of modification&quot;, says professor Matthias Mann, director of the research department.&quot; &quot;Proteomics and Signal Transduction&quot; at the MPI of Biochemistry.
http://www.internetchemie.info/news/2009/aug09/molecular-switches.html</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>FYI: Molecular switch count goes up as we read:</p>
<p>&#8220;Using a specifically developed technology the scientists were able, for the first time, to search for acetylation sites in the whole protein inventory of the cell. All in all, they identified more than 3600 of these switching points in almost 1800 proteins &#8211; this proves that acetylation is much more important than previously supposed and that it has broad regulatory functions. &#8220;Our results have expanded the number of known acetylation switches by a factor of six, and give us for the first time a comprehensive insight into this type of modification&#8221;, says professor Matthias Mann, director of the research department.&#8221; &#8220;Proteomics and Signal Transduction&#8221; at the MPI of Biochemistry.<br />
<a href="http://www.internetchemie.info/news/2009/aug09/molecular-switches.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.internetchemie.info.....tches.html</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: whoisyourcreator</title>
		<link>http://www.uncommondescent.com/evolution/debating-in-an-echo-chamber/comment-page-1/#comment-334238</link>
		<dc:creator>whoisyourcreator</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 17 Sep 2009 04:23:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.uncommondescent.com/?p=8673#comment-334238</guid>
		<description>In regard to #15

1. Only 379? After reading the following, it&#039;s probably safe to say no one knows how high the count will go:

&quot;Biologist Michael Cosgrove was the leader of the research team. During their experiments on the Mixed Lineage Leukemia (MLL) protein complex, they discovered that the MLL was not the single molecular mechanism in the protein. In fact, there were two molecular switches present in the complex, one of which no one ever knew before. They named it W-Rad.&quot;
http://www.topcancernews.com/news/2228/new-molecular-switch-causes-the-development-of-cancerous-cells.html

2. My hypothesis? It&#039;s extrapolated from the paper and reflects their claims, not mine.

3. This is the usual go around with evolutionists. I prefer debating empirical evidence ... it&#039;s much more satisfying.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In regard to #15</p>
<p>1. Only 379? After reading the following, it&#8217;s probably safe to say no one knows how high the count will go:</p>
<p>&#8220;Biologist Michael Cosgrove was the leader of the research team. During their experiments on the Mixed Lineage Leukemia (MLL) protein complex, they discovered that the MLL was not the single molecular mechanism in the protein. In fact, there were two molecular switches present in the complex, one of which no one ever knew before. They named it W-Rad.&#8221;<br />
<a href="http://www.topcancernews.com/news/2228/new-molecular-switch-causes-the-development-of-cancerous-cells.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.topcancernews.com/n.....cells.html</a></p>
<p>2. My hypothesis? It&#8217;s extrapolated from the paper and reflects their claims, not mine.</p>
<p>3. This is the usual go around with evolutionists. I prefer debating empirical evidence &#8230; it&#8217;s much more satisfying.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: mentok</title>
		<link>http://www.uncommondescent.com/evolution/debating-in-an-echo-chamber/comment-page-1/#comment-334220</link>
		<dc:creator>mentok</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 17 Sep 2009 00:11:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.uncommondescent.com/?p=8673#comment-334220</guid>
		<description>camanintx

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witchcraft#Spell_casting</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>camanintx</p>
<p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witchcraft#Spell_casting" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W.....ll_casting</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: camanintx</title>
		<link>http://www.uncommondescent.com/evolution/debating-in-an-echo-chamber/comment-page-1/#comment-334217</link>
		<dc:creator>camanintx</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 16 Sep 2009 23:59:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.uncommondescent.com/?p=8673#comment-334217</guid>
		<description>mentok, #14

&lt;blockquote&gt;Evolution is like magick, there are no limits to what evolution can do if you know the right incantations.&lt;/blockquote&gt;

“Witchcraft to the ignorant, … Simple science to the learned.” - Leigh Brackett</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>mentok, #14</p>
<blockquote><p>Evolution is like magick, there are no limits to what evolution can do if you know the right incantations.</p></blockquote>
<p>“Witchcraft to the ignorant, … Simple science to the learned.” &#8211; Leigh Brackett</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: camanintx</title>
		<link>http://www.uncommondescent.com/evolution/debating-in-an-echo-chamber/comment-page-1/#comment-334216</link>
		<dc:creator>camanintx</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 16 Sep 2009 23:52:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.uncommondescent.com/?p=8673#comment-334216</guid>
		<description>whoisyourcreator, #13
&lt;blockquote&gt;In regard to #11, 

First, your ‘350’ statistic is outdated as they are finding more and more each day.&lt;/blockquote&gt;
You are correct. The IUPHAR database of G protein-coupled receptors and ion channels now lists 379 receptors. Still doesn&#039;t quite support your hypothesis though.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>whoisyourcreator, #13</p>
<blockquote><p>In regard to #11, </p>
<p>First, your ‘350’ statistic is outdated as they are finding more and more each day.</p></blockquote>
<p>You are correct. The IUPHAR database of G protein-coupled receptors and ion channels now lists 379 receptors. Still doesn&#8217;t quite support your hypothesis though.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: mentok</title>
		<link>http://www.uncommondescent.com/evolution/debating-in-an-echo-chamber/comment-page-1/#comment-334215</link>
		<dc:creator>mentok</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 16 Sep 2009 23:51:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.uncommondescent.com/?p=8673#comment-334215</guid>
		<description>Evolution is like magick, there are no limits to what evolution can do if you know the right incantations. 

The sorcerers know as well that to perform the ritual properly in order to insure success, a properly prepared ritual arena is needed. For the slightest contamination will despoil and therefore render the magickal words less potent.

The heart and soul of the evolutionist movement is black magick. They seek to put people under their spell using alchemy and witchcraft, with the desired result of sending everyone to hell.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Evolution is like magick, there are no limits to what evolution can do if you know the right incantations. </p>
<p>The sorcerers know as well that to perform the ritual properly in order to insure success, a properly prepared ritual arena is needed. For the slightest contamination will despoil and therefore render the magickal words less potent.</p>
<p>The heart and soul of the evolutionist movement is black magick. They seek to put people under their spell using alchemy and witchcraft, with the desired result of sending everyone to hell.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: whoisyourcreator</title>
		<link>http://www.uncommondescent.com/evolution/debating-in-an-echo-chamber/comment-page-1/#comment-334213</link>
		<dc:creator>whoisyourcreator</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 16 Sep 2009 23:25:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.uncommondescent.com/?p=8673#comment-334213</guid>
		<description>In regard to #11, 

First, your ‘350’ statistic is outdated as they are finding more and more each day.

Second, because many genetic defects are a result of faulty molecular switches, each gene requires a specific level of expression necessary for it to work properly.
 
So, let’s evaluate your hypothesis:
Somehow a gene was duplicated, it randomly rearranged its sequence to something that is  functional, and then it somehow integrated into a network of G-proteins and honed in on one that causes the new gene to turn on and off at the precise times needed for this unknown and random change.

Interesting hypothesis. Maybe you should write sci-fi …</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In regard to #11, </p>
<p>First, your ‘350’ statistic is outdated as they are finding more and more each day.</p>
<p>Second, because many genetic defects are a result of faulty molecular switches, each gene requires a specific level of expression necessary for it to work properly.</p>
<p>So, let’s evaluate your hypothesis:<br />
Somehow a gene was duplicated, it randomly rearranged its sequence to something that is  functional, and then it somehow integrated into a network of G-proteins and honed in on one that causes the new gene to turn on and off at the precise times needed for this unknown and random change.</p>
<p>Interesting hypothesis. Maybe you should write sci-fi …</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: camanintx</title>
		<link>http://www.uncommondescent.com/evolution/debating-in-an-echo-chamber/comment-page-1/#comment-334202</link>
		<dc:creator>camanintx</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 16 Sep 2009 21:38:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.uncommondescent.com/?p=8673#comment-334202</guid>
		<description>Does anyone else have problems with links not working?

&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.genetics.org/cgi/content/full/154/1/459&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;The Probability of Duplicate Gene Preservation by Subfunctionalization&lt;/a&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Does anyone else have problems with links not working?</p>
<p><a href="http://www.genetics.org/cgi/content/full/154/1/459" rel="nofollow">The Probability of Duplicate Gene Preservation by Subfunctionalization</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: camanintx</title>
		<link>http://www.uncommondescent.com/evolution/debating-in-an-echo-chamber/comment-page-1/#comment-334201</link>
		<dc:creator>camanintx</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 16 Sep 2009 21:36:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.uncommondescent.com/?p=8673#comment-334201</guid>
		<description>whoisyourcreator, #9
&lt;blockquote&gt;(If they’re implying gene duplication occurred, go to:
(See http://www.whoisyourcreator.co.....ation.html )&lt;/blockquote&gt;
Are you saying that any new function requires a corresponding G-protein to turn it on? Since the human genome codes for &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/faq/genenumber.shtml&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;20,000 to 25,000 different proteins&lt;/a&gt; and only about 350 g-protein receptors, isn&#039;t it possible that each g-protein can control multiple functions?

&lt;blockquote&gt;There is NO empirical evidence that this occurred, or has ever occurred in the past, and reflects the sad state of what is considered ‘scientific.’&lt;/blockquote&gt;
Biologists seem to think otherwise.

&lt;a&gt;The probability of duplicate gene preservation by subfunctionalization&lt;/a&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>whoisyourcreator, #9</p>
<blockquote><p>(If they’re implying gene duplication occurred, go to:<br />
(See <a href="http://www.whoisyourcreator.co.....ation.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.whoisyourcreator.co&#8230;..ation.html</a> )</p></blockquote>
<p>Are you saying that any new function requires a corresponding G-protein to turn it on? Since the human genome codes for <a href="http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/faq/genenumber.shtml" rel="nofollow">20,000 to 25,000 different proteins</a> and only about 350 g-protein receptors, isn&#8217;t it possible that each g-protein can control multiple functions?</p>
<blockquote><p>There is NO empirical evidence that this occurred, or has ever occurred in the past, and reflects the sad state of what is considered ‘scientific.’</p></blockquote>
<p>Biologists seem to think otherwise.</p>
<p><a>The probability of duplicate gene preservation by subfunctionalization</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: CannuckianYankee</title>
		<link>http://www.uncommondescent.com/evolution/debating-in-an-echo-chamber/comment-page-1/#comment-334188</link>
		<dc:creator>CannuckianYankee</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 16 Sep 2009 18:44:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.uncommondescent.com/?p=8673#comment-334188</guid>
		<description>&quot;These three proteins don’t perform precisely the same function in proteobacteria, but with a simple mutation COULD be transformed into a simple protein transport machine that COULD start the whole thing off.&quot;

Ah, the science of COULD.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;These three proteins don’t perform precisely the same function in proteobacteria, but with a simple mutation COULD be transformed into a simple protein transport machine that COULD start the whole thing off.&#8221;</p>
<p>Ah, the science of COULD.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

