Darwinists still trying to figure out if they made life 50 years ago

[Jefferson]

Darwinists still trying to figure out if they made life 50 years ago

Monday March 13th, 2006. This is show # 51.

PERTINENT QUOTE OF THE SHOW:

The museum has an exhibit and it's headlined, "Life Created in the Lab?" question mark. And the experiment they're referring to is from 50 years ago. What's the question mark there for? They haven't figured it out in 50 years if they created life in the lab or not? And they did not. ...They created amino acids. If they created life, after 50 years, they would have figured it out. And they'd say, "Life was created in the lab!" exclamation mark. But they put a question mark there because they know it wasn't and they are deceiving people who stroll through the museum and are not very careful and especially kids and the tens of thousands of students who go through the museum and then the reporters from the media who go through who are especially gullible and don't think.

Summary:
* Washington Post to cut 80 jobs! It couldn't happen to a nicer organization.
* Iran Builds Secret Underground Complex! ?? We'll it's not secret anymore if even a Christian radio show is reporting it! Must be old news.
* California lawmakers disagree over how public schools will present homosexuality, and regardless, your daughter will be continually sexually harassed in her public school.
* Colorado Springs Gazette & Rocky Mountain News articles quote Denver Museum curator Dr. Kirk Johnson saying that creationists like our friends at BC Tours are "quite backward and intellectually dishonest" and that "they don't believe science exists!" And this from a man who doesn't know if he exists! Bob's letter to the Gazette asks, "It’s been fifty years since that Miller experiment! Don’t they know if they made life yet or not?"
* Callers Doris: Bob, you're right, but we can't afford a public school, and I'm not educated enough to home school. "Oh, yes you are!" Adam: Bob, any good questions for our evolution teachers? "How long does an animal live with a bad leg before it evolves into a good wing? How does a caterpillar, the first time ever, spin a cocoon around itself, liquefy itself, and reassemble itself into a flying insect?"
Today's Resource: Video Fruitcake: Hilarious Liberal Callers!

 

[Jukia]

I can't hardly wait to get some time to listen to this. May not be today cause a bit buried at work. But the good Pastor Enyart is sooooo hilarious when he pontificates on science. What a hoot!

 

[Johnny]

I listened last night. I'm interested to see what the subtext of the miller/urey experiment read. Bob read the headline, but exhibits always have additional text that explains more details. I was at the museum in my city the other day and an exhibit read, "Life Elsewhere in the Universe?" and it went on to explain SETI's search and what an alien signal would look like. If I were Enyart, I might mistake the headline as trying to say that SETI had found life. So I'm interested to read what the subtext of the exhibit had to say.

Bob also states, "this exclamation mark tells kids with certainty the wild assumption that human teeth evolved from fish scales." Bob is heavily critical of this, but again it's not a wild assumption. It's what the evidence points to right now. He also criticizes the moth example, but it's a great example of allelic shifts amongst selectional pressures.

Feh.

 

[Servo]

Bob also states, "this exclamation mark tells kids with certainty the wild assumption that human teeth evolved from fish scales." Bob is heavily critical of this, but again it's not a wild assumption. It's what the evidence points to right now.
Feh.

Oh, please direct us to some...

 

[Jukia]

I actually did a quick google search and it does appear that the current thinking is that teeth did evolve from scales. I have neither the time nor energy to repeat the search, sorry. Guess you'll just have to take my word for it. Not a bad idea since we all have to take Pastor Enyart's word for his claims.

 

[Johnny]

Oh, please direct us to some...

I did in another thread. Here's a start..

Fish scale development: Hair today, teeth and scales yesterday?Curr Biol. 2001 Aug 7;11(15):1202-6.
Abstract: "A group of genes in the tumour necrosis factor signalling pathway are mutated in humans and mice with ectodermal dysplasias--a failure of hair and tooth development. A mutation has now been identified in one of these genes, ectodysplasin-A receptor, in the teleost fish Medaka, that results in a failure of scale formation."

Immunodetection of amelogenin-like proteins in the ganoine of experimentally regenerating scales of Calamoichthys calabaricus, a primitive actinopterygian fish.Anat Rec. 1997 Sep;249(1):86-95.
Abstract: "BACKGROUND: The account of the present study is to test our previous hypothesis that ganoine, a highly mineralized layer found at the scale surface of primitive actinopterygian fish, could be homologous with the enamel covering the crown of vertebrate teeth. METHODS: Immunocytochemical techniques have been carried out on regenerating scales of a primitive polypterid, Calamoichthys calabaricus, with three antibodies to mammalian amelogenins. RESULTS: The present study provides the first evidence that ganoine contains molecules which cross-react with mammalian amelogenin proteins. CONCLUSIONS: This result is consistent with our previous findings that ganoine and enamel can be considered as homologous tissues. Moreover, the presence in ganoine of a primitive actinopterygian of amelogenin-like proteins, which share epitopes with amelogenins of mammalian enamel, indicates that the gene(s) coding for these proteins appeared earlier than previously suggested and supports the hypothesis that amelogenins show a highly conserved structure through vertebrate evolution."

Genetic basis for the evolution of vertebrate mineralized tissue.Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2004 Aug 3;101(31):11356-61.
Abstract: "Mineralized tissue is vital to many characteristic adaptive phenotypes in vertebrates. Three primary tissues, enamel (enameloid), dentin, and bone, are found in the body armor of ancient agnathans and mammalian teeth, suggesting that these two organs are homologous. Mammalian enamel forms on enamel-specific proteins such as amelogenin, whereas dentin and bone form on collagen and many acidic proteins, such as SPP1, coordinately regulate their mineralization. We previously reported that genes for three major enamel matrix proteins, five proteins necessary for dentin and bone formation, and milk caseins and salivary proteins arose from a single ancestor by tandem gene duplications and form the secretory calcium-binding phosphoprotein (SCPP) family. Gene structure and protein characteristics show that SCPP genes arose from the 5' region of ancestral sparcl1 (SPARC-like 1). Phylogenetic analysis on SPARC and SPARCL1 suggests that the SCPP genes arose after the divergence of cartilaginous fish and bony fish, implying that early vertebrate mineralization did not use SCPPs and that SPARC may be critical for initial mineralization. Consistent with this inference, we identified SPP1 in a teleost genome but failed to find any genes orthologous to mammalian enamel proteins. Based on these observations, we suggest a scenario for the evolution of vertebrate tissue mineralization, in which body armor initially formed on dermal collagen, which acted as a reinforcement of dermis. We also suggest that mammalian enamel is distinct from fish enameloid. Their similar nature as a hard structural overlay on exoskeleton and teeth is because of convergent evolution."

Formation of dermal skeletal and dental tissues in fish: a comparative and evolutionary approach. Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc. 2003 May;78(2):219-49.
Abstract: Osteichthyan and chondrichthyan fish present an astonishing diversity of skeletal and dental tissues that are often difficult to classify into the standard textbook categories of bone, cartilage, dentine and enamel. To address the question of how the tissues of the dermal skeleton evolved from the ancestral situation and gave rise to the diversity actually encountered, we review previous data on the development of a number of dermal skeletal elements (odontodes, teeth and dermal denticles, cranial dermal bones, postcranial dermal plates and scutes, elasmoid and ganoid scales, and fin rays). A comparison of developmental stages at the tissue level usually allows us to identify skeletogenic cell populations as either odontogenic or osteogenic on the basis of the place of formation of their dermal papillae and of the way of deposition of their tissues. Our studies support the evolutionary affinities (1) between odontodes, teeth and denticles, (2) between the ganoid scales of polypterids and the elasmoid scales of teleosts, and (3) to a lesser degree between the different bony elements. There is now ample evidence to ascertain that the tissues of the elasmoid scale are derived from dental and not from bony tissues. This review demonstrates the advantage that can be taken from developmental studies, at the tissue level, to infer evolutionary relationships within the dermal skeleton in chondrichthyans and osteichthyans.