JM O'Donnell,
"Is it just me, or is that utterly non-sensical?"
I'd say it's mostly, if not entirely, just you. I don't have time at the moment to explain exactly why in detail, but I might have time later tonight. If not, then it would probably be Thursday night before I can reply more thoroughly. For the moment, I'll just comment about something you said in your post:
"Now as I've said above, the problem with this statement isn't so much the fact that TLRs have non-disease fighting functions, which they very obviously do, but the whole 'pre-fall' nonsense at the end."
You then describe how TLR's are found almost exclusively (?) in portions of the human body which deal with battling disease/pathogens, and claim this is an argument against TLR's having any "pre-Fall" function. Pardon, but neither that claim, nor that argument, is solid: first, you admit that TLR's PRESENTLY have functions OTHER THAN combatting disease/pathogens, yet you turn right around and act as though those functions couldn't have taken up a much, much higher percentage of the "work" of TLR's at some time in the distant past than they do now (one would almost think you had never heard of evolution, and "co-option"); second, you seem to be unaware of the Biblical "testimony" of God's having CURSED the ground (the Earth, physical existence) because of Adam's sin - you act as though a God Who could create all life, and the Universe, wouldn't or couldn't also then create "diseases", and wouldn't or couldn't take a pre-existing object (TLR's) and cause them to take on a different role (one for which God had, of course, foreseen the need).
Your entire post has all the hallmarks of someone irritated at, angry with, and perhaps threatened by Creationists, or at least the possibility of God's existence. Seriously...I've seen enough such posts over the years that I can say that that's the appearance it gives. You do not sound like someone willing to be objective about the issue, basically. Do you feel you approach the issue objectively, and without an emotional bias?
In Christ,
Douglas
"you admit that TLR's PRESENTLY have functions OTHER THAN combatting disease/pathogens"
In other invertebrates, in humans they are localised for immune function, which is the point of what I was writing. As mentioned in the PNAS paper (if you would care to read the reference), TLRs are central to immune function in vertebrates but in invertebrates have a distinctly different function (development).
My argument still stands.
The rest of what you wrote is just more 'mental gymnastics' that isn't actually supportable by any data, whereas evolutionary scenarios have well supported mechanisms to explain the origin and localisation of these receptors.
"God Who could create all life, and the Universe, wouldn't or couldn't also then create "diseases", and wouldn't or couldn't take a pre-existing object (TLR's) and cause them to take on a different role (one for which God had, of course, foreseen the need)."
Of course, why the TLR in humans has suddenly lost its role in development (but retained it in lower animals) is probably something I would bet you can't explain. Goddidit, is not an answer that is scientifically interesting or meaningful.
"Your entire post has all the hallmarks of someone irritated at, angry with, and perhaps threatened by Creationists, or at least the possibility of God's existence"
For one thing, it's quite true that I don't have a lot of patience for creationism these days, unfortunately for you it's very easy to see you haven't bothered reading my blog much. Firstly, I'm hardly 'threatened' with Gods existance because I happen to be Christian myself. If I'm threatened by Gods existence it's certainly news to me.
In fact, if there is one thing that does annoy me about you lot, it's that last sentence of utter tripe you decided to put there. So your assumption is incorrect that I'm not in any way bothered by Gods existence. I happen to be very convinced he exists thank you very much. If you want to know why the first part of your quoted statement is correct, feel free to look at the end sentence on that statement of yours.
Yeah, now you might know why I get so aggravated by creationists. Incidentally, it was Creationist ill-logic and bunk arguments that originally had me deconvert from Christianity the first time.
JM: "In other invertebrates, in humans they are localised for immune function, which is the point of what I was writing. As mentioned in the PNAS paper (if you would care to read the reference), TLRs are central to immune function in vertebrates but in invertebrates have a distinctly different function (development)."
So? Are you saying that in vertebrates, ALL instances of TLRs are restricted to "immune function"?
"My argument still stands."
Not really.
"The rest of what you wrote is just more 'mental gymnastics' that isn't actually supportable by any data,..."
Ummmm, the "rest of what [I] wrote" was mostly dealing with your attempt to argue against the Christian Creator, and so dealt with your unspoken assumptions and misunderstandings regarding the same, mostly. Look, if you are allowed to swing wildly and blindly against something, I have the right to point out that you've missed, and by how far.
"...whereas evolutionary scenarios have well supported mechanisms to explain the origin and localisation of these receptors."
No, they don't. Evolutionary scenarios are almost exclusively "[un]supportable by any data". There is no direct evidence for practically ANY "evolutionary scenario", for any claimed evolved species or object (discounting "micro-evolution", as per "Darwin's Finches", dogs, etc.).
"Of course, why the TLR in humans has suddenly lost its role in development (but retained it in lower animals) is probably something I would bet you can't explain."
You bet I can't, because it didn't happen that way. Who said the TLR in humans "lost" its role in development? Who said it ever had that role in humans? Even if so, however, perhaps YOU could explain why Evolution suddenly decided that something that WAS working just fine (in development, in "lower animals") should do a complete switch and take on another role.
"Goddidit, is not an answer that is scientifically interesting or meaningful."
So what? If a Designer exists, and decided, for WHATEVER reason, to monkey with His/Her/Its Creation, there is no reason why the result would have to be "scientifically interesting or meaningful". However, I've already provided a possible reason, and a possible scenario, which is just as rational as any "just-so" Evolutionary scenario trumpeted nowadays. Your problem is that it doesn't fit your preferred NATURALISTIC paradigm.
"For one thing, it's quite true that I don't have a lot of patience for creationism these days, unfortunately for you it's very easy to see you haven't bothered reading my blog much."
You're right. Maybe that's because my time is limited, and I just found your site yesterday.
"Firstly, I'm hardly 'threatened' with God's existence because I happen to be Christian myself. If I'm threatened by God's existence it's certainly news to me."
LOTS of people call themselves "Christian". You've got your Roman Catholics, you
Douglas:
So? Are you saying that in vertebrates, ALL instances of TLRs are restricted to "immune function"?
This is indeed the case
Look, if you are allowed to swing wildly and blindly against something, I have the right to point out that you've missed, and by how far.
Which you failed to do. I see no support from any papers on immunology for any of your claims. On the other hand, I've given an extremely solid reference from a well credited journal (PNAS), which I assume you've read by now?
No, they don't. Evolutionary scenarios are almost exclusively "[un]supportable by any data". There is no direct evidence for practically ANY "evolutionary scenario", for any claimed evolved species or object
Firstly, please don't demonstrate your ignorance about the actual literature published on the evolution of TLRs. I suggest before making such wild and speculative claims that you actually do some reading first. I would as a start have read the paper published in PNAS quoted in the post.
The evolution of TLR is extremely well supported in the literature. For example, you could go and investigate my series on the evolution of another immune component, the MHC as an example.
Please familiarise yourself with the literature.
You bet I can't, because it didn't happen that way. Who said the TLR in humans "lost" its role in development? Who said it ever had that role in humans? Even if so, however, perhaps YOU could explain why Evolution suddenly decided that something that WAS working just fine (in development, in "lower animals") should do a complete switch and take on another role.
See my series on the MHC for good examples of how this principal works. There are two kinds of co-option, co-option with a shift in function and co-option without a shift in function. In the case of the TLR, it's an example of co-option with a shift in function.
Also, experimental evidence demonstrates that TLRs no longer play a functional role in development. If you read my original post you'd have seen this line:
They aren't playing a role in overall development, as you can knock out TLRs to compromise immunity without hindering growth of normal every day cells.
For example mice lacking TLRs are used in laboratory experiments quite often. They don't have problems developing at all. Ergo, your argument is dead.
However, I've already provided a possible reason, and a possible scenario, which is just as rational as any "just-so" Evolutionary scenario trumpeted nowadays. Your problem is that it doesn't fit your preferred NATURALISTIC paradigm.
No the problem with your scenario is that it's complete bollocks you've just made up and it doesn't fit the observed evidence. Again, familiarise yourself with the literature at the very least. I'll be writing more on TLR evolution in future as well (in fact next week) if you don't have access to journals.
Once again, you've failed to account for why: TLR 11 in humans is a useless pseudogene but functional in other animals. Why there is quite a bit of variation among animals in their TLR subsets and other things I posed in my original post. You can 'make up' anything you feel like, but it has to fit the available evidence. Something creationists seem have a problem doing.
You're right. Maybe that's because my time is limited, and I just found your site yesterday.
Rather than argue on a topic you clearly haven't done any reading on, I would suggest starting with the excellent PNAS paper and working from there on the TLR literature. I would also suggest the following paper as well, which I shall be using in my future discussion on the topic.
Beutler B. (2005). The Toll-like receptors: analysis by forward genetic methods. Immunogenetics, 57(6):385-392.
Secondly, the "no true scotsman" argument doesn't fly with me and I've heard it all before.
CREATIONISTS' "NO DEATH" CONJECTURE IS AS FULL OF SH*T AS ADAM'S ASS
"No death... before 'The Fall!'" is their war cry. But how many young-earth creationists have given that dogmatic entirely unsubstantiated claim a single rational "once over?"
What about accidental death? Was the movement of every "pre-Fall" creature finely choreographed? Did monkeys swing wildly in trees but never crush an insect on a branch nor upset an insect egg nor bird egg in the process? Did a curious monkey never pick up an insect or egg out of curiosity and accidentally crush or drop it. No large herbivore ever tried to take a bite out of a much tiner critter that looked green enough to eat, nor accidentally ingested it because it was on the leaf it was already chewing and swallowing? Did sharks hunger solely for seaweed and carefully spit out even the tiniest fish that might inhabit the seaweed out of which the shark bit an enormous mouthful? No mistaken swallowing of any tiny live fish at all by much larger fish? What about a large animal galloping along and breathing heavy and accidentally inhaling an insect? Did Brontosauruses dodge every breathing thing underfoot with each gargantuan step, including ants, beetles, worms, amphibians, reptiles, and mammals? Did spiders assist in the release of any insect that flew haphazardly into their webs?
I guess the deaths of plant cells (that every breathing creature in Genesis 1 was commanded to eat "for food") does not count, just the deaths of animal cells. But plant and animal cells both have a nucleus, cytoplasm and cell wall. (Never mind about the question of whether or not single celled "plant-i-mals" like the Euglena--that have both plant chlorophyll and a flagellar "tail" on the end with which to move around like an animal--lived or died.)
Also..."without death" a single bacterial cell that divides every twenty minutes would multiply to a mass four thousand times greater than the earth's in just two days.
A single oyster, left to its own devices, produces more than one-hundred-twenty-five million eggs in a season. That's more than enough oysters, if none died in eight years, [10 to the 89th power number of oysters] to crowd the water out of the oceans and make it cover the earth.
If all the eggs from one mother housefly lived, she would produce more than five trillion offspring in just one season.
A sunfish sometimes lays three hundred million eggs.
A female sea turtle lays a hundred or more eggs.
About one hundred million sperm cells are found in each cubic centimeter of human ejaculate.
There are equally bountiful numbers from the world of seed-bearing plants.
Speaking of death, how about decay, no decay either? I want to know, did Adam and Eve digest their vegetarian dinners? I once read a debate between two young-earth creationists in which one said that Adam had to break down his food and that meant that the second law of thermodynamics (breakdown,
Nice post Mr. O'Donnell.
I see you've been having fun lately explaining science to people who have little interest in learning science.
Okay, where was I, and where have I been?
"CREATIONISTS' 'NO DEATH' CONJECTURE IS AS FULL OF SH*T AS ADAM'S ASS."
There is no empirical evidence that Adam's ass was originally full of shit, even though God created him fully mature.
"'No death... before "The Fall!"' is their war cry."
Peace cry. That is our "Peace cry".
"But how many young-earth creationists have given that dogmatic entirely unsubstantiated claim a single rational 'once over?'"
At least one that I know personally.
"What about accidental death?"
There were no accidents.
"Was the movement of every 'pre-Fall' creature finely choreographed?"
No, just carefully watched over.
"Did monkeys swing wildly in trees but never crush an insect on a branch nor upset an insect egg nor bird egg in the process?"
Probably they didn't swing all that "wildly", and there certainly weren't as many of them. But, there is a categorical difference between insects and birds, or between insects and any mammal or reptile, for that matter.
"Did a curious monkey never pick up an insect or egg out of curiosity and accidentally crush or drop it."
Not before Adam and Eve sinned, no. (Except for the insect - insects don't count.)
"No large herbivore ever tried to take a bite out of a much tinier critter that looked green enough to eat, nor accidentally ingested it because it was on the leaf it was already chewing and swallowing?"
Unless the critter was an insect, no.
"Did sharks hunger solely for seaweed and carefully spit out even the tiniest fish that might inhabit the seaweed out of which the shark bit an enormous mouthful?"
No, probably they ate fish. Fish are a different category than mammals. You should try reading the Genesis Creation and Flood accounts.
"No mistaken swallowing of any tiny live fish at all by much larger fish?"
I am sure it was all absolutely intentional.
"What about a large animal galloping along and breathing heavy and accidentally inhaling an insect?"
I hate it when that happens.
"Did Brontosauruses dodge every breathing thing underfoot with each gargantuan step, including ants, beetles, worms, amphibians, reptiles, and mammals?"
No, just amphibians, reptiles, and mammals.
"Did spiders assist in the release of any insect that flew haphazardly into their webs?"
Only if there happened to be one which had an incredibly advanced, and misplaced, sense of compassion.
"I guess the deaths of plant cells (that every breathing creature in Genesis 1 was commanded to eat 'for food') does not count, just the deaths of animal cells."
Cells don't count in either case.
"But plant and animal cells both have a nucleus, cytoplasm and cell wall."
"Convergent evolution" works in mysterious ways.
"(Never mind about the question of whether or not single celled 'plant-i-mals' like the Euglena--that have both plant chlorophyll and a flagellar 'tail' on the
business and internet business and internet business and internet // firstusa credit card firstusa credit card firstusa credit card
Commenting by HaloScan
