http://rosarubicondior.blogspot.com/



FRIDAY, 27 NOVEMBER 2015

Does God Like Bats But H**e The Rest of Us?
The evolution of bat nucleic acid-sensing Toll-like receptors - Escalera-Zamudio - 2015 - Molecular Ecology - Wiley Online Library

Here is today's embarrassing question for creationists. Does your hypothetical intelligent designer favour bats and h**e the rest of us?

The reason you need to answer this is because a paper published today shows that bats have a better i****e s****m than other mammals. I'm assuming that creationists only believe in one intelligent designer and not millions of competing intelligent designers all closely guarding their designs and refusing to share.

So, if this supposed intelligent designer can design a better i****e s****m for bats, why did it design a lesser one for the rest of us? Of course, this ignores considerations about why an i****e s****m is needed at all and why a benevolent god would have designed parasites from which an i****e s****m tries to protect us but that's a different issue. I have never managed to find a creationist with the honesty, integrity and courage to tackle the question of there parasites fit in a perfect world designed by a perfect and maximally benevolent designer so I doubt I'll get one now.

So, let's just concentrate on why this supposed designer gave bats a better i****e s****m.

The paper was published in Molecular Ecology by an international team lead by Marina Escalera-Zamudio from the Department of Wildlife Diseases, Leibniz Institute for Zoo and Wildlife Research, Berlin, Germany. It shows that bats have a much more efficient system of Toll-like Receptors (TLRs). TLRs are considered to be the first-line defense against pathogens and recognise a wide range of pathogenic molecular signatures.

Bats exhibit traits unique amongst mammals, such as flight, and across different species they have an exceptional breadth in diet, a result of their long-term adaptation to a wide variety of environments and ecological niches. These niches also have specific pathogen profiles which are likely to have shaped the evolution of the bat TLRs in an order-specific manner.

Marina Escalera-Zamudio
Regrettably, the paper published by John Wiley & Sons, Inc. is copyright protected and, although the abstract is available online, permission to reprint it is closely guarded. If I obtain this permission I will reprint it here. Meanwhile one can only hope for the day when all scientific research is freely available and accessible to all.

What this finding suggests is an answer to the problem of why bats seem to act as a reservoir species for some pathogens like rabies which can be t***smitted by a bat bite but from which bats appear to be immune. Bats have also recently been implicated as a reservoir species for ebola.

So, from an intelligent design perspective, it's hard not to conclude that such an intelligent designer is not favouring bats by designing a superior i****e s****m for them but deliberately withholding this new, improved design from other mammals, including its supposed favourite species, and what it created all the others for, humans.

Would any creationist like to deal with this question, or is it to be the usual avoidance of these difficult questions yet again whilst pretending the intelligent design notion is the best available explanation of the way things are?

Reference:
Escalera-Zamudio, M., Zepeda-Mendoza, M. L., Loza-Rubio, E., Rojas-Anaya, E., Méndez-Ojeda, M. L., Arias, C. F. and Greenwood, A. D. (2015), The evolution of bat nucleic acid-sensing Toll-like receptors. Mol Ecol, 24: 5899–5909. doi:10.1111/mec.13431

http://rosarubicondior.blogspot.com/



FRIDAY, 27 NOVEMBER 2015

Does God Like Bats But H**e The Rest of Us?
The evolution of bat nucleic acid-sensing Toll-like receptors - Escalera-Zamudio - 2015 - Molecular Ecology - Wiley Online Library

Here is today's embarrassing question for creationists. Does your hypothetical intelligent designer favour bats and h**e the rest of us?

The reason you need to answer this is because a paper published today shows that bats have a better i****e s****m than other mammals. I'm assuming that creationists only believe in one intelligent designer and not millions of competing intelligent designers all closely guarding their designs and refusing to share.

So, if this supposed intelligent designer can design a better i****e s****m for bats, why did it design a lesser one for the rest of us? Of course, this ignores considerations about why an i****e s****m is needed at all and why a benevolent god would have designed parasites from which an i****e s****m tries to protect us but that's a different issue. I have never managed to find a creationist with the honesty, integrity and courage to tackle the question of there parasites fit in a perfect world designed by a perfect and maximally benevolent designer so I doubt I'll get one now.

So, let's just concentrate on why this supposed designer gave bats a better i****e s****m.

The paper was published in Molecular Ecology by an international team lead by Marina Escalera-Zamudio from the Department of Wildlife Diseases, Leibniz Institute for Zoo and Wildlife Research, Berlin, Germany. It shows that bats have a much more efficient system of Toll-like Receptors (TLRs). TLRs are considered to be the first-line defense against pathogens and recognise a wide range of pathogenic molecular signatures.

Bats exhibit traits unique amongst mammals, such as flight, and across different species they have an exceptional breadth in diet, a result of their long-term adaptation to a wide variety of environments and ecological niches. These niches also have specific pathogen profiles which are likely to have shaped the evolution of the bat TLRs in an order-specific manner.

Marina Escalera-Zamudio
Regrettably, the paper published by John Wiley & Sons, Inc. is copyright protected and, although the abstract is available online, permission to reprint it is closely guarded. If I obtain this permission I will reprint it here. Meanwhile one can only hope for the day when all scientific research is freely available and accessible to all.

What this finding suggests is an answer to the problem of why bats seem to act as a reservoir species for some pathogens like rabies which can be t***smitted by a bat bite but from which bats appear to be immune. Bats have also recently been implicated as a reservoir species for ebola.

So, from an intelligent design perspective, it's hard not to conclude that such an intelligent designer is not favouring bats by designing a superior i****e s****m for them but deliberately withholding this new, improved design from other mammals, including its supposed favourite species, and what it created all the others for, humans.

Would any creationist like to deal with this question, or is it to be the usual avoidance of these difficult questions yet again whilst pretending the intelligent design notion is the best available explanation of the way things are?

Reference:
Escalera-Zamudio, M., Zepeda-Mendoza, M. L., Loza-Rubio, E., Rojas-Anaya, E., Méndez-Ojeda, M. L., Arias, C. F. and Greenwood, A. D. (2015), The evolution of bat nucleic acid-sensing Toll-like receptors. Mol Ecol, 24: 5899–5909. doi:10.1111/mec.13431

Isn't God magnificent that He would create such a wonderful creature as a bat? That He would bestow such a phenomenal survival mechanism upon a critter that cannot research its own particular anatomy, understand its biological functions, comprehend the concept of disease, look out for its own health, train its own doctors, manufacture medicines, build hospitals, and devise its own healthcare program? God loves all creatures that cannot reason, think logically, make informed choices, and enjoy a good beer.

Whoever Zamudio is, right up front, he or she disqualified this entire question with condescension. The following turns of phrase say it all.

"hypothetical intelligent designer"
"supposed intelligent designer"
"a perfect and maximally benevolent designer"

There is a good reason why God gave the bat such an i****e s****m and it has nothing whatsoever to do with who He "likes" better. Most species of bats eat insects and not much else, if anything, and in order to survive what they might digest, they should have a formidable i****e s****m.

The argument that the "hypothetical intelligent designer" might favor bats over humans because of this one feature is truly shallow, unoriginal and amateurish at best. One might call it "secular speculation" generated to project contempt.

Maybe Escalera Zamudio could explain why bats have long been associated with the dark side of life, like Halloween. Is it only because they come out at night to hunt? Or is there something more sinister and mysterious about them? Like maybe the Vampire Bat that feeds only on blood and they do this only in the darkest hours of the night. Now that little feller is special.

Escalera Zamudio has bats in her belfry.

http://rosarubicondior.blogspot.com/



FRIDAY, 27 NOVEMBER 2015

Does God Like Bats But H**e The Rest of Us?
The evolution of bat nucleic acid-sensing Toll-like receptors - Escalera-Zamudio - 2015 - Molecular Ecology - Wiley Online Library

Here is today's embarrassing question for creationists. Does your hypothetical intelligent designer favour bats and h**e the rest of us?

The reason you need to answer this is because a paper published today shows that bats have a better i****e s****m than other mammals. I'm assuming that creationists only believe in one intelligent designer and not millions of competing intelligent designers all closely guarding their designs and refusing to share.

So, if this supposed intelligent designer can design a better i****e s****m for bats, why did it design a lesser one for the rest of us? Of course, this ignores considerations about why an i****e s****m is needed at all and why a benevolent god would have designed parasites from which an i****e s****m tries to protect us but that's a different issue. I have never managed to find a creationist with the honesty, integrity and courage to tackle the question of there parasites fit in a perfect world designed by a perfect and maximally benevolent designer so I doubt I'll get one now.

So, let's just concentrate on why this supposed designer gave bats a better i****e s****m.

The paper was published in Molecular Ecology by an international team lead by Marina Escalera-Zamudio from the Department of Wildlife Diseases, Leibniz Institute for Zoo and Wildlife Research, Berlin, Germany. It shows that bats have a much more efficient system of Toll-like Receptors (TLRs). TLRs are considered to be the first-line defense against pathogens and recognise a wide range of pathogenic molecular signatures.

Bats exhibit traits unique amongst mammals, such as flight, and across different species they have an exceptional breadth in diet, a result of their long-term adaptation to a wide variety of environments and ecological niches. These niches also have specific pathogen profiles which are likely to have shaped the evolution of the bat TLRs in an order-specific manner.

Marina Escalera-Zamudio
Regrettably, the paper published by John Wiley & Sons, Inc. is copyright protected and, although the abstract is available online, permission to reprint it is closely guarded. If I obtain this permission I will reprint it here. Meanwhile one can only hope for the day when all scientific research is freely available and accessible to all.

What this finding suggests is an answer to the problem of why bats seem to act as a reservoir species for some pathogens like rabies which can be t***smitted by a bat bite but from which bats appear to be immune. Bats have also recently been implicated as a reservoir species for ebola.

So, from an intelligent design perspective, it's hard not to conclude that such an intelligent designer is not favouring bats by designing a superior i****e s****m for them but deliberately withholding this new, improved design from other mammals, including its supposed favourite species, and what it created all the others for, humans.

Would any creationist like to deal with this question, or is it to be the usual avoidance of these difficult questions yet again whilst pretending the intelligent design notion is the best available explanation of the way things are?

Reference:
Escalera-Zamudio, M., Zepeda-Mendoza, M. L., Loza-Rubio, E., Rojas-Anaya, E., Méndez-Ojeda, M. L., Arias, C. F. and Greenwood, A. D. (2015), The evolution of bat nucleic acid-sensing Toll-like receptors. Mol Ecol, 24: 5899–5909. doi:10.1111/mec.13431

Unlike those attempting to discount the beliefs of others, I don't pretend to have all of the answers. You pull up the characteristics of one species and trumpet its' uniqueness without crediting the fact that many other animals have unique abilities, immunities or traits that would appear to make it better than others. What does it say that cockroaches are one of the only living things that can survive a nuclear bomb? Does that prove that it is superior?

If you believe that I or others who believe that I do are avoiding your question, it may well be that there is no reasonable response to your narrow, misguided approach to an unanswerable question. You make the common, but incorrect conclusion that God must not exist unless you can prove it with physical evidence. What you miss is that God is a Spiritual being that defies definition in the physical terms that we can understand. Understand that the concept of God is beyond physical description and proof and when you finally grasp that point, you will see how your question is baseless.

Isn't God magnificent that He would create such a wonderful creature as a bat? That He would bestow such a phenomenal survival mechanism upon a critter that cannot research its own particular anatomy, understand its biological functions, comprehend the concept of disease, look out for its own health, train its own doctors, manufacture medicines, build hospitals, and devise its own healthcare program? God loves all creatures that cannot reason, think logically, make informed choices, and enjoy a good beer.

Whoever Zamudio is, right up front, he or she disqualified this entire question with condescension. The following turns of phrase say it all.

"hypothetical intelligent designer"
"supposed intelligent designer"
"a perfect and maximally benevolent designer"

There is a good reason why God gave the bat such an i****e s****m and it has nothing whatsoever to do with who He "likes" better. Most species of bats eat insects and not much else, if anything, and in order to survive what they might digest, they should have a formidable i****e s****m.

The argument that the "hypothetical intelligent designer" might favor bats over humans because of this one feature is truly shallow, unoriginal and amateurish at best. One might call it "secular speculation" generated to project contempt.

Maybe Escalera Zamudio could explain why bats have long been associated with the dark side of life, like Halloween. Is it only because they come out at night to hunt? Or is there something more sinister and mysterious about them? Like maybe the Vampire Bat that feeds only on blood and they do this only in the darkest hours of the night. Now that little feller is special.

Escalera Zamudio has bats in her belfry.

Newly Discovered Human Brain Genes Are Bad News for Evolution

Did the human brain evolve from an ape-like brain? Two new reports describe four human genes named SRGAP2A, SRGAP2B, SRGAP2C, and SRGAP2D, which are located in three completely separate regions on c********e number 1.1 They appear to play an important role in brain development.2 Perhaps the most striking discovery is that three of the four genes (SRGAP2B, SRGAP2C, and SRGAP2D) are completely unique to humans and found in no other mammal species, not even apes.

While each of the genes share some regions of similarity, they are all clearly unique in their overall structure and function when compared to each other. Evolutionists claim that an original version of the SRGAP2 gene inherited from an ape-like ancestor was somehow duplicated, moved to completely different areas of c********e 1, and then altered for new functions. This supposedly occurred several times in the distant past after humans diverged from an imaginary ancestor in common with chimps.

But this story now wields major problems. First, when compared to each other, the SRGAP2 gene locations on c********e 1 are each very unique in their protein coding arrangement and structure. The genes do not look duplicated at all. The burden of proof is on the evolutionary paradigm, which must explain how a supposed ancestral gene was duplicated, spliced into different locations on the c********e, then precisely rearranged and altered with new functions—all without disrupting the then-existing ape brain and all by accidental mutations.

The second problem has to do with the exact location of the B, C, and D versions of SRGAP2. They flank the c********e’s centromere, which is a specialized portion of the c********e, often near the center, that is important for many cell nucleus processes, including cell division and chromatin architecture.3 As such, these two regions near the centromere are incredibly stable and mutation-free due to an extreme lack of recombination. There is no precedent for duplicated genes even being able to jump into these super-stable sequences, much less reorganizing themselves afterwards.

The fact that three newly discovered genes that are completely unique to humans and found in no other known mammal species has been cleverly obfuscated in evolutionary verbiage. Clearly this is yet another major genetic discovery that invalidates human evolution and shows that we are created uniquely "in the image of God" as the book of Genesis teaches.

http://rosarubicondior.blogspot.com/



FRIDAY, 27 NOVEMBER 2015

Does God Like Bats But H**e The Rest of Us?
The evolution of bat nucleic acid-sensing Toll-like receptors - Escalera-Zamudio - 2015 - Molecular Ecology - Wiley Online Library

Here is today's embarrassing question for creationists. Does your hypothetical intelligent designer favour bats and h**e the rest of us?

The reason you need to answer this is because a paper published today shows that bats have a better i****e s****m than other mammals. I'm assuming that creationists only believe in one intelligent designer and not millions of competing intelligent designers all closely guarding their designs and refusing to share.

So, if this supposed intelligent designer can design a better i****e s****m for bats, why did it design a lesser one for the rest of us? Of course, this ignores considerations about why an i****e s****m is needed at all and why a benevolent god would have designed parasites from which an i****e s****m tries to protect us but that's a different issue. I have never managed to find a creationist with the honesty, integrity and courage to tackle the question of there parasites fit in a perfect world designed by a perfect and maximally benevolent designer so I doubt I'll get one now.

So, let's just concentrate on why this supposed designer gave bats a better i****e s****m.

The paper was published in Molecular Ecology by an international team lead by Marina Escalera-Zamudio from the Department of Wildlife Diseases, Leibniz Institute for Zoo and Wildlife Research, Berlin, Germany. It shows that bats have a much more efficient system of Toll-like Receptors (TLRs). TLRs are considered to be the first-line defense against pathogens and recognise a wide range of pathogenic molecular signatures.

Bats exhibit traits unique amongst mammals, such as flight, and across different species they have an exceptional breadth in diet, a result of their long-term adaptation to a wide variety of environments and ecological niches. These niches also have specific pathogen profiles which are likely to have shaped the evolution of the bat TLRs in an order-specific manner.

Marina Escalera-Zamudio
Regrettably, the paper published by John Wiley & Sons, Inc. is copyright protected and, although the abstract is available online, permission to reprint it is closely guarded. If I obtain this permission I will reprint it here. Meanwhile one can only hope for the day when all scientific research is freely available and accessible to all.

What this finding suggests is an answer to the problem of why bats seem to act as a reservoir species for some pathogens like rabies which can be t***smitted by a bat bite but from which bats appear to be immune. Bats have also recently been implicated as a reservoir species for ebola.

So, from an intelligent design perspective, it's hard not to conclude that such an intelligent designer is not favouring bats by designing a superior i****e s****m for them but deliberately withholding this new, improved design from other mammals, including its supposed favourite species, and what it created all the others for, humans.

Would any creationist like to deal with this question, or is it to be the usual avoidance of these difficult questions yet again whilst pretending the intelligent design notion is the best available explanation of the way things are?

Reference:
Escalera-Zamudio, M., Zepeda-Mendoza, M. L., Loza-Rubio, E., Rojas-Anaya, E., Méndez-Ojeda, M. L., Arias, C. F. and Greenwood, A. D. (2015), The evolution of bat nucleic acid-sensing Toll-like receptors. Mol Ecol, 24: 5899–5909. doi:10.1111/mec.13431