Posted on 11/25/2008 10:22:41 AM PST by GodGunsGuts
A team of Princeton University scientists has discovered that chains of proteins found in most living organisms act like adaptive machines, possessing the ability to control their own evolution.
The scientists do not know how the cellular machinery guiding this process may have originated, but they emphatically said it does not buttress the case for intelligent design, a controversial notion that posits the existence of a creator responsible for complexity in nature...
(Excerpt) Read more at princeton.edu ...
Deal with the reality of what you say, not what you pretend doesn't exist because you don't say it and we can have a discussion.
Jeez dude. Could you not figure that one out?
Well, don't ask me why bring it up when I was responding to your post. I was trying to help you understand what a kind is.
"Ducking and weaving and positing a bunch of things that have nothing to do with the questions I ask is not "pointing out fallacies" -- it is merely building strawmen and then lighting them."
The points I make have everything to do with the question you asked. Pretending they don't merely reinforces the logical fallacies your question is based on. You are the one building castles in the air and calling it a strawman when someone points that out.
"My question (still unanswered) was very simple -- it didn't need pph after pph of philosophical meanderings. I am sure you enjoyed posting them but they are just evading the issue."
Assuming that the basis for your beliefs is true 'a priori' and then arguing from there is merely truth by definition. That doesn't help you understand that you are basing your beliefs on 'a priori' assumptions, logical fallacies and non sequiturs. My points are not philosophical meanderings. Your beliefs are based on an 'a priori' acceptance of philosophical naturalism and we cannot have a discussion until you recognize that fact. Once you recognize that fact, the entire nature of the discussion changes to real issues, not arguments over defined truths as you now insist upon.
You seem to be saying you have sex with your mother. Deal with the reality of what you say, not what you pretend doesn’t exist because you don’t say it and we can have a discussion.
==If there are such limits, how can you prove they are intelligently designed?
If scientists discover such limits, it would go done as yet another correct prediction of Creation Science.
==All life obeys God’s laws of chemistry and physics.
Actually, no it doesn’t. I don’t have time to go into it right now. But I will return to demonstrate that you have no idea what you’re talking about (again).
Just so we understand each other, you are asserting that you can make up things I never said and continue the discussion as if I said them.
Does that really make sense to you?
Silly boy. Life obeys GGG laws, and HIV is harmless, and gold is selling for $1600 (and has been since early this year).
Repeating yourself provides no heft to your attempt at an argument. Stating "you have no critical thinking skills" pretty much says "I have no idea what I am talking about, but I'll put it on you."
Science, in its current state merely is. I asked a simple yes/no question. You refuse to answer it.
This thread has degenerated into you just repeating yourself in your assertions of a bunch of gobbledygook and saying "logical fallacies" a lot (unfounded, as anyone who knows what logical fallacies really are can see).
Since we aren't even discussing the OP anymore and you continue to refuse to answer my very simple question, I am outta here.
No, he's right. You are not in a position to lecture anyone about critical thinking.
You can start by explaining how this new find violates the laws of physics.
How so?
This mechanism in the mitochrondria pretty obviously PUTS A STOP to evolution. Whatever demigods there might be driving lifeforms, think of this one as a rather determined atheist.
The problem with mitochondria is that they have a fundamental purpose ~ providing chemical energy for the use of the cell as a whole. If they fail in their purpose the cell dies.
Obviously it is to the advantage of the cell that the mitochondria's DNA be kept in working order ~ and to the degree any part of the mitochondrial genome is critical to the fundamental purpose, this directed process makes darned sure it stays on track ~ with no experiments.
This has been going on ever since nucleated cells came along.
I'd suggest the biological supercomputer behind this directed process KNOWS all about evolution and wants no part of that game. If I am correct a myriad of other similar processes will be found throughout nucleated cells, and all will serve to make sure critical change doesn't happen.
As I predicted, you could NOT define ID. Color me surprised.
I’ll agree to disagree with you on the Einstein replacement issue. My opinion is that Eistein expanded Newtonian physics into the extremes where it was already known that you could not apply straight Newtonian physics. I suppose one can argue that since Newtonian physics breaks done at the atomic level, Eistien replaced that. If that’s how one views it, then we will have someone else come along and replace Eisteinian (haha new word) physics at the sub-atomic level with something that is more accurate in describing what is going on and how it works. I prefer to use the word expanded versus replaced.
I understand that you believe that every living organism designed itself through “Natural Selection.” It does not matter how many engineered systems exist within a living organism, nor how complex that these systems are, nor does it matter that non-intelligence “guided” the encoding and the building of said systems within a living organism via evolution. Nor does it ever matter how many times we find biological sub-systems operating with the appearance of intelligence and/or actually making decisions when processing something within the living organism. It is what it is. Life designed itself through many generations/descendants and it continues to do so through today and beyond. Nothing is guiding it nor propelling it, it just is.
As I’ve stated before, SETI is NOT science by an evolutionist’s definition. Any evolutionist who believes SETI is science doesn’t understand what SETI is, is being intellectually dishonest, and/or believes that Probability Theory can NEVER (nor will ever) be applied to living organisms and their sub-systems in the context of “Natural Selection” events.
In my job, I write code that generates other code. So does my body. It’s just that my body did it without any guiding intellegence at all.
Give 'em some time. This is NOT a casual discovery, and I suspect it didn't just leap up and bite 'em in the tail ~ they were LOOKING FOR IT.
Several major questions that have to be addressed are about the persistence of coding (in genes or other DNA) over geologic spans of time. This is different than "change" ~ it's "no change", and there's gotta' be something in there preventing change. This is the first one they've discovered.
Another deal regards the typical number of genes found in a typical class. You just know someone is working on his Nobel Prize digging up that activity.
Life obeys physics and chemistry, and is dependent upon electromagnetic interactions in order to perform its myriad tasks.
At the same time you are no doubt a believer in "Natural Selection" ~ which, as you know, is clearly a demigod that acts in strange and magical ways not reducible to mathematical certainty.
You guys are ALL creationists from my point of view.
LOL! Welcome to over a decade ago when this was well known among anybody knowledgeable on the subject. Welcome to ironclad DNA sequence data that conclusively shows that humans and chimps are more similar to each other than either is to a gorilla.
He has promised me to “look into it” and get back to me about how I am wrong, or if correct, how that data supports Creationism after all.
When all you have is a hammer, problems look like nails.
Who mentioned SETI?
Are you sure you have pinged the right person?
So, rather than ask inane quesitons, please answer my question. Regress the cause back to the point just prior to the big bang. Take us one step back. You said you could infinitly regress everthing, so just take the one step prior to the big bang. I am interested in your answer. Please use scientific method and be consistent with naturalistic materialism which all evolutionists must be.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.