You keep saying that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."
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 ...
"The work also confirms an idea first floated in an 1858 essay by Alfred Wallace, who along with Charles Darwin co-discovered the theory of evolution. Wallace had suspected that certain systems undergoing natural selection can adjust their evolutionary course in a manner "exactly like that of the centrifugal governor of the steam engine, which checks and corrects any irregularities almost before they become evident." In Wallace's time, the steam engine operating with a centrifugal governor was one of the only examples of what is now referred to as feedback control. Examples abound, however, in modern technology, including cruise control in autos and thermostats in homes and offices."
Keep mining those molehills, and claiming any criticism is projection, then.
The error in your gleeful analysis is the idea that scientists would "look bad" if a science-based, fact-based theory somehow replaced TToE. If there is a better theory out there that explains the billions of data points kgathered to date, any scientist worth his salt will accept it (given the rigorous analysis required by modern scientific methods -- anyone remember "cold fusuion?").
I am sure supporters of Newtonian Physics felt a little silly when Einstein physics was accepted as the new paradigm.
This "finding" 1) doesn't say what the OP says it says; 2) does zero to suggest or buttress an ID or Creationist view of evolution.
That is correct. ID and Creationism cannot be part of science until you can explain how they work and how those workings can be used to establish a reproducible and predictable result.
As a follow-up, can you name any current scientific endeavor or discovery that does NOT operate from an "a priori" assumption that all of nature has standard and rigorous rules that are predictable and discoverable? Just one, which has become a physical, tangible product or discovery.
You keep saying that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."
Perfect! ;)
==For the creationists, it takes us one step closer to a way where the evolutionists could be correct about common descent without overthrowing the unique work of a creator.
Not a problem. The fossil record clearly indicates that plants and animals reproduce after their kind, just as the Bible describes.
It's only logical that a piece of machinery as complex as DNA wound on a spindle would have some super computers around to tell it what to do in case of changed circumstances.
Now, when did DNA get that idea first? I figure at least 1 to the 500th power universes ago.
They are called the natural sciences for a reason, Dan. The observable is what the natural sciences have to work with. That is the ‘a priori’ you speak of, and that is as it should be.
How would a supernatural scientist be able to demonstrate, using the scientific method (would they even use the scientific method?), that it was the Christian God who created the universe instead of the Flying Spaghetti Monster? A defender of the FSM theology could quite simply attribute all of the actions to the FSM that you attribute to the Christian God, and the argument would be very short:
“yes it is”
“no it isn’t”
This is a good example of how philosophical naturalism has destroyed critical-thinking skills in 'science'. It is assumed even though no one can explain how it 'works'. It is accepted even though these non-existent 'workings' are not reproducible or predictable.
Typically, what follows is an appeal to observations that are consistent with both creation and evolution along with the fallacy of affirming the consequent resolved exclusively in favor of evolution.
"Kind" is not a scientific term. And the meaning in the Bible has become more fuzzy as the Bible is translated into different languages,
Can you please describe what you mean by "kind" -- starting with its use in the original language of the Bible and tracing its etymology to the current colloquial use of the word and any potential rigorous scientific application?
Interesting -- can you please answer the question? Please provide a single modern mechanism that relies on "non-naturalism."
Uh, no. That is the fallacy of equivocation where the existence of natural physical laws is equated to philsophical naturalism.
"A defender of the FSM theology could quite simply attribute all of the actions to the FSM that you attribute to the Christian God, and the argument would be very short: “yes it is” “no it isn’t”"
Likewise, a defender of philosophical naturalism would simply attribute all of the actions to undiscovered natural phenomena and the argument would be very short: "yes it is", "no it isn't"
Did I mention that philosophical naturalism destroys critical-thinking ability?
How totally strange.
This particular feature clearly demonstrates that there's some serious engineering behind our particular form of life.
One of the practical matters this discovery resolves is the question of how it is mammals of every species get along with essentially the same genes, arranged in the same sequence, over geologic spans of time.
Not exactly sure I can go along with the idea that the primary loci of these little critters is the mitochondria but there you have it.
Well, so much for the primacy of the nuclei!
==Is there something in the article that states that 1) this is what you call “directed mutation” and 2) that there is scientific proof of an intelligent designer or creator involved in the process?
Highlighted answer to #1: “Our new theory extends Darwin’s model, demonstrating how organisms can subtly direct aspects of their own evolution to create order out of randomness.”
#2: Directed mutation implies a designer. Now the Evos will have to work overtime to convince the public that this too is the product of a process that merely gives the “appearance of design.” LOL
Interesting. Pointing out the logical fallacies you commit in support of your personal philosophical worldview has no impact on your thought processes.
Did I mention how the belief in philosophical naturalism destroys critical-thinking skills?
Even when the so-called “scientists” see, they don’t believe.
You're wrong. Many people (scientists included) wouldn't believe in God under any circumstances. In fact, the only thing that would convince most modern materialists that God exists is if He Himself appeared here on Earth, working miracles and proclaiming His authorship of all reality.
Oh, wait -- He DID that. And yet some still don't believe...
Buy a clue. Start with "allele."
Buy a second clue. Notice that small genetic differences can make large differences in morphology.
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.