Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Evolution's new wrinkle: Proteins with cruise control provide new perspective (DIRECTED MUTATION!)
Princeton University ^ | November 10, 2008 | Kitta MacPherson

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 ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Miscellaneous; News/Current Events; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: creation; crevo; directedmutation; evolution; intelligentdesign
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 351-365 next last
The scientists have no clue how the cellular machinery guides these DIRECTED mutations, and yet they emphatically rule out Intelligent Design. If ever there was a statement that proves that science has been hijacked by materialist relgion, this is it!
1 posted on 11/25/2008 10:22:42 AM PST by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Mutation is not evolution.


2 posted on 11/25/2008 10:24:59 AM PST by Para-Ord.45
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: metmom; DaveLoneRanger; editor-surveyor; betty boop; Alamo-Girl; MrB; GourmetDan; Fichori; ...

ping!


3 posted on 11/25/2008 10:27:49 AM PST by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Para-Ord.45

Read the article.


4 posted on 11/25/2008 10:28:12 AM PST by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

I want protiens to be used in DIRECTED MUNITIONS.


5 posted on 11/25/2008 10:31:35 AM PST by Lazamataz (Proud author of abstract semi-religious dogmatic hoooey with a decidedly fring feel.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

“Intelligent design” is not and has nothing to do with science.


6 posted on 11/25/2008 10:31:47 AM PST by gracesdad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz

Sounds like that was Slick Willy’s job.


7 posted on 11/25/2008 10:32:40 AM PST by LuxMaker (The Constitution is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, Thomas J 1819)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
If ever there was a statement that proves that science has been hijacked by materialist relgion, this is it!

Keep mining those molehills.

8 posted on 11/25/2008 10:33:27 AM PST by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Para-Ord.45
Mutation is not evolution.

No, but if evolution is to happen, something must change.

9 posted on 11/25/2008 10:34:20 AM PST by RightWhale (Exxon Suxx)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Thanks for the ping!


10 posted on 11/25/2008 10:35:20 AM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: LuxMaker
Hey baby.

Check out my missile.


11 posted on 11/25/2008 10:36:36 AM PST by Lazamataz (Proud author of abstract semi-religious dogmatic hoooey with a decidedly fring feel.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

“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...”

Anyone else see the absurdity in this statement?

Translation:
“We have no idea how this could have happened, but we must dogmatically deny any possible of intelligent design.”


12 posted on 11/25/2008 10:36:52 AM PST by Elpasser
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic

==Keep mining those molehills.

Actually, neo-Darwinism is the molehill. And it is being completely buried by a mountain of scientific falsification. No small part of that mountain is the discovery of what Creation and ID scientists have been predicting all along—DIRECTED MUTATION! Once word of this gets out, neo-Darwinism will be a laughing stock before the next decade is through.


13 posted on 11/25/2008 10:40:23 AM PST by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

If you will read the article carefully, it does not say the scientists “emphatically ruled out Intelligent Design.” They said that this particular finding is not supportive.

That said, ID advocates continue to make a farce of their concept by failing to subject their idea to the scientific method. I’ve yet to see them publish an experiment based on a falsifiable hypothesis.

They are all talk. Talk that consists of trying to debunk the other guy does not amount to a scientific theory.


14 posted on 11/25/2008 10:44:09 AM PST by freespirited (Honk to indict the MSM for treason.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

I love it. It simultaneously makes creationists and evolutionists look bad. For evolutionists they now must explain not only the development of functional systems that are adaptive but explain the development of guide processes that can’t be adaptive in the generation they appear.

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.

As a skeptic, its just so fun to watch.


15 posted on 11/25/2008 10:44:26 AM PST by Rippin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

“Actually, neo-Darwinism is the molehill. And it is being completely buried by a mountain of scientific falsification. No small part of that mountain is the discovery of what Creation and ID scientists have been predicting all along—DIRECTED MUTATION! Once word of this gets out, neo-Darwinism will be a laughing stock before the next decade is through.”

There is no conspiracy to keep these things secret. The problem is science is just not a big topic in the news and never garners big headlines, period.

Besides the only people who have any stock in keeping Darwinism afloat would be the ones who staked their career on it. The rest would go where the data leads them, the younger generation of academics without a lifetime of research to want to keep valid.


16 posted on 11/25/2008 10:45:33 AM PST by Jmerzio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Para-Ord.45
God spoke everything into existence. Science tries to understand how.

It's all so simple, really.

17 posted on 11/25/2008 10:46:07 AM PST by bubbacluck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

“A team of Princeton University scientists has discovered a tiny signature, a line of letters written out in atoms in the Hebrew language, etched upon a molecule of DNA that lies at the core of all living things. When translated, the nano-script reads ‘Hi! I made this. Then again, I made everything. You can stop wondering now — it was Me all along. Love, Yahweh (aka God)’.

“The scientists do not know how the writing 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...”


18 posted on 11/25/2008 10:57:40 AM PST by B-Chan (Catholic. Monarchist. Texan. Any questions?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

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?

You are pretty good at highlighting, so please highlight the specific passages.


19 posted on 11/25/2008 11:01:11 AM PST by freedumb2003 (Der neuen Fuhrer: AKA the Murdering Messiah: Keep your power dry, folks)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Elpasser
"“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...”"

"Anyone else see the absurdity in this statement?"

Yes, it's based on the 'a priori' assumption of philosophical naturalism where only a material, natural origin is allowed for everything and anything that exists. This is then 'confirmed' post hoc through the fallacy of 'affirming the consequent'.

It's a nice little bit of circular-thinking that underlies all 'scientific' theory. Basically, any theory that isn't based on the 'a priori' assumption of philosophical naturalism cannot be 'scientific' by definition.

The rationale for assuming philosophical naturalism 'a priori' is typically supported by the fallacy of equivocating the existence of natural physical laws with philosophical naturalism. That or the fallacy of 'appeal to consequences of a belief'.

In summary, they've already decided beforehand that nothing supports intelligent design and then proclaim so at every opportunity no matter how complex and improbable the reality.

20 posted on 11/25/2008 11:06:41 AM PST by GourmetDan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
You are taken a poorly chosen word out of a news story to make a point that isn't there. This is not some mystical external control over mutation. It's a feedback mechanism. Feedback mechanisms are abundant in nature.

"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."

21 posted on 11/25/2008 11:07:42 AM PST by mlo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Keep mining those molehills, and claiming any criticism is projection, then.


22 posted on 11/25/2008 11:08:00 AM PST by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Rippin
I love it. It simultaneously makes creationists and evolutionists look bad. For evolutionists they now must explain not only the development of functional systems that are adaptive but explain the development of guide processes that can’t be adaptive in the generation they appear.

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.

23 posted on 11/25/2008 11:08:03 AM PST by freedumb2003 (Der neuen Fuhrer: AKA the Murdering Messiah: Keep your power dry, folks)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: GourmetDan
Basically, any theory that isn't based on the 'a priori' assumption of philosophical naturalism cannot be 'scientific' by definition.

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.

24 posted on 11/25/2008 11:10:24 AM PST by freedumb2003 (Der neuen Fuhrer: AKA the Murdering Messiah: Keep your power dry, folks)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: GourmetDan
Basically, any theory that isn't based on the 'a priori' assumption of philosophical naturalism cannot be 'scientific' by definition

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.

25 posted on 11/25/2008 11:14:16 AM PST by freedumb2003 (Der neuen Fuhrer: AKA the Murdering Messiah: Keep your power dry, folks)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003
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.

You keep saying that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

26 posted on 11/25/2008 11:16:07 AM PST by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: js1138

Perfect! ;)


27 posted on 11/25/2008 11:19:51 AM PST by freedumb2003 (Der neuen Fuhrer: AKA the Murdering Messiah: Keep your power dry, folks)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Rippin

==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.


28 posted on 11/25/2008 11:28:42 AM PST by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
This process has been predicted ~ years ago!

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.

29 posted on 11/25/2008 11:38:36 AM PST by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GourmetDan

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”


30 posted on 11/25/2008 11:42:43 AM PST by dmz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003
"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."

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.

31 posted on 11/25/2008 11:43:14 AM PST by GourmetDan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
Not a problem. The fossil record clearly indicates that plants and animals reproduce after their kind, just as the Bible describes.

"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?

32 posted on 11/25/2008 11:43:33 AM PST by freedumb2003 (Der neuen Fuhrer: AKA the Murdering Messiah: Keep your power dry, folks)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: GourmetDan
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.

Interesting -- can you please answer the question? Please provide a single modern mechanism that relies on "non-naturalism."

33 posted on 11/25/2008 11:45:20 AM PST by freedumb2003 (Der neuen Fuhrer: AKA the Murdering Messiah: Keep your power dry, folks)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: dmz
"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."

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?

34 posted on 11/25/2008 11:46:44 AM PST by GourmetDan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: gracesdad
So, there you are going about the business of living using the latest and greatest in DNA based systems designed in the geneshops of Galacticor 9 and you can tell us this has nothing to do with science.

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!

35 posted on 11/25/2008 11:49:25 AM PST by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003

==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


36 posted on 11/25/2008 11:50:57 AM PST by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003
"Interesting -- can you please answer the question? Please provide a single modern mechanism that relies on "non-naturalism."

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?

37 posted on 11/25/2008 11:53:49 AM PST by GourmetDan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Even when the so-called “scientists” see, they don’t believe.


38 posted on 11/25/2008 11:54:18 AM PST by Arcy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003
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

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...

39 posted on 11/25/2008 11:54:21 AM PST by B-Chan (Catholic. Monarchist. Texan. Any questions?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah
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.

Buy a clue. Start with "allele."

Buy a second clue. Notice that small genetic differences can make large differences in morphology.

40 posted on 11/25/2008 11:54:29 AM PST by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003
"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."

That is the fallacy of equivocating the existence of natural physical laws with the assumption of philosophical naturalism and there are absolutely no exceptions to it.

This does not make it any less a fallacy, however.

41 posted on 11/25/2008 11:56:07 AM PST by GourmetDan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
You recall my response to the issue of "randomness in evolution" yesterday the simple observation W. Edwards Demming had? That was that given a long enough period of time and enough samples any sampling scheme will appear to approach randomness.

That's the problem we have with digging up fossils. We have samples we've obtained going back half a billion years (for the big stuff) from a broad area (surface of the Earth), so whatever we have at hand will appear to approach randomness.

We delude ourselves into thinking the consequence, today's biota, are actually the result of random rather than "directed" processes.

That was yesterday's prediction ~ and today we find a "directed" process right there in the mitochondria (where I really never expected we'd find it).

Who or what came up with the "process" is a question still to be answered, but the "process" exists.

All of evolutionary theory is turned on its head. Unfortunately the writer of the review seems to be still stuck in time ~ hence references to fitness, et al.

42 posted on 11/25/2008 11:57:09 AM PST by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: GourmetDan

So give us an example in the history of science in which the assumption of supernatural causation has led to useful scientific discoveries of principals.


43 posted on 11/25/2008 11:58:22 AM PST by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003
Please provide a single modern mechanism that relies on "non-naturalism."

Consciousness -- the mind, the sum, the individual awareness that lies at the core of every human being. No one can even define it, much less offer a naturalistic theory of its nature. Nowadays, many materialists simply dodge the question by denying that individual consciousness exists.

But, deep down inside, they all know it's there.

44 posted on 11/25/2008 11:58:47 AM PST by B-Chan (Catholic. Monarchist. Texan. Any questions?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: GourmetDan
. Pointing out the logical fallacies you commit in support of your personal philosophical worldview has no impact on your thought processes.

I ask again -- please specifically describe a single scientific finding or physical device that is non-materialistic. Your wordplay is, I am sure, gratifying to some. I asked a specific question: please answer it.

45 posted on 11/25/2008 11:59:29 AM PST by freedumb2003 (Der neuen Fuhrer: AKA the Murdering Messiah: Keep your power dry, folks)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah
All of evolutionary theory is turned on its head. Unfortunately the writer of the review seems to be still stuck in time ~ hence references to fitness, et al.

So, you denounce your own source of the post?

46 posted on 11/25/2008 12:00:28 PM PST by freedumb2003 (Der neuen Fuhrer: AKA the Murdering Messiah: Keep your power dry, folks)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: js1138
Still, virtually unlimited variation in some basepairs makes little or no difference ~ it depends on which basepairs are flipped (e.g. there's one flip that gives you primal dwarfism, and, to date, it's the only single basepair flip known to provide major changes).

What we have here is a "process" that serves to provide statistical control of genetic quality.

47 posted on 11/25/2008 12:00:55 PM PST by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003
The piece is written by someone reporting on the work of other people. We need to see the original research ~ what we have here is an opinionated piece where the writer is still trying to stuff his preconceived notions into the framework of a new discovery.

I liked the part where the writer did let us know that the researchers were anxious to find other such processes going on elsewhere in the biologic machinery.

48 posted on 11/25/2008 12:03:31 PM PST by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: js1138
"So give us an example in the history of science in which the assumption of supernatural causation has led to useful scientific discoveries of principals."

Here we see how firmly the fallacy of equivocating the existence of natural physical laws with philosophical naturalism is embedded in the thinking of naturalists. While it is unavoidably a philosophical decision, adherents are totally unable to recognize it and use it to support their belief simply because they have no other support and refuse to admit their critical-thinking error.

Did I mention how belief in philosophical naturalism destroys critical-thinking ability?

49 posted on 11/25/2008 12:04:13 PM PST by GourmetDan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003

“Dark Energy” is, as it were, non-materialistic!


50 posted on 11/25/2008 12:04:40 PM PST by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 351-365 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson