Skip to comments.Evolution's new wrinkle: Proteins with cruise control provide new perspective (DIRECTED MUTATION!)
Posted on 11/25/2008 10:22:41 AM PST by GodGunsGuts
click here to read article
Mutation is not evolution.
Read the article.
I want protiens to be used in DIRECTED MUNITIONS.
“Intelligent design” is not and has nothing to do with science.
Sounds like that was Slick Willy’s job.
Keep mining those molehills.
No, but if evolution is to happen, something must change.
Thanks for the ping!
Check out my missile.
“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?
“We have no idea how this could have happened, but we must dogmatically deny any possible of intelligent design.”
==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.
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.
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.
“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 alongDIRECTED 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.
It's all so simple, really.
“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...”
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.
"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.