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.
"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."
==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 isnt"
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
So, you denounce your own source of the post?
What we have here is a "process" that serves to provide statistical control of genetic quality.
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.
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?
“Dark Energy” is, as it were, non-materialistic!