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

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 361-365 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]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 361-365 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