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 previous 1-50 ... 101-150151-200201-250 ... 351-365 next last
To: GodGunsGuts
All life violates the laws of chemistry and physics.

You can start by explaining how this new find violates the laws of physics.

151 posted on 11/25/2008 4:05:02 PM PST by Moonman62 (The issue of whether cheap labor makes America great should have been settled by the Civil War.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
"All life violates the laws of chemistry and physics."

How so?

152 posted on 11/25/2008 4:05:18 PM PST by mlo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: mlo
Natural selection is simply a "demigod". It's postulated as a mechanism whereby change can move in the obvious direction of greater complexity and sophistication (presuming being able to think is an improvement of course).

This mechanism in the mitochrondria pretty obviously PUTS A STOP to evolution. Whatever demigods there might be driving lifeforms, think of this one as a rather determined atheist.

The problem with mitochondria is that they have a fundamental purpose ~ providing chemical energy for the use of the cell as a whole. If they fail in their purpose the cell dies.

Obviously it is to the advantage of the cell that the mitochondria's DNA be kept in working order ~ and to the degree any part of the mitochondrial genome is critical to the fundamental purpose, this directed process makes darned sure it stays on track ~ with no experiments.

This has been going on ever since nucleated cells came along.

I'd suggest the biological supercomputer behind this directed process KNOWS all about evolution and wants no part of that game. If I am correct a myriad of other similar processes will be found throughout nucleated cells, and all will serve to make sure critical change doesn't happen.

153 posted on 11/25/2008 4:18:30 PM PST by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003

As I predicted, you could NOT define ID. Color me surprised.

I’ll agree to disagree with you on the Einstein replacement issue. My opinion is that Eistein expanded Newtonian physics into the extremes where it was already known that you could not apply straight Newtonian physics. I suppose one can argue that since Newtonian physics breaks done at the atomic level, Eistien replaced that. If that’s how one views it, then we will have someone else come along and replace Eisteinian (haha new word) physics at the sub-atomic level with something that is more accurate in describing what is going on and how it works. I prefer to use the word expanded versus replaced.

I understand that you believe that every living organism designed itself through “Natural Selection.” It does not matter how many engineered systems exist within a living organism, nor how complex that these systems are, nor does it matter that non-intelligence “guided” the encoding and the building of said systems within a living organism via evolution. Nor does it ever matter how many times we find biological sub-systems operating with the appearance of intelligence and/or actually making decisions when processing something within the living organism. It is what it is. Life designed itself through many generations/descendants and it continues to do so through today and beyond. Nothing is guiding it nor propelling it, it just is.

As I’ve stated before, SETI is NOT science by an evolutionist’s definition. Any evolutionist who believes SETI is science doesn’t understand what SETI is, is being intellectually dishonest, and/or believes that Probability Theory can NEVER (nor will ever) be applied to living organisms and their sub-systems in the context of “Natural Selection” events.

In my job, I write code that generates other code. So does my body. It’s just that my body did it without any guiding intellegence at all.


154 posted on 11/25/2008 4:19:05 PM PST by Diplomat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman
BTW, the researchers found a process ~ they suggest it may be a feedback loop of some sort ~ but, then again, it may be something else.

Give 'em some time. This is NOT a casual discovery, and I suspect it didn't just leap up and bite 'em in the tail ~ they were LOOKING FOR IT.

Several major questions that have to be addressed are about the persistence of coding (in genes or other DNA) over geologic spans of time. This is different than "change" ~ it's "no change", and there's gotta' be something in there preventing change. This is the first one they've discovered.

Another deal regards the typical number of genes found in a typical class. You just know someone is working on his Nobel Prize digging up that activity.

155 posted on 11/25/2008 4:26:56 PM PST by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
God sure made some strange “laws” of physics and chemistry if the bacteria under my fingernail can defy those “laws”.

Life obeys physics and chemistry, and is dependent upon electromagnetic interactions in order to perform its myriad tasks.

156 posted on 11/25/2008 4:29:58 PM PST by allmendream (Wealth is EARNED not distributed.... so how could it be Redistributed?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 145 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003
BTW, you are the guy identifying "ID" as being the same as "Creationism".

At the same time you are no doubt a believer in "Natural Selection" ~ which, as you know, is clearly a demigod that acts in strange and magical ways not reducible to mathematical certainty.

You guys are ALL creationists from my point of view.

157 posted on 11/25/2008 4:32:58 PM PST by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: js1138; GodGunsGuts
Yes, I have him on another thread claiming it is a “logical impossibility” for humans and chimps to be more similar in their DNA than chimps and gorillas.

LOL! Welcome to over a decade ago when this was well known among anybody knowledgeable on the subject. Welcome to ironclad DNA sequence data that conclusively shows that humans and chimps are more similar to each other than either is to a gorilla.

He has promised me to “look into it” and get back to me about how I am wrong, or if correct, how that data supports Creationism after all.

When all you have is a hammer, problems look like nails.

158 posted on 11/25/2008 4:47:50 PM PST by allmendream (Wealth is EARNED not distributed.... so how could it be Redistributed?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 147 | View Replies]

To: Diplomat

Who mentioned SETI?

Are you sure you have pinged the right person?


159 posted on 11/25/2008 4:49:36 PM PST by freedumb2003 (Der neuen Fuhrer: AKA the Murdering Messiah: Keep your power dry, folks)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 154 | View Replies]

To: js1138
The law of causality does not say 'everything has a cause'. God is uncaused. He is eternal. He is not part of this time,space,matter, energy continuum. He is separate and distinct. The law of causality says, "Everything that comes to be has a cause."

So, rather than ask inane quesitons, please answer my question. Regress the cause back to the point just prior to the big bang. Take us one step back. You said you could infinitly regress everthing, so just take the one step prior to the big bang. I am interested in your answer. Please use scientific method and be consistent with naturalistic materialism which all evolutionists must be.

160 posted on 11/25/2008 4:54:19 PM PST by Texas Songwriter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: Texas Songwriter
God is uncaused.

Yes, when you can declare yourself the winner of a debate by definition I guess you can win. Congratulations.

161 posted on 11/25/2008 5:02:52 PM PST by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 160 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah
I agree.

This discovery does not prove--or even deal with--any particular gods or demons. It is just science making astounding progress--as usual.

162 posted on 11/25/2008 5:03:52 PM PST by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 155 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

It is sometimes known as hubris!


163 posted on 11/25/2008 5:05:19 PM PST by LiteKeeper (Beware the secularization of America; the Islamization of Eurabia)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman; dan1123
They expect their religious beliefs to be accepted uncritically.

We already kind of figured that out about you coyote, its not like its something you try to hide.

164 posted on 11/25/2008 5:06:31 PM PST by valkyry1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003

I mentioned SETI.

Is SETI science?


165 posted on 11/25/2008 5:08:09 PM PST by Diplomat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 159 | View Replies]

To: allmendream; js1138; GodGunsGuts
Hasn't this issue gotten a bit murkier lately? The current thought is that as the various Ape species branched off there was still a lot of intermittent hanky-panky going on among them over millions of years.

That way Orangutangs end up with some "code" in common with humans that the Chimps and Gorillas don't have, and vice versa.

Just one darned thing after the other Fur Shur.

Makes it very difficult to figure out how far removed we all might be ~ if, in fact, we are "removed".

Eventually someone is going to do an experiment and come up with viable cross-breeds all across the spectrum.

166 posted on 11/25/2008 5:30:27 PM PST by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 158 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah

You are nuts, you know. You are making stuff up.


167 posted on 11/25/2008 5:37:04 PM PST by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 166 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah
No, the data has continued to confirm the close relationship between humans and chimps, with gorillas and then orangs as the ‘odd men out’.

http://bioweb.uwlax.edu/bio203/s2008/ahrens_just/classification.htm

exactly as is posted on this site.

168 posted on 11/25/2008 5:49:50 PM PST by allmendream (Wealth is EARNED not distributed.... so how could it be Redistributed?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 166 | View Replies]

To: dmz
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:

OK, I'll take the bait:

The first 3 are non-falsifiable, as you claim, but require faith. However, what of the last. The very crux of Christianity, and all that goes with it, lies in this simple truth. If Christ be not raised, the Christian faith is futile, foolish, and dangerous! However, if he did raise from the dead, then his claims must be true, including the first 3. Thus, the claims of John 1:1-9, Colossians 1:16, et al must be true. The New Testament is falsifiable, then, based on historical, manuscript, and internal evidences. Now, since we all spend so much time debating Evo and Creo, we must get to the root: where did life begin, and from whence did matter come? All else is moot, for they hinge on the answer to these 2 questions.

Finally, have you seriously, and investigatively, considered the claims of Jesus? Did Jesus rise from the dead???

169 posted on 11/25/2008 5:51:29 PM PST by jimmyray
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: B-Chan
But, deep down inside, they all know it's there.

As evidenced by the fact that they know at all, and are self-aware.

170 posted on 11/25/2008 5:54:12 PM PST by jimmyray
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: allmendream

That’s “old news”. The anomalies involving humans and orangs have been known for a century or so. I thought analysis of the genomes had demonstrated the validity of the observations, PLUS, lots of on again, off again hanky panky with all three species of modern chimps, and probably with some now extinct species. In the meantime check this out (They are rioting now, and this could get to be very entertaining by the time New Years Eve comes around)

http://www.icelandtotal.com/home/vacations/special_offers/


171 posted on 11/25/2008 5:54:46 PM PST by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 168 | View Replies]

To: allmendream

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10876659


172 posted on 11/25/2008 5:58:35 PM PST by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 168 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah

Interesting link. I’m kind of curious, though, how “anomalies” noticed a hundred years before genome decoding are relevant to a current debate.


173 posted on 11/25/2008 6:00:51 PM PST by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 171 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah
A lot of sequence data has come in since 1999. The “open question” has been answered to a large extent, and their interpretation that humans and gorillas are more similar than humans and chimps is off base.

1: Hum Mutat. 2007 Feb;28(2):99-130. Links
Understanding the recent evolution of the human genome: insights from human-chimpanzee genome comparisons

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17024666?ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DiscoveryPanel.Pubmed_Discovery_RA&linkpos=4&log$=relatedreviews&logdbfrom=pubmed

174 posted on 11/25/2008 6:04:44 PM PST by allmendream (Wealth is EARNED not distributed.... so how could it be Redistributed?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 172 | View Replies]

To: allmendream
They went after a single characteristic and found the relative similarities to be different in each direction.

Hmmm?

I thought I covered myself by pointing to the geneal finding that humans and chimps (and maybe others) spent a long time developing their own species with appropriate breeding incompatibilities.

Still, we do not now have a total analysis of all the genomes in all the species in our little group.

175 posted on 11/25/2008 6:10:10 PM PST by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 174 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah
Nope, but we have human and chimp. Gorilla genome went online recently, and working on orang.
176 posted on 11/25/2008 6:12:02 PM PST by allmendream (Wealth is EARNED not distributed.... so how could it be Redistributed?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 175 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003
Intelligent Design states you have an Intelligent Designer.

Nope. Only that life was designed. Nothing in it about a designer.

Science may have puzzles before it -- CONSTANTLY. How do these puzzles somehow postulate an intelligent designer or the hand of a creator?

And the answers to those puzzles are often shocking and get pushed back by the scientific community, from Faraday's shocking notion that forces could travel in circles to Einstein's earth-shattering concept that time itself can flow at different rates. You don't seem to grasp how hard it was to accept earlier discoveries--how the very fabric of scientific understanding would come undone if science allowed for X, whether it be forces that did not move in a straight line, time not moving in lockstep everywhere, or a universe with a beginning. Now X is the idea of design. It isn't the 19th century anymore, and science isn't quibbling with what seems fairly straightforward today. We have surpassed hurdles of acceptance to the point that the idea that the subatomic universe is made up of multidimensional vibrating strings is taken seriously.

Now we are faced with a universe of finite age with fine-tuned constants, and we're in an increasingly unusual place within it, on a planet with seemingly unique properties, with an ever increasing view on the complexity of life, first to the cell, and now to a network of genetic information within DNA itself. And now with this article, we have proteins that appear to have advance knowledge of future evolution, making it increasingly difficult to explain through non-design origins.

177 posted on 11/25/2008 6:19:11 PM PST by dan1123 (If you want to find a person's true religion, ask them what makes them a "good person".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

place holder


178 posted on 11/25/2008 6:43:18 PM PST by OriginalIntent (undo all judicial activism and its results)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 177 | View Replies]

To: dan1123; freedumb2003
Gene repair mechanisms must certainly exist ~ Deinococcus radiodurans ~ a radioactivity resistant bacteria certainly demonstrates that.

Could well be the inspiration behind this latest discovery. No doubt there will be more such discoveries, and eventually someone will come up with a generalized thesis describing what's up with these proteins, and "how they know that they know".

I anxiously await the first doctoral award in this exciting new field!

179 posted on 11/25/2008 6:46:55 PM PST by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 177 | View Replies]

To: js1138
Yes, when you can declare yourself the winner of a debate by definition I guess you can win. Congratulations.

I sense some derision in your answer. Will you answer the question which I put to you? My response to you is simply following science where it takes me. Do you have a better naturalistic, materialistic answer? If you do, I am very interested in your answer.

I am not interested in 'winning a debate'. I am interested in the truth. You are a smart guy. I have read much of your musings. If you have an answer, please tell me.

It seems scientifically verifiable that there cannot be a scientific eplaination for the first state of the universe. Since it's first state cannot be explained in terms of earlier initial conditions and natural laws leading up to, it seem to to mandate an uncaused cause. Science cannot delve into this realm, don't you agree? If that is so, then a personal decision to create rather than remain in abject nothingness was made. That is, a volitional agent made a decision to create the universe. And since the creation of the uiverse transends time and space, it cannot be a physical reality. That leaves two types of things....timeless and immaterial (nonmaterial). It sounds a lot like an eternal spirit. If you can explain it otherwise, I want to know.

180 posted on 11/25/2008 6:47:16 PM PST by Texas Songwriter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 161 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003

I disagree with everything you said. I will leave it at that.


181 posted on 11/25/2008 6:53:21 PM PST by Texas Songwriter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: dan1123; freedumb2003
Gene repair mechanisms must certainly exist ~ Deinococcus radiodurans ~ a radioactivity resistant bacteria certainly demonstrates that.

Could well be the inspiration behind this latest discovery. No doubt there will be more such discoveries, and eventually someone will come up with a generalized thesis describing what's up with these proteins, and "how they know that they know".

I anxiously await the first doctoral award in this exciting new field!

182 posted on 11/25/2008 7:00:35 PM PST by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 177 | View Replies]

To: js1138
Quantum events have no cause in the classical sense. Certainly no local cause. This may or may not hold as we learn more, but the best empirical evidence is that things at the quantum level happen without cause.

Care to elucidate that point. And "non-deterministic" is not "not caused".

183 posted on 11/25/2008 7:02:32 PM PST by AndrewC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah

Intelligent design is religion. Period.


184 posted on 11/25/2008 7:06:39 PM PST by gracesdad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: gracesdad
It is? ID is simply the thesis that life here on Earth exhibits signs that it has been "designed".

There's no more to it than that.

185 posted on 11/25/2008 7:10:55 PM PST by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 184 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah
ID is simply the thesis that life here on Earth exhibits signs that it has been "designed".

There's no more to it than that.

The Discovery Institute, the leading proponent of the recent version of ID, spilled the beans in the Wedge Strategy, a document somehow leaked from their organization.

While they might now claim that ID has no relation to religion, this is what they said in the Wedge Strategy:

We are building on this momentum, broadening the wedge with a positive scientific alternative to materialistic scientific theories, which has come to be called the theory of intelligent design (ID). Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions. ...

Governing Goals

--To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies.
--To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God.

Doesn't sound much like science to me, eh?

Sounds a lot more like a stealth effort to promote religion under the guise of science, much like creation "science" prior to its unfortunate demise in the 1988 Supreme Court decision Edwards v. Aguillard.

186 posted on 11/25/2008 7:36:27 PM PST by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 185 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman; muawiyah
Sounds a lot more like a stealth effort to promote religion under the guise of science, much like creation "science" prior to its unfortunate demise in the 1988 Supreme Court decision Edwards v. Aguillard.

Whatever it sounds like to you does not make the Discovery Institute synonymous with Intelligent Design. And the fact that DI has an agenda does not make ID any more a religion than Richard Dawkins pronouncements makes his writings science.

187 posted on 11/25/2008 8:24:48 PM PST by AndrewC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 186 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah
"I'd suggest the biological supercomputer behind this directed process KNOWS all about evolution and wants no part of that game."

Are you attributing intent to a protein molecule?

188 posted on 11/25/2008 9:06:23 PM PST by mlo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 153 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah

Please, ID is creationism. Nothing else.


189 posted on 11/25/2008 9:06:32 PM PST by gracesdad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 185 | View Replies]

To: Diplomat
"I understand that you believe that every living organism designed itself through “Natural Selection.”

"Designed itself"? No, design is not the right word.

"It does not matter how many engineered systems exist within a living organism,..."

What is an "engineered system" in an organism, and how do you tell?

"...Nothing is guiding it nor propelling it, it just is."

The same thing is guiding it that always has. The competition to reproduce.

190 posted on 11/25/2008 9:11:09 PM PST by mlo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 154 | View Replies]

To: Texas Songwriter
"If that is so, then a personal decision to create rather than remain in abject nothingness was made."

No, this doesn't follow. Conceding for the sake of argument that there is a point before which science can say nothing, that just means we can know nothing about it. You can no more say that some "personal decision to create" was made, than you can talk about what came before.

Creationists would like their belief to be a default answer that takes over wherever other answers are unavailable. It doesn't work that way.

191 posted on 11/25/2008 9:22:46 PM PST by mlo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 180 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah
"ID is simply the thesis that life here on Earth exhibits signs that it has been "designed"."

How do you have design without a designer?

192 posted on 11/25/2008 9:24:17 PM PST by mlo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 185 | View Replies]

To: mlo
Who or what the "designer" might be may or may not be totally relevant.

If "we" started out as specially modified critters whose purpose was to assist intergalactic calcium miners, it's probably meaningless. On the other hand, if the apparant "evolution" we see in our samplings of fossils is really a record of "improved species" being brought to Earth, then it could be really, really, really important.

Religion, which includes the worship of demigods such as "Natural Selection", is a totally different sort of subject.

193 posted on 11/26/2008 5:36:56 AM PST by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 192 | View Replies]

To: js1138
"Just so we understand each other, you are asserting that you can make up things I never said and continue the discussion as if I said them. Does that really make sense to you?"

Just so we understand each other, you are asserting that realities don't exist unless you say they exist and cannot be discussed unless you say so.

Does that really make sense to you?

194 posted on 11/26/2008 5:39:12 AM PST by GourmetDan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 146 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman
The Discovery Institute is not a good source of information for ID.

What they've done is played on the fears of the "Natural Selection" worshippers and dragged in the prospect of "God's Gonna' Get You", and there you have it.

It's like attending Reverend Phelps church ~ looks like a church, sounds like a church, uses all the church words, but their business is to get rid of homosexuals come Hell or Highwater.

To wit, the Discovery Institute and Fred Phelps are both "false witnesses" who have an agenda not at all consistent with that of those who they seek to associate with.

195 posted on 11/26/2008 5:40:41 AM PST by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 186 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003
"Repeating yourself provides no heft to your attempt at an argument."

Neither does it provide any heft for your attempt at an argument, but you seem to have engaged in quite a bit of it yourself.

"Stating "you have no critical thinking skills" pretty much says "I have no idea what I am talking about, but I'll put it on you.""

No, it says that you have no critical-thinking skills and cannot recognize that fact.

196 posted on 11/26/2008 5:42:22 AM PST by GourmetDan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 148 | View Replies]

To: mlo
We need to follow this little protein "mechanism" back up the line to the point of its generation and figure out what's going on in greater detail.
197 posted on 11/26/2008 5:42:39 AM PST by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 188 | View Replies]

To: mlo

The “Competition to Reproduce” is yet another demigod ~ best avoided in this sort of discussion. These young people have worked long and hard to find out what’s fixing broken DNA. Now, if they can discover how that stuff is manufactured, they’ll probably become quite famous.


198 posted on 11/26/2008 5:45:03 AM PST by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 190 | View Replies]

To: Texas Songwriter
Since it's first state cannot be explained in terms of earlier initial conditions and natural laws leading up to, it seem to to mandate an uncaused cause.

I think you are somewhat behind the times in terms of what science can and cannot investigate.

We have already been around the issue of causation. If you axiomatically require causation, you wind up with an infinite regress. Asserting that there is an entity that does not require a first cause is logically indistinguishable from asserting that first cause in not required.

An honest person might conclude that we just don't know.

199 posted on 11/26/2008 5:50:32 AM PST by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 180 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003
"Science, in its current state merely is."

Failing to recognize the philosophical basis for science (that of naturalism) is exactly what I have been trying to get you to recognize. If you simply refuse to admit that and repeat your statements, that provides no heft for your attempt at argument.

"I asked a simple yes/no question. You refuse to answer it."

Again, I have answered your question directly several times now. You simply refuse to admit that philosophical naturalism is the basis for science and insist that I pretend that is not true. Your attempt at the old "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?" tactic is well recognized.

"This thread has degenerated into you just repeating yourself in your assertions of a bunch of gobbledygook and saying "logical fallacies" a lot (unfounded, as anyone who knows what logical fallacies really are can see)."

I am forced to repeat my arguments because you repeat the same philosophically-based question. The reason you think it's gobbledygook is because you are incapable of understanding the answer. I have repeatedly pointed out the types of logical fallacies and where they are used. You engage in hand-waving in an attempt to dismiss them simply because your belief in philosophical naturalism has destroyed your ability to think critically.

"Since we aren't even discussing the OP anymore and you continue to refuse to answer my very simple question, I am outta here."

We are discussing the basic foundational beliefs of science and I have answered your question each time such that you complain that I repeat myself. If you cannot understand that my answers address your question at its basic foundation that isn't my fault.

200 posted on 11/26/2008 5:52:36 AM PST by GourmetDan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 149 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 101-150151-200201-250 ... 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