Posted on 07/23/2009 5:55:09 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
Facilitated variation is the first comprehensive theory of how life works at the molecular level, published in 2005 by systems biologists Marc Kirschner and John Gerhart in their book The Plausibility of Life: Resolving Darwin’s Dilemma. It is a very powerful theory, is supported by a great deal of evidence, and the authors have made it easy to understand. It identifies two basic components of heredity: (a) conserved core processes of cellular structure, function and body plan organization; and (b) modular regulatory mechanisms that are built in special ways that allow them to be easily rearranged (like ®Lego blocks) into new combinations to generate variable offspring. Evolvability is thus built-in, and the pre-existing molecular machinery facilitates the incorporation of new DNA sequence changes that occur via recombinations and mutations. The question of origin becomes especially acute under this new theory because the conserved core processes and the modular regulatory mechanisms have to already be in place before any evolution can occur. The new molecular evidence shows virtually all the main components of neo-Darwinian theory are wrong...
(Excerpt) Read more at creation.com ...
Life’s irreducible structure—Part 1: autopoiesis
Life’s irreducible structure—Part 2: naturalistic objections
We are almost to the universal laws of biology I promised. This paper is absolutely astonishing, and will help you understand the universal laws paper, when it comes. I’m thinking of posting it over the weekend when I have more time to participate in the thread.
All the best—GGG
Oops. Accidentally wandered into the ghetto. Sorry. See ya!
“The question of origin becomes especially acute
under this new theory because the conserved core processes and the modular regulatory mechanisms have to
already be in place before any evolution can occur. The new molecular evidence shows virtually all the main
components of neo-Darwinian theory are wrong.”
Shoot, I took bio 101 a couple of years ago and figured that one out. If the mutation isn’t in the egg or sperm, it doesn’t get inherited. Does this mean I’m a genius?
Actually, this might have helped lead you out of the pseudo-scientific and spiritual ghetto that is the Temple of Darwinistic Materialism.
All the best—GGG
Are you sure about that? Perhaps you should read the article. That is, if you want to come out of the dark ages of the neo-Darwinian synthesis. Ever wonder why Darwin lost his tree of life? Ever wonder why the neo-Darwinists turned out to be completely wrong with respect to “junk” DNA. Ever wonder why the Evo phylogenetic trees are being falsified left and right? If you are, this would be a good place to start.
Great info thanks for sharing.
You are confused.
darwin’s theory is the mutation DOES happen in the sperm and egg. It’s an accident if that mutation turns out to be useful. But if so, the mutant lives and reproduces...ALOT.
tada. Evolution.
Allow me to be the first to say (and I think I am not alone here...)
.
.
.
Huh?
My pleasure. It’s a little work to read, but well worth it!
Here’s the last line from the article:
“...See? Just like it says in Genesis. The End.”
More creation rationalization pablum for gullible, weak-in-faith Christians from a site that posts non-reviewed articles written by charlatans and hucksters.
Evolution and Christianity are perfectly compatible.
If the post is a little challenging, you might want to start out with the links in reply #1. They will bring you up to speed. Prepare to have your mind completely blown by just how sophisticated biology really is. It makes the neo-Darwinian synthesis look like a stone-age understanding of biology/diversity/origins.
Actually, I’m just a Christian who knows that God hates to see the brains that he gave us put to waste.
You have Darwin Derangement Syndrome.
Only if God is lying.
God understands and appreciates allegory. He’s surprised that you don’t.
Great, yet another scientific criticism of evolution that the evos on here will not be intelligent enough to understand, much less respond to intelligently....
ping
Amusing. You come on here to bubble out some blather about God hating see us waste our brains, yet your whole argument is that we should essentially waste our brains by not questioning evolutionist dogma.
Ridiculous. Simply ridiculous.
I've been meaning to ask you - what exactly are your scientific credentials, again?
Creation rationalizers seem to like litmus tests, so I think I’ll try one, too. It’s real simple, and it requires only a simple yes/no answer. That’s all. Here it is:
If a Catholic follows Catholic doctrine faithfully for his or her entire life, is that person a Christian?
I’d appreciate your reply. Everyone else may answer, too. Remember, yes/no only.
Significant and impressive. Are you concerned by the lack of credentials and peer review in the creation rationalization rags?
Sure? No. I should always put the /sarc tag in when I ask if I am a genius. I just came to the same conclusion as the neo-darwinist because it is the next logical conclusion. I also had problems with evolution when it came to SIMULTANEOUS mutations in an ecosystem. The chances are astronomical and chance was a big part of our teaching. Many times “may be” this or that was used, and there is a “chance” that this or that happened.
The end of the article is wonderful.
“ A living organism is ‘a poised response system
[that] responds to mutation by making changes it is
largely prepared in advance to make.’ ‘Genetic variation
or mutation does not have to be creative; it only needs to
trigger the creativity built into the conserved mechanisms.’
It could not be otherwise, because invariable life would
soon become extinct.”
This should be front page in the NYTimes.
If they're significant and impressive, then I'm sure you won;t mind sharing them with the rest of the class. the reason I ask is because, on all these crevo threads, you consistently seem to show that you haven't got a single, solitary clue as to what you are talking about. You really don't. You make childish arguments that evince little or no actual scientific knowledge. Yet, you come on here and whine about creationists "not knowing what evolution is" even as they respond to text-book examples of evolutionist claims.
Please stop posting this ignorance. Evolution has been proven, and is ongoing today.
Not at all. Scientists question and revise the theory of evolution all the time. That’s what scientists do. Darwin, with whom you are obsessed, would not recognize ToE today.
Creation rationalization is not science. It assumes a conclusion, and collects anecdotes to support it. That’s not science. That’s fraud.
Faith is a wonderful thing. I have great respect for people who say, “God said it, I believe it, and that settles it”. I have contempt for those who try to pervert science by lying about what can be concluded from observation.
Talk about ignorance.
Yup. Me too.
“You make childish arguments that evince little or no actual scientific knowledge. Yet, you come on here and whine about creationists “not knowing what evolution is” even as they respond to text-book examples of evolutionist claims.”
I’m glad you see it that way. That means I’m reaching the undecideds while torquing you off. A two-fer!
bookmark
That's why God never surfs GGG's postings.
mark.
Did He tell you that himself?
Crickets.......
I’ll answer that question if you answer my question in post 23.
Oh, you didn’t capitalize Himself.
Actually, no. Entomology is not one of my specialties.
Please stop posting this ignorance. Evolution has been proven, and is ongoing today.
*************************************************************
Bzzttt.. Wrong. nothing in science is ever proven.
According to the experts at CalTech as often cited by coyoteman,.....
A Glossary of Frequently Misused or Misunderstood Physics Terms and Concepts.
ttp://spider.ipac.caltech.edu/staff/jarrett/LiU/resource/misused_glossary.html
Proof. A term from logic and mathematics describing an argument from premise to conclusion using strictly logical principles. In mathematics, theorems or propositions are established by logical arguments from a set of axioms, the process of establishing a theorem being called a proof.
The colloquial meaning of ‘proof’ causes lots of problems in physics discussion and is best avoided. Since mathematics is such an important part of physics, the mathematician’s meaning of proof should be the only one we use. Also, we often ask students in upper level courses to do proofs of certain theorems of mathematical physics, and we are not asking for experimental demonstration!
So, in a laboratory report, we should not say “We proved Newton’s law.” Rather say, “Today we demonstrated (or verified) the validity of Newton’s law in the particular case of…”
***********************************************************
Now, about the evolution is ongoing even today, could you please provide us with some examples of evolution that go beyond the variation within species level?
And that's exactly what evolution does. There is no independent evidence for evolution. The only way that "evidences" from genetics, etc. become "obvious" is when they are filtered through the pre-existing lens of evolutionary philosophy. The problem is "observation" does not independently substantiate evolution, nor any of the other trappings of evolutionism. Dating methods to obtain "old earth" dates are notoriously shoddy, making assumptions about the starting condition of the rocks being tested that not only are not likely, but are strongly suggested to be simply wrong, as laboratory experimentation has suggested. Evolutionists use the dates ONLY because they give the "right" numbers, even though they have to toss out scads of "wrong" dates in their effort to "verify" the "right" dates. That's called "testing into compliance", and in any other area of science where the intention was not to substantiate evolution regardless of the evidence, this would be condemned in a heartbeat.
Evolutionists are like that, however. They gobsmack about "observation" and "empiricism" and "rationality", while operating under none of those principles in practice. There is no independent evidence for evolution - period. It's all forensic, and it's all subject to interpretation. Evolutionists interpret the data by ignoring anything that runs afoul of the a priori assumptions of evolution, selectively culling the data that goes bad for them, and then pretending that there are these "mountains" of evidence for evolution. then, when their theories are falsified, they try to build new epicycles by pretending that the portion of the theory wasn't "falsified", it was merely "revised", and is just as true as it ever was. And then, if anyone questions your dogma, the standard response is not to even attempt to assess the scientific questions involved, but to just dismiss them carte blanche. Buck W, you can feel free to hang on by faith to your magical mystery wave-a-magic-wand-and-get-matter-to-do-things-that-actual-science-says-it-won't-do, but don't try to pretend that you're some sort of dispenser of scientific wisdom. You're not. It's painfully obvious you're in over your head, and are trying to use argument from disbelief as a replacement for actual thought. The whole starting point for your paradigm is non-scientific. Forget natural selection, let's talk about origins of life, since "origins" is supposedly the name of the game. As an evolutionist, you are forced by the dogmas of your religion to believe that life just "arose" through purely materialistic means (let's eschew, for the moment, the typical evolutionary language which seems for all the world to be teleological). You know, lightning in the reducing atmosphere, real Miller-Urey type stuff. Problem is, it's all utter nonsense. Every last bit of it. Electrochemical production of amino acids won't give you the enantiomerically pure AAs you need. Amino acids won't polymerise in an ocean. Even if they did, lack of oxygen in the atmosphere would mean they'd be gone in the blink of an eye due to UV and cosmic ray penetration and ionisation. Nucleotides will be formed in racemic mixes, too. Directing clays are ridiculous as a template for complex organisation. It goes on and on. Evolutionists have to posit abject nonsense to try to concoct some way of getting around the need for special creation of life. So you want to talk about perverting science and lying about what can be concluded from observation? Well guess what? That's what you evolutionists do, who have to magically have evolution make matter do what any sophomore organic chemistry student knows it won't do. That's YOU, and people like you Buck W.
Evolutionists operate under such shoddy, stupid, low-IQ ways of thinking that I'm frankly surprised that you people even have the wits about you to figure out how to flip the switches that turn on your computers.
Oh, don't worry, you're not torqueing me off, you're far too little to do that. Strangely, the emotion I most feel towards you is pity.
Is creationism falsifiable?
Yes. All you have to do is prove that God doesn't exist, or that He wasn't responsible for the existence of the physical universe.
Let me ask you, is evolution falsifiable?
You make yourself look more and more like a fool with every post you post where you play your little try to box people in a corner games.
It’s obvious you have no scientific credentials at all.
It’s obvious you have no religious credentials at all.
Trying to trap people into corners with little damned if you do, damned if you don’t, yes or no type questions is immature beyond belief.
You are proving nothing by those little games, and certainly doing nothing to contributing any thing positive towards convincing anyone what the ToE has any validity.
Trying to reinforce the ToE by tearing down other viewpoints is a pretty weak way of presenting it.
“Evolutionists have to posit abject nonsense to try to concoct some way of getting around the need for special creation of life.”
Surely you understand that evolution does not address creation, i.e., the origins of life. I was about ready to begin shrieking in tongues at the veneer of brilliance that you’ve presented, but my conversion was shattered when I got to this point.
I thought you were a prophet, but it turns out that you’re just a regular guy.
Of course. With no such condition as you attached to your answer. That makes creationism faith, not science.
Cultmom, you’re a stitch! Promise me you’ll join every thread that I’m on, OK?
Thanks for the ping!
You might want to think about getting your brain back before they clear yours out to make room for the next batch of Darwin drones...
No, Darwin had Darwin Derangement Syndrome, his materialist co-religionist progeny have Darwin Derangement Syndrome....I am merely drawing attention to that fact, all the while using science to falsify Darwin’s deranged creation myth.
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.