Skip to comments.Molecular limits to natural variation (creationist: natural selection correct in principle, but...)
Posted on 10/20/2009 8:59:42 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
Darwins theory that species originate via the natural selection of natural variation is correct in principle but wrong in numerous aspects of application. Speciation is not the result of an unlimited naturalistic process but of an intelligently designed system of built-in variation that is limited in scope to switching ON and OFF permutations and combinations of the built-in components. Kirschner and Gerharts facilitated variation theory provides enormous potential for rearrangement of the built-in regulatory components but it cannot switch ON components that do not exist. When applied to the grass family, facilitated variation theory can account for the diversification of the whole family from a common ancestoras baraminologists had previously proposedbut this cannot be extended to include all the flowering plants. Vast amounts of rapid differentiation and dispersal must have occurred in the post-Flood era, and facilitated variation theory can explain this. In contrast, because of genome depletion by selection and degradation by mutation, the potential for diversification that we see in species around us today is trivial...
(Excerpt) Read more at creation.com ...
Deja vu ping :o)
All the best—GGG
Thanks for the ping!
Didn’t you already post this? You should get honorary Nigerian citizenship for your seminar-spamming.
Thought this one might interest you, as it relates to the “new biology.”
All the best—GGG
More unscientific scientific tripe. This paper asserts that scientific observation must be wrong because it does not fit the young earth model. Maybe the young earth model is wrong. The author can argue theology or he can argue science, but to try to interweave both makes him look a fool in both cases.
Can explain it?
Why not, "may explain it"? Or, "could explain it".
For as much bluster as I read about 'theory' not being fact, this guy's analysis is awfully short on conclusions.
It sounds like he's got a 'theory' of his own.
Just out of curiosity, do you happen to recall Darwin's main argument for the “extreme imperfection” of the geological/fossil record?
Too late to go over this tripe today . Will look at it tomorrow and start to tear it apart when I have time.
“Speciation is not the result of an unlimited naturalistic process but of an intelligently designed system of built-in variation that is limited in scope to switching ON and OFF permutations and combinations of the built-in components.”
Interesting. Man and the amoeba are from the same mold.
If pigs could fly, hot pig wings would outsell chicken wings.
You do that. Although, you might want to read his other papers, some of which are included in the footnotes, before opening mouth and potentially inserting foot :o)
If you knew anything about basic economics, you would realize that you have managed to be wrong about even that...LOL!
The guy is a kook. Imagine spending most of your life defending the constant decay of isotopes only to throw it all away. I guess that makes him the fool with his foot in his mouth.
If you knew anything about biology, you would know that pigs don't have wings.
I have not idea what you are talking about!
I’m not surprised in the least.
Hmm. Your ID buddies have declared God dead!
At least I don't lie about what I posted. It is so easy to go back to your post on this same short thread and see that you lied about what was in your post. I realize you don't expect people to really go to your links, but my gosh, don't you expect me to remember what you posted and easily scroll up a few post to verify that your last is a lie?
hmm. Here is your total, unexcerpted reponse. I don't see anything about your saying 'even if they could (fly)'. Please keep up with your posts.
"If you knew anything about basic economics, you would realize that you have managed to be wrong about even that...LOL!"
Perhaps you might know the names of some of these 'respected scientists' he is referring to?
"We should be informed about the abundant evidence that is consistent with a plain reading of Genesis and of the fact that many respected scientists believe in creation in six days some 6,000 years ago."
As we celebrate the 200th anniversary of Darwin's birth, we await a third revolution that will see biology changed and strengthened None of this should give succour to creationists, whose blinkered universe is doubtless already buzzing with the news that "New Scientist has announced Darwin was wrong". Expect to find excerpts ripped out of context and presented as evidence that biologists are deserting the theory of evolution en masse. They are not.
Nor will the new work do anything to diminish the standing of Darwin himself. When it came to gravitation and the laws of motion, Isaac Newton didn't see the whole picture either, but he remains one of science's giants. In the same way, Darwin's ideas will prove influential for decades to come.
Does the 9th commandment not apply to you?
-St. Augustine of Hippo, “On the Literal Interpretation of Genesis”, A.D. 408
I am beginning to think that GGG was abused as a child.
As always, great postings.
If people find it hard to believe that scientists could ever LIE about a science issue like evolution, it’s easier to see that lying is certainly possible when you look at the lies of global warming.
One of the crevos favorite ploys is to call evolution a religion: it's all based on faith, there is no evidence, and so on.
Don't worry, it's not supposed to make sense.