Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Molecular limits to natural variation (creationist: natural selection correct in principle, but...)
Journal of Creation ^ | Alex Williams

Posted on 10/20/2009 8:59:42 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts

Darwin’s 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 Gerhart’s 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 ancestor—as baraminologists had previously proposed—but 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 ...


TOPICS: Australia/New Zealand; Culture/Society; Miscellaneous; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: antiscienceevos; belongsinreligion; biochemistry; biology; catholic; cell; christian; creation; darwin; dna; evangelical; evolution; evolutionimpossible; facilitatedvariation; genetics; godsgravesglyphs; intelligentdesign; judaism; molecularbiology; naturalselection; notasciencetopic; propellerbeanie; protestant; science

1 posted on 10/20/2009 8:59:43 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: metmom; DaveLoneRanger; editor-surveyor; betty boop; Alamo-Girl; MrB; GourmetDan; Fichori; ...

Deja vu ping :o)

All the best—GGG


2 posted on 10/20/2009 9:02:49 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Thanks for the ping!


3 posted on 10/20/2009 9:03:53 PM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Didn’t you already post this? You should get honorary Nigerian citizenship for your seminar-spamming.


4 posted on 10/20/2009 9:05:37 PM PDT by Alter Kaker (Gravitation is a theory, not a fact. It should be approached with an open mind...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: -YYZ-

Thought this one might interest you, as it relates to the “new biology.”

All the best—GGG


5 posted on 10/20/2009 9:07:34 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
"but 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."

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.

6 posted on 10/20/2009 9:26:18 PM PDT by Natural Law
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Natural Law
and facilitated variation theory can explain this.

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.

7 posted on 10/20/2009 9:40:28 PM PDT by Ol' Dan Tucker (People should not be afraid of the government. Governement should be afraid of the people)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Natural Law
If the universal flood of Noah is true, would it not follow that rapid differentiation must have occurred since that time? All Alex Williams is saying is that now there is a biological mechanism that can explain the same.

Just out of curiosity, do you happen to recall Darwin's main argument for the “extreme imperfection” of the geological/fossil record?

8 posted on 10/20/2009 9:52:39 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Too late to go over this tripe today . Will look at it tomorrow and start to tear it apart when I have time.


9 posted on 10/20/2009 9:53:21 PM PDT by Wacka
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

“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.


10 posted on 10/20/2009 9:55:31 PM PDT by ColdWater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
If the universal flood of Noah is true,

If pigs could fly, hot pig wings would outsell chicken wings.

11 posted on 10/20/2009 9:56:33 PM PDT by ColdWater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Wacka

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)


12 posted on 10/20/2009 9:57:19 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: ColdWater

If you knew anything about basic economics, you would realize that you have managed to be wrong about even that...LOL!


13 posted on 10/20/2009 10:02:39 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
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)

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.

14 posted on 10/20/2009 10:08:11 PM PDT by ColdWater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
If you knew anything about basic economics, you would realize that you have managed to be wrong about even that...LOL!

If you knew anything about biology, you would know that pigs don't have wings.

15 posted on 10/20/2009 10:10:13 PM PDT by ColdWater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: ColdWater
You just upset that even your fellow fanatical evo co-religionists are starting to admit what creationists have been saying about Darwood's main prediction all along. Namely...

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!!!

16 posted on 10/20/2009 10:14:54 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
your fellow fanatical evo co-religionists

I have not idea what you are talking about!

17 posted on 10/20/2009 10:19:27 PM PDT by ColdWater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: ColdWater
You can't even get what you have said straight, let alone what your fanatical evo co-religionists are saying. You said "if" pigs could fly. I replied that basic economics invalidates your statement, even if they could. Try to keep up, CW. Heck, you can't even keep up with yourself! Perhaps it's time you started using some of that Cold Water on your own face. Earth to CW, Earth to CW...wake up CW!!!
18 posted on 10/20/2009 10:19:52 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: ColdWater

I’m not surprised in the least.


19 posted on 10/20/2009 10:20:20 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Hmm. Your ID buddies have declared God dead!


20 posted on 10/20/2009 10:20:38 PM PDT by ColdWater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
I replied that basic economics invalidates your statement, even if they could.

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?

21 posted on 10/20/2009 10:23:14 PM PDT by ColdWater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
>I replied that basic economics invalidates your statement, even if they could.

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!"

22 posted on 10/20/2009 10:26:06 PM PDT by ColdWater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
Although, you might want to read his other papers

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."

23 posted on 10/20/2009 10:35:51 PM PDT by ColdWater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
It is telling that you continue to post that cover when the article plainly states:

“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?

Photobucket

24 posted on 10/21/2009 2:11:22 AM PDT by Ira_Louvin (Go tell them people lost in sin, There’s a higher power ,They need not fear the works of men.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
Warning!
Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books.
For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion.”

-St. Augustine of Hippo, “On the Literal Interpretation of Genesis”, A.D. 408
Buyer Beware!


25 posted on 10/21/2009 3:46:37 AM PDT by xcamel (The urge to save humanity is always a false front for the urge to rule it. - H. L. Mencken)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ColdWater

I am beginning to think that GGG was abused as a child.


26 posted on 10/21/2009 6:38:44 AM PDT by xcamel (The urge to save humanity is always a false front for the urge to rule it. - H. L. Mencken)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

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.

fishtank, Ph.D.


27 posted on 10/21/2009 7:55:36 AM PDT by fishtank (The denial of original sin is the root of liberalism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: xcamel
Augustine: young earth creationist--theistic evolutionists take Church Father out of context
28 posted on 10/21/2009 8:48:28 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: ColdWater; GodGunsGuts
I have not idea what you are talking about!

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.

29 posted on 10/21/2009 10:43:10 AM PDT by jimt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: ColdWater
GGG even lies by using that 'ns' cover: “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.”
30 posted on 10/21/2009 11:06:08 AM PDT by xcamel (The urge to save humanity is always a false front for the urge to rule it. - H. L. Mencken)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

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