Molecular limits to natural variation (creationist: natural selection correct in principle, but...)

Journal of Creation ^ | Alex Williams

[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...

[ColdWater]

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?

[ColdWater]

>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!"

[ColdWater]

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."

[Ira_Louvin]

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?

[xcamel]

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!

[xcamel]

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

[fishtank]

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.

[GodGunsGuts]

Augustine: young earth creationist--theistic evolutionists take Church Father out of context

[jimt]

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.

[xcamel]

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.”