Posted on 05/25/2009 5:48:24 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
Facilitated variation: a new paradigm emerges in biology
Alex Williams
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 ...
I will try to read Shapiro tomorrow. Thanks for the links!
PS Shapiro went on ISCID? He’s not an IDer is he?
No matter how much you huff and puff, the stuff you post is about as marginal as it gets. If reality ever actually penetrates the world you inhabit and you finally realise that science has been moving on without you guys for 150 years and will continue to do in the years ahead, I fear for what sanity you have left. I don’t know what will hurt more; the fact that you have been wrong or the indifference that science accords you.
Then the rest of us can go on with our discussion, O.K.?
Discussion? Sure, go right ahead. lol.
So how ‘bout it? Did you read the paper and if you did, what's wrong with it? or right with it? Whadda you say?
But Ida is a missing link from 50 million years ago.
"Find the natural explanation."
This is a rather vague standard. When should a scientist stop looking for a natural explanation and announce that the answer is magic?
Did you happen to watch the “LINK” last night? Ida all but had a leash and sweater put on it. They concluded Ida was just one of the family.
They seem to have no problem with just-so stories and Darwin.
The process of looking for answers empirically is known as science. The question of whether science can answer all questions relevant to the universe is at the center of this problem. Obviously atheists deny supernatural things, whereas believers do not. Are you an atheist? If not, then you must believe in something supernatural or at least admit of the possibility.
That ISCID site is quite a site- got some pretty intelligent minds over there- Their discussions are a breath of fresh air compared to ones here on FR where the Darwinists offer nothign but insults as witnessed by Natufian’s post further down. They actually dig into hte meat of issues, and for hte most part agree to dissagree when they can’t reach agreement on issues. While I don’t agree with some of the ‘evolution + ID’ beliefs of some of hte members there, it’s again, a great site to discover hte underlying biological mechanics of many issues we discuss here on FR
[[The implication apparently being that, if lacking the core elements, the original cell could not have survived and therefore it could not have evolved into being.(a little bag of chemicals not being sufficient for life)]]
That is PRECISELY the point brought up in William’s article on “Life’s Irreducible Structures’- without metainformation present, there is no possible way single cells could utilize additional information ‘gained’ by mutation (not that mutaitons cause ‘gain’, but we’re being generous and allowing the evos the idea that mutations ‘in hte past’ caused all manner of ‘gains’ of information- and as Williams points out, once again, without ther being a system of metainformaiton present FIRST, any ‘gain’ in info is useless and disruptive- and coutnerproductive, and NOT conducive to macroevolution as Evos insist it was ‘sometime i nthe past’ (despite htere being any present evidence or demonstratable evidence that mutaitons could ‘add informaiton’ somethign that would be absolutely necessary for hypothesis of macroevolution)
[[The information must have come first. The simplest code would have been a binary (two-letter)alphabet but all life works upon a more complex four-letter alphabet, so Yockey concludes that the question of origin is undecidable.4
This is not a necessary conclusion however, and appears to be no more than a ruse to avoid the uncomfortable conclusion that life may have been intelligently designed.”
And it is apparent that the question of life having been created cannot be avoided by saying, ‘We just don’t talk about that’.]]
Ah but that’s precisely what the macroevolution crowd does- they state ‘abiogenisis is not part of hte study of evolution’. Informaiton theory is hte achilles heel of macroevolution, and it has been clean sliced through by the problem of information- to get aroudn that though, macroevolutionsits claim ‘God could have started the process’ but that pesky problem of metainformation just won’t allow for even that scenario as each species has their own species specific set of metainformation as proven out by the fact that species have specific parameters which can’t be crossed biologically- but to try to attempt to get aroudn this biological reality, the macroevolutionsit then states ‘what ‘precisely’ are these parameters, and where ‘precisely’ is htis metainformation, and how can you ‘precisely’ measure this metainformaiton and parameter’? It’s a never ending game of ‘avoid hte problem of information’. apparently if metainformaiton can’t be ‘precisely’ nailed down, then it must not exist, and apparently, if parameters can’t be ‘precisely’ blueprinted, they must not exist (despite hte FACT that we know there are boundaries that can’t be crossed when trying to manipulate species ‘beyond hteir own kinds’)
But fear not, like the 300 mpg carburetter, the primordial soup just needs a few more secret ingredients and tweaking to make it work.
If you repeat the experiment and do not get the same result that would falsify your original results. So then you would need to start over and find a different explanation.
See in real science experiments must be repeatable, and you must be able to falsify the hypothesis.
Because in science you can never prove a theory you can only disprove it.
That is the problem that creation science has, there is no way to disprove their assertions.
This might help explain it:
“Popper, then, repudiates induction, and rejects the view that it is the characteristic method of scientific investigation and inference, and substitutes falsifiability in its place. It is easy, he argues, to obtain evidence in favour of virtually any theory, and he consequently holds that such ‘corroboration’, as he terms it, should count scientifically only if it is the positive result of a genuinely ‘risky’ prediction, which might conceivably have been false. For Popper, a theory is scientific only if it is refutable by a conceivable event. Every genuine test of a scientific theory, then, is logically an attempt to refute or to falsify it, and one genuine counter-instance falsifies the whole theory. In a critical sense, Popper’s theory of demarcation is based upon his perception of the logical asymmetry which holds between verification and falsification: it is logically impossible to conclusively verify a universal proposition by reference to experience (as Hume saw clearly), but a single counter-instance conclusively falsifies the corresponding universal law. In a word, an exception, far from ‘proving’ a rule, conclusively refutes it.
Every genuine scientific theory then, in Popper’s view, is prohibitive, in the sense that it forbids, by implication, particular events or occurrences. As such it can be tested and falsified, but never logically verified. Thus Popper stresses that it should not be inferred from the fact that a theory has withstood the most rigorous testing, for however long a period of time, that it has been verified; rather we should recognise that such a theory has received a high measure of corroboration. and may be provisionally retained as the best available theory until it is finally falsified (if indeed it is ever falsified), and/or is superseded by a better theory.”
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/popper/
So what they are saying is that is too complex and difficult for us to understand or try to explain so that means that God did it.
Nice try lots of big words however that still fails to answer a very simple question that I asked.
Please explain in detail how you would falsify that statement?
All you would need to falsify the obvious conclusion that facilitated variation was designed with a purpose in mind is to identify the material cause for the same. And since Temple of Darwin scientists have no better explanation for faciliated variation—other than the lame idea that facilitated variation appears to be designed with a purpose, but really isn’t (in ways they can’t explain)—intelligent design remains the best explanation for the same.
Again, so it is too complex to understand so that means that God did it, same song different verse.
Your use of big words, and hyperbole still fails to answer the question.
Using evolution as a straw man does not answer the question.
What experiments would falsify your assertion?
==Again, so it is too complex to understand so that means that God did it, same song different verse.
Molecular biology has only strengthened that argument, while at the same time severely weakening neo-Darwinism. Creationists and IDers maintain that what appears to be designed for a purpose is actually what it appears to be, whereas the Evos say that what looks designed for a purpose is really just an illusion produced by random processes plus survival.
Now we find out that the most basic component of neo-Darwinism, random mutations, are actually poly-constrained, so that any one mutation will affect multiple functions, virtually all of them in a harmful way. And even the Evos’ best and brightest are now saying that conserved core processes appear to have emerged together as a suite!
It’s not that this information is too complex to understand, it is just that it is too complex to make sense in the darkness that is blind materialism. If you are incapable of seeing this, may I suggest that you are probably not experiencing a head capacity problem so much as you are experiencing a heart capacity problem. Get down on your knees and ask the God of the Bible to open your eyes, mind, and heart, and He will be faithful to allow you to see what we see.
“If you repeat the experiment and do not get the same result that would falsify your original results. So then you would need to start over and find a different explanation.”
Not so. The first experiment could just as easily falsify the second and if I'm hoping for a certain result I'd be more inclined to discount the second experiment as a fluke or ignore it.
This statement is utter Popperian nonsense:
“Because in science you can never prove a theory you can only disprove it.”
If I have a theory that there is life on Mars I can prove it by finding life there but no amount of negative results will disprove my theory.
Darwinism has risen to level of dogma and is considered beyond Popperian falsification. The appearance of most of the major phyla in a relatively brief period of time and without antecedents is a contradiction of Darwinism but ever more fanciful theories are expounded to account for or dismiss it by Darwinists.
Therein lies another problem for Popper's philosophy, the definition of what constitutes falsification and the interpretation of evidence.
“That is the problem that creation science has, there is no way to disprove their assertions.”
Not being part of the YEC groups that isn't my concern but the same could be said of many so-called scientific assertions or did you miss the “LINK” last night?
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.