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 ...
“The rest of us aren’t honest?”
The rest of you didn’t answer. Would you have answered differently?
A few of the Braying Chorus show up and it’s best to ignore them. Let them talk to each other and see how really boring that is.
Someone wants to argue I’m wrong, etc., that I’ll respond to, but I don’t owe the Braying Chorus the respect of a reply. Call it “Natural Rejection”.
The one about your scientific credentials, and then the one I posited this morning as to how you would respond to my criticisms of abiogenesis.
I do appreciate your honest answer, though, that you do not believe doctrine-faithful Catholics are Christians. More than anything else, that admission, that belief which is shared with the other YECs here, is the crux of the discussion (I won’t call it a debate). Your definition of Christianity is more in line with the description of a cult than a faith. You’re more concerned with who is NOT in than with who is.
In a sense, you are right - it IS a cult - the cult of Jesus Christ. It's the same cult, with the same attitude of doctrinal definition as to what constitutes salvation and true Christianity, etc., that everybody from Peter, Paul, Irenaeus, Hippolytus, Luther, Spurgeon, etc. belonged to. Do you know how many times Paul uses the word "doctrine" (well, actually, the Greek word translated into English as "doctrine") in three three pastoral epistles alone? Sixteen times. It was obviously important to him. Without doctrine - which includes what is and is not genuine salvation - you don't HAVE Christianity. You just have some formless, meaningless mass of much that has no definition, no meaning, no purpose. So yes, sure, I'm in a cult. The same one the Apostles were part of, too.
LOL! At some point, I'm going to use that.
“The one about your scientific credentials, and then the one I posited this morning as to how you would respond to my criticisms of abiogenesis.”
You should be more concerned about the credentials of the creation rationalization authors and the lack of peer reviewed publication in that field.
“In a sense, you are right - it IS a cult - the cult of Jesus Christ.”
Yet you deny the Christianity of a Christian denomination that has existed for two millenia. Your cult is merely a generation or so old, formed by Christians of weak faith who needed a more literal reassurance of the existence of God. They achieved that end by re-interpreting the bible to require an islam-like prostration before Jesus, who I’m sure is rather red-faced by being worn out on the sleeves of your small but annoying band.
Ground rules. OK, I get it.
What are YOUR credentials? If you're going to speak authoritatively on the ToE it's equally important that yours are credible.
They achieved that end by re-interpreting the bible to require an islam-like prostration before Jesus, who I’m sure is rather red-faced by being worn out on the sleeves of your small but annoying band.
You sure know a lot about what God thinks.
How? Did He tell you?
“What are YOUR credentials?”
Madam, this is an anonymous discussion board, not a scholarly journal or a court of law. Anyone can lie about their credentials with impunity, and no one would be the wiser. Specifically for me, I hold advanced degrees in pure mathematics, statistics, and physics. Real advanced. More advanced than practically anyone else on this board. I also have a thorough grounding in evolutionary biology obtained via my undergrad minor in genetics (mathematicians are interested in that sort of thing).
I really don’t care if you believe it or not. My creds, though, are far more relevant to this discussion than your rote memorization of bible passages.
“What are YOUR credentials?”
How foolish of me! I left out that I’m incredibly funny, extremely sarcastic, quick witted, intolerant of fools, and devastatingly good looking. These also provide greater cred than bible memorization.
Defending coyoteman, and Buck W. isn’t helpful as one is a known liberal troll and one is a known liberal troll flying under the radar.
Can you not separate religion from politics? Is it your position that supporters of evolution are liberal? Or that they are automatically are trolls? Or that non-Christians are liberals? What are your ground rules?
If you think evolution is the conservative position with the lawsuits backed by the NEA and ACLU and so on, you should get that looked into.
Buck W. and Coyoteman are liberal trolls and just by looking at their history virtually any conservative can figure that much out.
And how do you want us to stay on topic Caramelgal...by referring to God as a flying purple spaghetti monster, or was it just flying spaghetti monster, I forget...
LOL...Is that the best you can do, Caramelgal? Just checked your links. In my particular case, you will notice I was responding to an Evo who was highlighting a line from the anti-Creation/anti-ID bigots over at Little Green Footballs to ridicule the Creationists and IDers on FR.
I just looked at Caramelgal’s profile page. Have you guys noticed her forwarding address is none other than the pro NEA, pro ACLU, “I hate FR” cheerleaders over at Darwin Central? Why am I not surprised. What is the point of putting that “forwarding” address on your profile page, Caramelgal? Are you trying to make a point that you belong to a dying breed on FR, or are trying to siphon off enough FReepers to prevent your extinction over at Darwin-drone Central?
Evidently it never occurred to these two theorists that evolvability could evolve. Perhaps the heretofore inexplicable-to-some Cambrian Explosion was due to the emergence of evolvability.
This theory does a good job of explaining how particularly successful species or groups can remain ahead of the game, by maintaining stasis when stasis is achievable, and by riding the crest of change when that becomes advantageous.
The leap to explaining origins in this view seems presumptuous and unwarranted. Even Darwin eschewed going that far.
Single point mutations are of course the rarity. Far more evolution occurs because heretofore unused or "junk" sequences get shuffled into active play and can then make a functional difference.
It's easy to see how such an ability can improve a line's ability to accommodate to rapid change or opportunity, but it is clearly a lagging indicator of evolutionary development having absolutely nothing to do with the origin of anything other than opportunistic capacities.
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.