Facilitated variation: a new paradigm emerges in biology (Truly Astonishing!...buh bye Darwin)

Journal of Creation ^ | Alex Williams

[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...

[Buck W.]

When a poster lies, the poster has to back it up. I don’t care if that concept is foreign to you.

Why don’t you go pour yourself a nice warm squeeze bottle of coffee and have a lie down. Use the bed with the plastic mattress cover.

[editor-surveyor]

o!oo

[Caramelgal]

Hey CG, why not just ping Jim to the question, since it is his policy that has governed these threads.

“Religion” is inseparable from evolution, and the origin of all things; that is a fact. Its not off-topic ever at Freerepublic. For specific discussions of theological matters, there is, of course, the Religion Forum.

Very rarely do I post on the Religion Forum because I have no argument either for or against any religion. Like the many of our Founding Fathers I support religious freedom for everyone and believe that religious belief is best left to conscience and personal conviction of the individual.

What I pinged to the Admin Mod was in response to was a very legitimate question asked by Buck W. and what I perceived was by some the posters on this thread, an attack on his and others religious beliefs that were just as much “off topic” as what they were accusing him of. If religion is not off topic or inseparable in the evolution debate as you say, then why should only some religious beliefs be allowed to be expressed? While I understand that you think that no “true” Christian could support TOE, there are others here who disagree.

But I wasn’t asking for conformity of opinion or a FR official stance on the topic, only a fair and consistent treatment of opinion and other poster’s religious beliefs by the Admin Mod that evidently was supported by Buck’s removed comment being reinstated and GGG being told to “knock off the personal attacks”.

If either you or Jim Robinson believes the Earth is 6,000 years old or that evolution is not valid based on your religious belief, believe it or not, that’s fine and dandy with me. But when posters post articles or comments that are contrary to what I believe is solid science, I’m entitled to disagree and to say so. And if I’m in disagreement with the owner of this site on this topic, then so be it. If my disagreement with that is a bannable offence then so be it. I didn’t see the part when I signed up here that I had to be 100% in lock step with every one of Jim’s personal opinions. I’m a Baltimore Orioles and Raven’s fan. If Jim is an Angles or Dodgers or Raiders fan that does that mean I should be suspended for that as well?

As to “policy”, to date, I never been admonished, suspended or had any of my comments deleted on this site by any Admin for being offensive to anyone.

Granted, I’ve gotten into some very heated debates with other posters here on many subjects since I’ve been here but I’ve never stooped to the level of hurling the types of base personal insults as you and unfortunately a very few others so often do. For instance I’ve never called you or anyone else a liberal, a troll, a moron and idiot, etc., or questioned their mental stability or sanity, etc.

And I can heatedly engage in debate and agree to disagree without hitting or threatening to hit the “Abuse” button or pinging Jim Robinson to come settle my playground disputes for me.

[editor-surveyor]

Buck has never posted anything legitimate.

[Jim Robinson]

And I am here to defend my unalienable rights. ALL of them! Including my rights to religious freedom. Those who can’t stomach that and or don’t like my methods or priorities are perfectly free to go somewhere else or start their own websites. I won’t be changing.

[Buck W.]

On the basis of content? I hardly consider you the arbiter of legitimacy on matters of interest in these threads.

[CottShop]

[[What I pinged to the Admin Mod was in response to was a very legitimate question asked by Buck W. and what I perceived was by some the posters on this thread, an attack on his and others religious beliefs that were just as much “off topic” as what they were accusing him of.]]

Interesting- do you also ping htem ods after the myriad attacks on GGG in every thread he posts? Or are you selective/subjective when it coems to attacks? Don’t fret if you are- because htis is par for hte course when it coems to opposing Christianity- Seems it’s just fine and dandy to constasntly attack Christianity, but let seomeone defend Christianity, and all hell breaks loose- Selective outrage- Ah- the makigns of a great liberal agenda!

Btw- 1000 to 1 ratio hardly seems ‘unfair’- one need only glance at GGG’s profile/posts to see that as soon as GGG posts soemthing, hoards of evos come in attackign him, attackign anyone that stands with GGG, and derailing topics- Every thread He posts ends up liek that, and Buck is a prime instigator- so Yeah- whatever, poor picked on Buck

[Buck W.]

“...but let seomeone defend Christianity, and all hell breaks loose...”

Not exactly. All hell broke loose when posters on this thread were asked to DEFINE Christianity. For some reason, they are rather reticent to do so.

[Caramelgal]

And I am here to defend my unalienable rights. ALL of them! Including my rights to religious freedom. Those who can’t stomach that and or don’t like my methods or priorities are perfectly free to go somewhere else or start their own websites. I won’t be changing.

Perhaps I’m misunderstanding your post, but just where did I ask you or anyone else here to change? Where did deny your or anyone else’s right to religious freedom? Is not my and other’s religious freedom just as important around here?

I understand that the evolution debate has long been a hot button topic around here. And I’ve engaged that topic from what I believe is a factual and rational point of view. If you disagree, that’s fine; we can either debate further or civically agree to disagree. But I’ve never suggested that your or other creationists POV should not be allowed, only that contrary opinions should also be allowed and subject to the same rules of engagement as those allowed by the other side of the debate and that the personal insults need to be reigned in, no matter which side they come from. Do you disagree with that Jim?

[Jim Robinson]

Obviously I disagree. FR is a pro-God, pro-Life, pro-Liberty conservative site. We are biased toward God, Life, Liberty, family and country.

All I'm going to say to you is that FR is what it is and I'm perfectly happy with it just the way it is. Those who don't like it and or think we're being unfair to opposing points of view can take a flying leap at a rolling donut. Because, frankly my dear, I just don't give a damn.

[NicknamedBob]

"... FR is what it is and I'm perfectly happy with it just the way it is. Those who don't like it and or think we're being unfair to opposing points of view can take a flying leap at a rolling donut."

"Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management."

[Caramelgal]

Obviously I disagree. FR is a pro-God, pro-Life, pro-Liberty conservative site. We are biased toward God, Life, Liberty, family and country.

All I'm going to say to you is that FR is what it is and I'm perfectly happy with it just the way it is. Those who don't like it and or think we're being unfair to opposing points of view can take a flying leap at a rolling donut. Because, frankly my dear, I just don't give a damn.

So you disagree that other points of view on the evolution debate are not to be tolerated here? That only a fundamentalist POV is allowed? That the faith of anyone who disagrees with a YEC POV should be called into question and that their “Christianity” is somehow false or faulty?

So in other words Jim, you think it is fine for creationists to insult anyone who disagrees with them, call them mentally retarded or insane, liberal trolls, etc. and to insult conservative Catholics by inferring that they are not “real” Christians, which I understand it against most forum’s rules, and yet when conservative and pro-life Catholics and other Christians object to that depiction based on their belief that the TOE and a 4.5 billion year old Earth is not contrary to their beliefs as Christians, they should not be able to defend themselves?

Although you and others might think otherwise, I am not nor are many other posters here against God, Life, Liberty, family and country just because we believe the Earth is a lot more than 6,000 years old. I’ve been a pro-life, free market, pro-1st and 2nd amendment, constitutional conservative all my life. While I’ve debated on the evolution and other science topics, I’ve tried to be civil and respectful of other’s religious beliefs and that civility is often not reciprocated. But it’s good to know where you stand on the topic and that you think that Christians who think that TOE is valid science or that the Earth is older than 6,000 years are not “true” Christians or “real” conservatives and that according to you, that they are no longer welcome here.

Frankly Jim, you’ve allowed this site to become a cesspool of the fringe. Please remove my account because I no longer want to be associated with Free Republic, for this and many other reasons of late, as you evidently know nothing about “Freedom” or the meaning of the word “Republic”. And quite frankly “my dear”, I don’t give a good damn what you think either.

You should really consider changing the name of this site to “Fundamentalist Republic” as that would be a more honest representation of what this once good, conservative and influential site has become.

[Jim Robinson]

I have no idea how old the earth is and don’t care one way or the other. But I do know that in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

Cesspool, eh?

Whine, baby, whine.

FreeRepublic.com, kissing the libs and making them whine since 1996.

[NicknamedBob]

"I have no idea how old the earth is and don’t care one way or the other."

Earth celebrates its birthday every few years with a real blow-out.

I'm not sure how many candles are involved.

[metmom]

Trying to start flame wars between different denominations is not *playground disputes*.

Hounding different people on various threads with the same divisive questions is not what Scripture ever portrays as Christlike behavior. Very odd from not only someone who claims to be a Christian, but also who chastises others for their alleged lack of Christ-like behavior.

So what if I said I was hitting the abuse button? I owned up to it. It wasn’t done in secret. Besides, I’ve seen evos do the same thing-confront creationists with their wrong behavior and state that they were going to hit the abuse button. Where was the criticism of them?

Do you honestly think that hopping thread to thread trying to start a flame war between differing Christian denominations or FReepers DOESN’T deserve the label of troll? It has nothing to do with the topic of the thread.

I also find it rather odd that for all the complaints made by the evos about not being pinged when they are talked about or alluded to by creationists, that they don’t have a problem not pinging others themselves.

[metmom]

So in other words Jim, you think it is fine for creationists to insult anyone who disagrees with them, call them mentally retarded or insane, liberal trolls,

Ahem,....

The term *creatard* is NOT a creationist construct. Neither is *IDiot*.

They certainly do their share of calling people insane, accuse them of drinking too much, and calling people trolls themselves.

Evos are in no position to whine about insults.

[CottShop]

Christianity is VERY simple- God laid it out in His word- To be a child of His- you can NOT save yourself, you can NOT earn your wy to heaven by doing ‘good deeds’ by refraining from sin as best as possible, by going to a priest to ‘absolve you of yor sins’- To be His child, one MUST be born again- period- To beleive o nthe Lord Jesus Christ- oen can not think, as some do, that Christ was a mere ‘good man’ or ‘good teacher’ but rather the sinless Son of God who died for our sins- But of course, some hwo call themselves Christians doubt the very word of God, thinking it nothign more than a collection of ‘good edicts’ written by fallible man, and as such would of course takign anythign about God’s word seriously, but who nonethel;ess value their ‘good works’ over the actaul requirement for salvation- Are such peopel saved? No-

Not too difficult to udnerstand

[metmom]

My creds, though, are far more relevant to this discussion than your rote memorization of bible passages.

What with your posting history, not only are you going to have trouble convincing anyone that you even have credentials but also that they are relevant to these discussions, because, from what I've seen, you've posted nothing that indicates that whatever credentials you claim to have play any part in the discussions.

Merely attacking Christianity and trying to cause division is not the same as posting evidence to support the ToE in a positive way. Tearing down an opponent is a poor way to make the oneself look better.

[metmom]

My creds, though, are far more relevant to this discussion than your rote memorization of bible passages.

For all your alleged education, we've yet to see any concrete evidence for it.

[CottShop]

[[Please remove my account]]

Must you leave so soon? I was just about ot poison the tea

[[That the faith of anyone who disagrees with a YEC POV should be called into question and that their “Christianity” is somehow false or faulty?]]

Ya know- it’s not that you or anyone else might dissagree with YEC- it’s HOW you folks dissagree, and the lengths you folks go to to try to derail threads that expose OEC or macroevolution that is the problem- As I mentioend several times now, take a quick glance at GGG’s threads and note the lengths for yourself- there’s NO secret here- it’s the same on EVERY thread he posts- several key evos in particular show up on EVERY thread hoping to disrupt and divert attention from the articles posted and quite frankly it’s tiring- and if you think peopel complaining about that soemhow makes FR a cesspool- then again I state you have a VERY selective sense of outrage

[[I’ve tried to be civil and respectful of other’s religious beliefs and that civility is often not reciprocated.]]

Meh- not so much- You aint fooling anyone- you might not use direct insults, but your subtle insults are just as insidious- Perfect example is found in your following statement “You should really consider changing the name of this site to “Fundamentalist Republic”

Yup- the poor picked on evos- Where did I leave that violin?