Fossil protein breakthrough will probe evolution

NewScientist.com news service ^ | 19:00 13 November 02 | Fred Pearce

[stanz]

It depends on when his siezures subside and they decide it's save to let him have access to the keyboard.

Without seeing any subsequent posts, I have to say, LOL

[stanz]

I love that picture!

[stanz]

Don't know if I could take on any more subscriptions right now, but I'll keep it in mind. Will look for a copy locally.

[AndrewC]

They've been claiming that fossils can tell us nothing about the critters they used to be.

Please show me where I stated that, or retract it. Fossils don't show you what you think they do. I said that ID would state that fossils are fossils. You are lying.

[CalConservative]

Doesn't ID predict that these are all randomly different?

Why would it? From an engineering design perspective, it makes perfect sense to re-use a design that works. Do you think Black and Decker invents a new electric motor every time they come up with a new power tool?

Whenever we do any engineering design at my company, we go to the AutoCAD template file and start there. We take proven designs and employ them where they are most effective. ID implies the same technique.

It seems less likely that an exact match over a range of at least 55,000 years would constitute good evidence for evolution since we have two separate species that implies at least some random mutations for one to be an evolutionary precursor of the other.

[Doctor Stochastic]

How does one post with a crayon?

[Dimensio]

The difference between the German scientist to which you refer and f.Christian is that the latter has nothing important to say contained within his incoherent babble.

[edsheppa]

From an engineering design perspective, it makes perfect sense to re-use a design that works.

So why is the cow protein different then? I'm sure you will tell me how that makes sense from an engineering design perspective too.

[f.Christian]

To: Dimensio

As I see it, evolution is an ideological(RELIGION)* doctrine(DOGMA)*.

If it were only a "scientific theory", it would have died a natural death 50 - 70 years ago; the evidence against it is too overwhelming and has been all along. The people defending it are doing so because they do not like the alternatives to an atheistic basis for science and do not like the logical implications of abandoning their atheistic paradigm and, in conducting themselves that way, they have achieved a degree of immunity to what most people call logic.

488 posted on 7/29/02 5:18 AM Pacific by medved

Great quote. Thanks for posting it.


294 posted on 10/18/02 11:59 AM Pacific by AnnaZ


*...my additions!

[f.Christian]

do not like the logical implications of abandoning their atheistic...babbelings---orgies!

[f.Christian]

f.Christian is that the latter has nothing important to say contained within his incoherent babble.

Evolutionist/liberals always have the advantage...everything is made up/changes---morphs to cover their tracks/lies...

fit their desire/'life' style'!

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the heads up!

[f.Christian]

rather unique...

To: f.Christian

Now I follow, thank you. Actually, I don't disagree with this at all since I see the left as abandoning the uncertianty of democracy and majority rule for the assurance technocracy and expert rule.

152 posted on 9/10/02 12:17 PM Pacific by Liberal Classic

and...

To: f.Christian

Dakmar...

I took a few minutes to decipher that post, and I must say I agree with a lot of what you said.

fC...

These were the Classical liberals...founding fathers-PRINCIPLES---stable/SANE scientific reality/society---industrial progress...moral/social character-values(private/personal) GROWTH(limited NON-intrusive PC Govt/religion---schools)!

Dakmar...

Where you and I diverge is on the Evolution/Communism thing. You seem to view Darwin and evolution as the beginning of the end for enlighted, moral civilization, while I think Marx, class struggle, and the "dictatorship of the proletariat" are the true dangers.

God bless you, I think we both have a common enemy in the BRAVE-NWO.

452 posted on 9/7/02 8:54 PM Pacific by Dakmar

[jennyp]

If a Bison is only 1 acid different from a cow even though a million years separates them, it is not a very precise test.

A couple of comments. The precision seems to be quite good. The particular protein, osteocalcin, may not be very informative or specific for short time-frames, such as 55,000 years in the case of the bison, but it will be informative for long time frames. Can you see now how that can be a useful way of extracting more information from ancient fossils?

Also, they only compared one, single protein! I wonder how many different proteins they will be able to recover from fossils.

[f.Christian]

"Listening to him is like reading a printout of a fragmented hard disk. You know there is important information contained in it, but it is so scattered, it is impossible to comprehend."



To: f.Christian

The fact that the nomenclature of the political spectrum is
is reversed in the USA indicates the radical nature of our republic. The radical idea of the 18th century was reducing the power of central authority in favor of individual liberties. American liberals of today seem more interested
in returning those hard won individual freedoms to the central government. (I deliberatly use the term central rather than federal because I am a Southerner who recoqnizes the difference.)

American conservatives today are Classical Liberals.


7 posted on 10/25/2002 9:34 PM PDT by limitedgov

[Junior]

I'm sorry. I must have misinterpreted some of your more cryptic posts...

[<1/1,000,000th%]

From an engineering design perspective, it makes perfect sense to re-use a design that works.

So why is the cow protein different then?

This is the problem with ID as science. It's all over both sides of the evidence. If it works, it's re-used. If it's different, it's because the designer knows something we don't know.

What's ironic is that as more and more of these irreducibly complex features are explained, ID is starting to sound more and more like evolutionary theory.

[Nebullis]

I wonder how many different proteins they will be able to recover from fossils.

Most proteins are recoverable for about 100,000 years (at cold temperatures). Osteocalcin is a bit unique, but they may find a few other proteins like that.

[asformeandformyhouse]

Osteocalcin itself may not be able to determine the puzzling lineages of australopithecines and humans over the past two million years, but the method could be applied to other proteins that might give a clearer picture.

I find it amazing that evos blast christians or IDers for their 'faith' but they readily accept this article as proof of whatever they want it to be without reading the last sentence. IOW, "We are concerned that this discovery will fail to provide any conclusive evidence just as many others have failed, but we'll trumpet the discovery long enough to get in included in textbooks long after it's been discredited."

[Nebullis]

What they have here is a test, there is no evidence yet from very ancient fossils. The article makes that clear.

Aside from that, there is no scientific theory that doesn't fail under, at least, some circumstances. Using your criterion, there would be no science textbooks left.