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 ...
Ping!
Link is starting on the History Channel.
Are you ever going to post from a real journal?
These WWN Bat Boy follow-ups really don’t have much reliability.
no_ape ping
This one is a MUST READ. Trust me, it will BLOW YOUR MIND.
All the best—GGG
Journal of Creation does not release its articles and papers to the internet until one year after publication in the hardcopy journal. As a subscriber myself, I have written asking that this policy be changed, but it would appear they are sticking to it. Having said that, many science journals never release their papers/articles to the general public at al, so looking at the bright side...it could be worse!
You can only hear that so many times before you stop paying attention.
Duh!
I don’t think you have ever paid attention to the substance of the issues involved, TL. All you do is complain about the delivery.
The "deliveries" are too devoid of substance to use them for that. If I was simply interested in getting involve in a flame war, they'd be perfect.
The "substance of the issue" is a theological disagreement over creation doctrine, and I'm not particularly interested in discussing that outside the context of a proper theological discussion, which is a topic for the Religion forum.
Who will be game enough to say the words? OnlyTherin lies the beauty of Philosophical Naturalism.
intelligent design can explain such data. There are no
naturalistic explanations.
Furthermore, the fundamental basis of the article, Kirschner and Gerhart's book The Plausibility of Life: Resolving Darwin’s Dilemma actually argues FOR Darwinian evolution, just with a modification and explanation of how the steps occurred!
Look, if you're going to rely on others to make your claim, it's best to actually understand WHAT they state, and then not to disagree with them to prove your own point on relying on them in the first place!
This paper is an extremely twisted set of logic to make a jump from a Darwinian evolutionary approach to somehow being "we don't know all parts of the process thus it must be intelligently designed".
I guess jumping to conclusions after mangling your references is par for the course in the ID world, though...
The author has written an article based on literature review.
The problem with the conclusions are the assumptions of the author. They are using hereditary genetics to attempt to derail heritable mutagenics. That’s an apples and oranges comparasin. I cannot stress enough that explaining one function does not limit or eliminate another.
PSS...as usual, you haven’t a clue what you’re talking about.
The author merely states that Yockey’s conclusion (that the origin of life is undecidable) is a classic Evo-avoidance technique in the hope that nobody will notice that divine foot in the door.
As for KG, they are clearly departing from neo-Darwinism, no matter how much lip service they pay to the Temple of Darwin. Not only that, facilitated variation makes far more sense from the standpoint of Creation/Intelligent Design.
Try reading the article again for understanding. Although, that might not be enough, for it assumes that you already understand the NDToE, which I am seriously starting to doubt.
And remember...
NOTHING MAKES SENSE IN BIOLOGY EXCEPT IN THE LIGHT OF CREATION AND THE FALL!
NOTHING MAKES SENSE IN BIOLOGY EXCEPT IN THE LIGHT OF CREATION AND THE FALL!
I'll leave those two statements as conclusive proof of the rational debate and instruction from the creationist side of things...
I knew that would go over your head. You are so predictable!
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.