Posted on 06/04/2004 8:08:18 AM PDT by Michael_Michaelangelo
You don't think we already have enough of those retarding the growth of mankind?
Ad Hominem befits you. And I do read. You evidently don't. I have posted this for years. I have also posted Dr. Shapiro's comments from ISCID.
Yaakov
Hi James, It seems to me that what you are saying throws out Darwinian(or NeoDarwinian) theory of evolution as the "major" means of evolution of life on Earth and now this 21st century evolution sees a much more elegant and orgerly mechanism to induce a guided development of life when needed. Do I understand your propositions correctly
Masciarelli
My wild question: Jim wrote: "cells are capable of altering their genomes in non-random but not rigidly specified or pre-determined ways." Could this mean that cells are making 'choices' about how to react, adjust & develop to input?
James Shapiro
Yaakov, you get the message. Evolution, yes, Randomness and gradualism, only in the fine-tuning after the heavy lifting has been done.
Furthermore, not all mutations occur through this mechanism: there are still base pair substitutions, transposons, and the like. So there is plenty of room in the model for both small changed over long periods and dramatic changes over short periods.
Uh, oh! Sounds like the most feared hobgoblin of the creationists: Punk-Eek! Are you sure you aren't selling your soul to the Devil by going down this road?
I've probably explained everything, at one time or another. But I can't remember any of my explanations. That's a good thing, because I'm wonderously free from the necessity of tying it all together.
My supernatural fantasies are unprintable...
Splendid! Because if you had actually gone to the thread and checked, that is exactly the sequence of the questions. Previously, I had omitted that question for clarity in my citation. This time I left it in so as to not be accused of having an agenda and hiding something. I am accused of something anyway. Shows how you think.
Furthermore, not all mutations occur through this mechanism: there are still base pair substitutions, transposons, and the like. So there is plenty of room in the model for both small changed over long periods and dramatic changes over short periods.
If you would actually read the material you might find that Shapiro covers these things. He is a biochemist, after all.
Oh, I'm sure that Shapiro knows these things; it's you I wasn't sure about.
If you accept all of this, then I'm afraid I don't see a whole lot of difference between your beliefs and standard evolutionary science.
I attempted to find the meaning of "RMNS" using Yahoo but I was unsuccessful.
As ignorant as I am of the mathematically precise definitions of "intelligent design" or "irreducible complexity" I can still appreciate the tone of the discussion on this thread.
I find myself picturing two people from five-hundred years ago discussing a geo-centric model of the universe versus a helio-centric model.
Obviously, "intelligent design" would require that the Earth be the center of the universe and anything else was heresy.
The "elegance" of the circular paths of various heavenly bodies was maintained, in part, by being unable to discern that the paths of these objects were, in fact, elliptical.
In light of later physical understanding, the helio-centric model became the only reasonable description for the part played by the Earth. Nevermind the fact that additional understanding now places our sun in a very unimportant backwater of a much larger galaxy.
"Intelligent design" as it applies to the universe only seems to require that the "intelligence" choose to evidence itself using a relatively unchanging set of physical laws which allow for a high degree of determinism, at least over short periods of time and small distances, subject to the "uncertainty principle".
It would surprise me greatly if studies of genetics were, unlike any science before it, to suddenly reach a point beyond which further understanding is impossible. Nor do I think it likely that it will reach a point where the conclusion may be irrefuteably drawn that genetic mechanisms are due to "intelligent design".
If you don't see much difference then you should accept this.
It seems to me that what you are saying throws out Darwinian(or NeoDarwinian) theory of evolution as the "major" means of evolution of life on Earth and now this 21st century evolution sees a much more elegant and orgerly mechanism to induce a guided development of life when needed. [sic]...
Yaakov, you get the message. ...
Gosh, if science can't explain a newly discovered phenomena within the first ten minutes, the whole materialistic enterprise falls down. ID proponents never have this problem. Little green men did it.
This is not a newly discovered phenomenon. Ultra conserved regions are known. What is different is that RMNS cannot explain this particular example.
I never trusted ogers myself. Ogres either.
OK, let me ask a simple question. Suppose a purely biochemical mechanism is found. What is your next move?
God made critters with DNA expansion boards for future upgrades.(evolution)......Shock!...Gasp!
Channeling the Freeper ghost of f.christian? :)
did he or she get the boot? I remember the name.
Watch the dancing done by Darwinians in explaining the role of natural selection in the preservation of gene sequences and explaining the changes allowed in those preserved areas(the "same" areas as those in mice and men)in fish.
You must admit, the posting style is...unique.
Suppose it doesn't require selection? If selection were the cause of stability, we would see wobble around a central island of stability.
More likely, conservation is a central tendency, and conserved fragments will be found in a normal distribution of sizes.
That is just my hunch, not the theory of a biologist.
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.