Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Evolution's new wrinkle: Proteins with cruise control provide new perspective (DIRECTED MUTATION!)
Princeton University ^ | November 10, 2008 | Kitta MacPherson

Posted on 11/25/2008 10:22:41 AM PST by GodGunsGuts

A team of Princeton University scientists has discovered that chains of proteins found in most living organisms act like adaptive machines, possessing the ability to control their own evolution.

The scientists do not know how the cellular machinery guiding this process may have originated, but they emphatically said it does not buttress the case for intelligent design, a controversial notion that posits the existence of a creator responsible for complexity in nature...

(Excerpt) Read more at princeton.edu ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Miscellaneous; News/Current Events; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: creation; crevo; directedmutation; evolution; intelligentdesign
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 181-200201-220221-240 ... 361-365 next last
To: AndrewC

How about not attributable to hidden variables?


201 posted on 11/26/2008 5:53:10 AM PST by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 183 | View Replies]

To: mlo
"No, he's right. You are not in a position to lecture anyone about critical thinking."

No, he's not. I have provided specific examples of the logical fallacies and non sequiturs when they were used. People who refuse to acknowledge that they rationalize their beliefs with fallacy and non sequitur and repeat those fallacies after they have been pointed out are either dishonest or are not able to think critically.

I'm being generous and giving them the benefit of the doubt at this point.

202 posted on 11/26/2008 5:56:47 AM PST by GourmetDan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies]

To: GourmetDan
Just so we understand each other, you are asserting that realities don't exist unless you say they exist and cannot be discussed unless you say so.

You misquoted me and are now trying to pretend you didn't. I call that lying. Deal with what I said.

203 posted on 11/26/2008 6:04:51 AM PST by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 194 | View Replies]

To: allmendream
Yes, Allmendream—I'm calling BS on the notion that chimps are closer to humans than to apes. You can't have it both ways. You can't have two organism that are closer to each other than a third organism in terms of body plan and functional needs (which you freely admit), while at the same time being closer to the third organism in terms of the genome and epigenome. As I said, it's a logical impossibility. And the fact that you can't see that, or are even willing to question the Temple of Darwin's wisdom on this subject, suggests to me that your mind is further gone than even I originally suspected.

And let me reiterate...I don't know why you keep trying to limit the discussion to DNA when you know the totality of what makes organisms similar and different is much more complex than DNA. That would be like only using bricks to compare the similarity and differences between two houses.

204 posted on 11/26/2008 6:11:37 AM PST by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 158 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
Calling B.S. based on what? Your minds inability to deal with the data?

The data is there. I am not “limiting” the argument to DNA, I am pointing out that your ‘similar body plan, similar lifestyle = similar DNA’ so called explanation for ERV data breaks down as soon as you look at the data in detail.

For example based upon body plan one might think a wolf and a huskie have more in common in DNA than a huskie and a dachshund, but based upon common ancestry one would predict correctly that the huskie and the dachshund are more similar in DNA despite their different body shapes, fur type, etc.

My mind is just fine over here GGG, it is you who never did understand what the ERV data shows. This has been known for over a decade, and I have explained it to you myself repeatedly. You are only now catching on. Wow!

205 posted on 11/26/2008 6:22:43 AM PST by allmendream (Wealth is EARNED not distributed.... so how could it be Redistributed?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 204 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

206 posted on 11/26/2008 6:26:10 AM PST by allmendream (Wealth is EARNED not distributed.... so how could it be Redistributed?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 204 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah
"Religion, which includes the worship of demigods such as "Natural Selection", is a totally different sort of subject."

Natural selection is not worshipped. That's silly. It's like saying physicists worship gravity because they keep talking about how it accounts for the gross characteristics of the cosmos.

The only people that make silly statements about worshipping natural selection are creationists who want to try to equalize their thought processes with science.

207 posted on 11/26/2008 7:04:14 AM PST by mlo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 193 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah
"The “Competition to Reproduce” is yet another demigod ~ best avoided in this sort of discussion."

No. It's the answer to the question I was answering.

It is not a "demigod". It's an explanation. It's a fact. Nothing gets relegated to demigod status because you don't like it.

208 posted on 11/26/2008 7:06:24 AM PST by mlo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 198 | View Replies]

To: js1138

Well, yes. But that does not negate causality. It merely states that determinism is in trouble. Without causality science would not be science.


209 posted on 11/26/2008 7:07:32 AM PST by AndrewC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 201 | View Replies]

To: GourmetDan
"Failing to recognize the philosophical basis for science (that of naturalism) is exactly what I have been trying to get you to recognize."

At what point did you define what you meant by "naturalism"? Can you point me to that?

210 posted on 11/26/2008 7:10:11 AM PST by mlo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 200 | View Replies]

To: AndrewC
Without causality science would not be science.

True, but the nature of causality can be investigated. It ain't necessarily axiomatic or intuitive.

My point is not that I know how existence came to be, or that science does, but that no one does. Asserting that a specific entity, by definition, requires no beginning is just an intellectual tantrum. It's equivalent to holding your breath until your parents give in to your demands.

211 posted on 11/26/2008 7:18:43 AM PST by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 209 | View Replies]

To: js1138
Asserting that a specific entity, by definition, requires no beginning is just an intellectual tantrum. It's equivalent to holding your breath until your parents give in to your demands.

No it isn't. It is a philosophical "answer" to a problem which by definition science cannot answer.

212 posted on 11/26/2008 7:27:25 AM PST by AndrewC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 211 | View Replies]

To: AndrewC

It involves an infinite regress terminated by an ad hoc assertion. A pretty flimsy philosophy.


213 posted on 11/26/2008 7:30:22 AM PST by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 212 | View Replies]

To: js1138
A pretty flimsy philosophy.

So what is your answer? Bear in mind that the question has challenged minds vastly superior to yours or mine.

214 posted on 11/26/2008 7:34:39 AM PST by AndrewC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 213 | View Replies]

To: AndrewC

I gave my answer in post 211. Are you asserting that because a philosophical conundrum exists that someone necessarily has the solution?


215 posted on 11/26/2008 7:37:35 AM PST by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 214 | View Replies]

To: js1138
I gave my answer in post 211. Are you asserting that because a philosophical conundrum exists that someone necessarily has the solution?

That was no answer. That was a punt.

"A" solution, yes. "The" solution no. My belief is that it is "the" solution. You believe whatever you believe. Just don't try to pawn it off under the guise of science.

216 posted on 11/26/2008 7:43:45 AM PST by AndrewC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 215 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah
The Discovery Institute is not a good source of information for ID.

They own the issue. They have devoted a decade and more to promoting ID, they have become its largest, most visible, and most voluble supporter. You're stuck with them.

What they've done is played on the fears of the "Natural Selection" worshippers and dragged in the prospect of "God's Gonna' Get You", and there you have it.

"Natural Selection worshippers?" What nonsense. You've been hanging around GGG and tpanther too much. I thought you had more class and erudition than to fall into the silly name calling that they resorted to when they ran out of arguments.

217 posted on 11/26/2008 7:52:44 AM PST by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 195 | View Replies]

To: AndrewC

You are welcome to define yourself as knowledgeable about ultimate reality. If it gives you comfort.


218 posted on 11/26/2008 8:00:09 AM PST by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 216 | View Replies]

To: js1138
You are welcome to define yourself as knowledgeable about ultimate reality.

Thank you for your permission to think.

219 posted on 11/26/2008 8:10:36 AM PST by AndrewC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 218 | View Replies]

To: AndrewC
"No it isn't. It is a philosophical "answer" to a problem which by definition science cannot answer."

It's not an answer. An answer is true. It's a supposition, a fantasy, a guess. If it isn't possible to know, then it isn't possible to know.

220 posted on 11/26/2008 8:12:56 AM PST by mlo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 212 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 181-200201-220221-240 ... 361-365 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson