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 ... 281-300, 301-320, 321-340 ... 361-365 next last
To: Texas Songwriter
301
posted on
11/26/2008 3:35:23 PM PST
by
js1138
To: Texas Songwriter; js1138
The incontrovertible conclusions of detailed analysis of so-called "string theory" is that other universes are out there.
It's believed that the excess gravity observed in the local galaxy (and in all the others as well) arises out of matter/energy which we can neither sense or manipulated ('cause it's in an adjacent or nearby universe).
Recently an evaluation of the location of dark matter in a nearby galaxy was consistent with a string theory hypothesis regarding what happens to dark matter when regular matter accelerates.
Thought that was a neat photo.
To: Texas Songwriter; js1138
To: muawiyah
Incontrovertible? Drs.Michio Kaku and Lane Collins state there is “not a shred of experimental evidence”that has been found to confirm superstring theory. Neither is there evidence to support inflationary cosmology. The fact that some appeal to the theoretical existence of many universes to avoid the implications of the finely-tuned circumstances of the universe at hand, still requires explaination of design.
The skeptic needs to invent a whole new set of physicl laws and a whole new set of mechanisms that are not a natural extrapolation form anything we know or have experienced. If a theist profered such theories to explain a theology they would be run out of town on a rail.
To: Texas Songwriter
Please let me be among the first to admit there’s a great deal of controversy, but there’s always a great deal of controversy.
To: muawiyah
Thank you for your honesty...but you first said ‘incontrovertible’. I have looked and found much speculation, but no evidence derived from methodological science.
To: Texas Songwriter
Here's the big problem with string theory, there's no evidence that it doesn't work to describe this and any other universe.
It may well be the "answer to everything" ~ unfortunately.
To: Texas Songwriter
Oh, yeah, almost forgot. Way out at the edge of the universe it was recently discovered that things there are definitely responding to gravity "over the horizon".
This is postulated to be a partial explanation for the discovery that the universe is expanding an accelerating rate.
So, what's "over the horizon" outside of our universe?
Could it perhaps be "another universe"?
Gotta' be something!
To: js1138
"No they don't. The methods and procedures of science depend on success, not belief. The methods of science work the same whether you are a Christian or a Buddhist or communist or whatever." You are committing the fallacy of equivocating the existence of natural physical laws with philosophical naturalism. The fact that natural physical laws exist does not mean that philosophical naturalism is also true. That is a non sequitur, but is the basis for the Weak Anthropic Principla, the Big Bang, abiogenesis and evolution. Yes, the fallacy of philsophical naturalism underlying 'science' does need to be discussed.
"They work when natural explanations are sought,and they go astray when supernatural or political explanations are sought."
They also go astray and do not 'work' when philosophical naturalism is assumed, which is what we have today.
To: mlo
"Wrong. You asserted fallacies. You didn't explain why anyone should agree with you." Fallacy of appeal to popular opinion noted! LOL!
To: GourmetDan
"Wrong. You asserted fallacies. You didn't explain why anyone should agree with you."
"Fallacy of appeal to popular opinion noted! LOL!"
Uh, rather obviously, no. I pointed out that you must explain why you believe something is a fallacy, not just declare it to be so.
Your failure to understand this basic point, and another false claim of a logical fallacy, is noted.
311
posted on
11/28/2008 1:56:13 PM PST
by
mlo
To: GourmetDan
"Yes, the fallacy of philsophical naturalism underlying 'science' does need to be discussed." Then discuss it. Don't just assert it.
312
posted on
11/28/2008 1:57:48 PM PST
by
mlo
To: js1138
Other universes may be detectable, published study claims Oct. 11, 2007 Special to World Science
If there are other universes out thereas some scientists proposethen one or more of them
might be detectable, a new study suggests. Such a finding,
while currently speculative even in principle, and probably far-off in practice, would surely constitute an epochal discovery, researchers wrote in a paper detailing their study. The work appears in the September issue of the research journal Physical Review D.
Cosmologists generally hold that even if other universes exist, a controversial idea itself, they wouldnt be visible, and that testing for their existence would be hard at best. A half-sky map of slight temperature variations in the cosmic microwave background radiation, thought to map structures in the very early universe. Blue stands for colder areas; red for hotter regions, where it's believed matter was denser. These dense regions are thought to have later become galaxy-rich zones. The boxed area marks an unusual "cold spot" researchers recognize in the data. An
unexplained giant cosmic void has also been found in the direction of that spot. In a new study, theoretical physicists argue that some sort of irregularity in the microwave background, and in matter distribution, might indicate where our universe once knocked into another one.
But the researchers take no position on whether this cold spot could be the anomaly they're looking for. Much more work is needed, they say. (Image courtesy WMAP Science Team, NASA) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- But the new study, by three scientists at the University of California, Santa Cruz, proposes that neighboring universes
might leave a visible mark on our own
if, perchance, they have knocked into it. For such a scar to be detectable, they add, the collision might have had to take place when our universe was very young. Just how the bruise might look remains to be clarified, they say.
The question of what the aftermath of a collision might be is still quite open, wrote Matthew C. Johnson, one of the researchers, in an email. One theory even holds that a clash between universes could destroy the cosmos we know. But Johnson, now at the California Institute of Technology in Pasadena, Calif., and colleagues are examining quite a different sort of scenario.
Several lines of reasoning in modern physics have led to proposals that there are other universes. Its a rather dodgy concept on its face, because strictly speaking, the universe means everything that exists. But in practice,
cosmologists often loosen the definition and just speak of a universe as some sort of self-enclosed whole with its own physical laws. Such a picture,
in concept, allows for other universes with different laws. These realms are often called bubble universes or pocket universespartly
to sidestep the awkward definitional issue, and partly because many theorists do indeed portray them as bubble-like. A key thread of reasoning behind the idea of bubble universes, which are sometimes collectively called a multiverse, is the finding that seemingly empty space contains energy, known as vacuum energy. Some
theorize that under certain circumstances this energy can be converted into an explosively growing, new universethe same process believed to have given rise to ours. Theoretical physicists including Michio Kaku of city College of New York argue that this might go on constantlyhe has called it a continual genesiscreating many universes, coexisting not unlike bubbles in a foamy bath.
How might one detect another universe? Johnson and his colleagues reason that any collision between bubbles would, like all collisions, produce aftereffects that propagate into both chambers. These
effects would probably take the form of some material ejected into both sides, Johnson said, although just what is unknown. This would in turn affect the distribution of matter in each pocket universe.
If such collisions happened recently,
they might be undetectable because our universe
might be too huge to be markedly affected; but not so
if the events took place long enough ago, according to the University of California team, whose paper is also posted online.
If a knock occurred when our expanding universe was still very small, they argue, then the aftermath might still be visible, blown up in size along with everything else since then. When the universe was less than a thousandth its present size, its thought to have undergone a transformation. As it expanded, it became cool enough for atoms to form. It then also became transparent. Before that, everything had been a thick fog, but with tiny variations in its density at different points; denser parts would eventually grow and coalesce into galaxies. This fog is still visible, because many of the light waves it gave off are just now reaching us: this is how astronomers explain a faint glow that permeates space, called the cosmic microwave background. It represents the edge of our visible universe and is detected in all directions of the sky. A collision would lead to a rearranged pattern of density fluctuations in this background, according to the University of California team. Its unclear just how this rearrangement would look, but
it would probably appear as some sort of area of irregularity centered symmetrically on a patch of the skysince each collision will affect a disc on our sky, Johnson wrote in an email. An analogy: if you lived in a beach ball and it bounced off another beach ball, youd see a change in a circular area of your wall.
Nothing like this has presently been observed, although no one has ever looked for this particular signal, Johnson added. On the other hand, researchers have found at least one striking irregularity in the background glowa cold spot, thought to be related to a vast and anomalous void in the cosmos. Could that be the mark of a separate universe?
Im going to remain completely noncommittal on that, Johnson said. I cant even tell you if it would be a hot spot or a cold spot. Temperature variations in the cosmic microwave background are believed to reflect density variations in the early universe. Johnson and colleagues stressed that their proposal
may be only the beginning of a long, painstaking research program. Connecting this
prediction to real observational signatures will entail both difficult and comprehensive future work (and probably no small measure of
good luck), they wrote. But it appears worth pursuing. * * *
Gee, this doesn't look like science. There are a lot of "ifs","buts","possible's","perhaps"....I have underlined a few of their notations of conjecture. If this is your science....go to it. It looks like science fiction. Theories are made up to avoid real observations. These physicists are so committed to the Stan Lee theory that they essentially say the laws of physics in this make-believe universe "probably" won't apply. If a theology made such a statement you would tar and feather them. Ad absurdum ad nauseum. Keep those federal researdh dollars coming.
To: js1138
Are There Other Universes? By Andrew Chaikin Editor, Space & Science posted: 07:00 am ET 05 February 2002 But
if these other universes do exist, are we really destined never to detect them? Some
theorists have speculated that gravitational energy from other universes
might leak into ours, and that someday
we might figure out how to detect it. But
even the most open-minded cosmologists say that's a long shot at best. "That is also pure speculation," says Impey. "Its
maybe reasonable speculation, but
its speculation in a very
similar vein to the speculation of someone like Kip Thorne about wormholes and time travel and white holes and black holes. Its very
careful speculation by a highly trained theoretical physicist who knows what the boundary of the current theory is." It wouldn't be the first time that
a wild idea turned out to be right. Table --> SCIENCE TUESDAY Visit SPACE.com to explore a new science feature each Tuesday. >>Go to Science Tuesday archive page Images Astronomers believe the Big Bang first produced atomic nuclei in the first three minutes of the universe. 300,000 years later, atoms formed and light was released. Today we can still observe evidence of these primordial reactions. Click to enlarge. Did the early universe resemble a sponge or a spider web? A group of European researchers has done some long-distance sleuthing, looking way back in time to when the universe was just 15 percent of its current age, to uncover some vital clues. This chart shows how much of the universe is made up of dark energy, dark matter, and ordinary matter. Related SPACE.com STORIES The Grid: A Computer Web for Astrophysics and More 'Brane-Storm' Challenges Part of Big Bang Theory 'Milestone' Study Challenges Basic Laws of Physics, Universe TODAY'S DISCUSSION What do you think of this story? >>Uplink your views A bit more than 100 years ago, in the second half of the 19th century, Albrecht says, most scientists didn't accept the idea that matter was composed of atoms -- an idea supported not by direct observation, but by inferences based on theories of temperature, heat, and viscosity. "Atomic theory had some great things to say about that, and seemed to give a consistent, unified picture," Albrecht says, but "the majority of physicists at that time didn't really believe atoms existed; they thought it was just some flight of fancy." Like quantum mechanics, Albrecht ponts out, atomic theory was a construction that went way beyond what anyone could see 100 years ago. And if it's a challenge for scientists now to embrace wild ideas like other universes, he says, that just comes with the territory. "So far, everything we've done to try to understand the universe has pulled us out of our shell, so to speak, and made us think about things that are way beyond what we see, and way beyond what we'll see in the foreseeable future. So we're just stuck with that
Unfortunately, it's part of the nature of always being at the frontier of what we understand."
Even the author says all of this is pure speculation. Pure Speculation. You have propagated not a single fact. You and the author essentially say, "This is a fairy tail, but we will call it science." It is fine and well to muse on fiction. My family and I just watched the 1951 version of "The Day the Earth STood Still-". Klatu and Gort were entertaining. Sometimes I will watch UFO files. It is interesting and complete fiction and without scientific foundation, just like the 2 articles you sent to me.
I underlined a few of the most salient points of the articles. Concentrate on those remarks.
To: GodGunsGuts
Still nothing to contradict the clear and unambiguous DNA data that shows a chimp is closer to a human being than it is to a gorilla.
The data says that your “logical impossibility” is the truth.
You obviously cannot wrap your brain around the data so all you do is attack the messenger.
Rather pitiful performance.
315
posted on
11/30/2008 8:53:11 AM PST
by
allmendream
(Wealth is EARNED not distributed.... so how could it be Redistributed?)
To: mlo
"Then discuss it. Don't just assert it." Have been. Respond. Don't just assert it hasn't been discussed.
To: mlo
"Uh, rather obviously, no. I pointed out that you must explain why you believe something is a fallacy, not just declare it to be so." No, you said I should explain why people should agree w/ me. That's the fallacy of appeal to popular opinion.
"Your failure to understand this basic point, and another false claim of a logical fallacy, is noted."
Your failure to understand this basic point and your use of another logical fallacy is noted.
To: allmendream
You are obviously incapable of making proper sense of the data.
:)
318
posted on
12/01/2008 6:32:13 AM PST
by
js1138
To: js1138
Yeah, because DNA similarity is SO HARD to decipher. You count up the number of DNA differences between human and chimp and human and gorilla and chimp and gorilla and you get a larger number counting between human and gorilla or chimp and gorilla than when counting between a human and chimp. Thus chimps are closer to a human than they are to a gorilla according to DNA.
Hard to make much more sense of it than that!
319
posted on
12/01/2008 6:49:16 AM PST
by
allmendream
(Wealth is EARNED not distributed.... so how could it be Redistributed?)
To: allmendream
Not just the count of differences, though. There’s nesting.
320
posted on
12/01/2008 6:52:18 AM PST
by
js1138
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 281-300, 301-320, 321-340 ... 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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson