Evolution's new wrinkle: Proteins with cruise control provide new perspective (DIRECTED MUTATION!)

Princeton University ^ | November 10, 2008 | Kitta MacPherson

[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...

[GourmetDan]

"As a follow-up, can you name any current scientific endeavor or discovery that does NOT operate from an "a priori" assumption that all of nature has standard and rigorous rules that are predictable and discoverable? Just one, which has become a physical, tangible product or discovery."

That is the fallacy of equivocating the existence of natural physical laws with the assumption of philosophical naturalism and there are absolutely no exceptions to it.

This does not make it any less a fallacy, however.

[muawiyah]

You recall my response to the issue of "randomness in evolution" yesterday the simple observation W. Edwards Demming had? That was that given a long enough period of time and enough samples any sampling scheme will appear to approach randomness.

That's the problem we have with digging up fossils. We have samples we've obtained going back half a billion years (for the big stuff) from a broad area (surface of the Earth), so whatever we have at hand will appear to approach randomness.

We delude ourselves into thinking the consequence, today's biota, are actually the result of random rather than "directed" processes.

That was yesterday's prediction ~ and today we find a "directed" process right there in the mitochondria (where I really never expected we'd find it).

Who or what came up with the "process" is a question still to be answered, but the "process" exists.

All of evolutionary theory is turned on its head. Unfortunately the writer of the review seems to be still stuck in time ~ hence references to fitness, et al.

[js1138]

So give us an example in the history of science in which the assumption of supernatural causation has led to useful scientific discoveries of principals.

[B-Chan]

Please provide a single modern mechanism that relies on "non-naturalism."

Consciousness -- the mind, the sum, the individual awareness that lies at the core of every human being. No one can even define it, much less offer a naturalistic theory of its nature. Nowadays, many materialists simply dodge the question by denying that individual consciousness exists.

But, deep down inside, they all know it's there.

[freedumb2003]

. Pointing out the logical fallacies you commit in support of your personal philosophical worldview has no impact on your thought processes.

I ask again -- please specifically describe a single scientific finding or physical device that is non-materialistic. Your wordplay is, I am sure, gratifying to some. I asked a specific question: please answer it.

[freedumb2003]

All of evolutionary theory is turned on its head. Unfortunately the writer of the review seems to be still stuck in time ~ hence references to fitness, et al.

So, you denounce your own source of the post?

[muawiyah]

Still, virtually unlimited variation in some basepairs makes little or no difference ~ it depends on which basepairs are flipped (e.g. there's one flip that gives you primal dwarfism, and, to date, it's the only single basepair flip known to provide major changes).

What we have here is a "process" that serves to provide statistical control of genetic quality.

[muawiyah]

The piece is written by someone reporting on the work of other people. We need to see the original research ~ what we have here is an opinionated piece where the writer is still trying to stuff his preconceived notions into the framework of a new discovery.

I liked the part where the writer did let us know that the researchers were anxious to find other such processes going on elsewhere in the biologic machinery.

[GourmetDan]

"So give us an example in the history of science in which the assumption of supernatural causation has led to useful scientific discoveries of principals."

Here we see how firmly the fallacy of equivocating the existence of natural physical laws with philosophical naturalism is embedded in the thinking of naturalists. While it is unavoidably a philosophical decision, adherents are totally unable to recognize it and use it to support their belief simply because they have no other support and refuse to admit their critical-thinking error.

Did I mention how belief in philosophical naturalism destroys critical-thinking ability?

[muawiyah]

“Dark Energy” is, as it were, non-materialistic!

[Diplomat]

I am sure supporters of Newtonian Physics felt a little silly when Einstein physics was accepted as the new paradigm.

Typical lazy intellectual reasoning that has no basis in reality. Nearly everything man has created through today is due mostly from or entirely from Newtonian physics, not Einstein.

[freedumb2003]

You're wrong. Many people (scientists included) wouldn't believe in God under any circumstances. In fact, the only thing that would convince most modern materialists that God exists is if He Himself appeared here on Earth, working miracles and proclaiming His authorship of all reality.

The belief or non-belief in God is not the question at issue. GGG has posted an article which he claims scientifically undermines TToE and, by extension, materialistic/naturalistic science. We are asking where in the article it does that and how so.

As a follow-up we have some people who are saying that a 100% naturalistic (that is, things seen only in the physical Universe) is somehow lacking. I merely ask what scientific discovery and tangible product resulting therefrom has NOT been 100% naturalistic.

I await answers to either of these questions. I suspect the OP and others will abandon this thread before a straight answer is produced.

[Diplomat]

So man DESIGNED systems are now valid examples of evolution? Who knew. I hope my carborator evolves and allows my car to start running better. I know I want it to.

[js1138]

So give us an example from the history of science in which abandonment of methodological materialism led to a useful discovery.

[freedumb2003]

Typical lazy intellectual reasoning that has no basis in reality. Nearly everything man has created through today is due mostly from or entirely from Newtonian physics, not Einstein.

I think you fired at a friendly here. Both are 100% naturalistic -- which is my point. I am not a physicist and cannot argue one over the other. I am knowledgeable about science and do know there is no place in it for ID or Creationism/miracles.

[dmz]

Consciousness is a mechanism? Really? Have you looked up the definition of mechanism lately? It is purely and simply a feature of the material world.

[Sapin]

The problem with evolutionists and creationists is that they see things as mutually exclusive. It is not. Creationism can include evolution. The research done at Princeton doesn't disprove creationism, to the contrary, it actually corroborates it.
First: To take the Bible’s time line literally as to say one day actually means a day is too simplistic. A day may be 100 million years. It actually means stage rather than day.
Second: God is before time and space. Before time and space is called One, not two. Since no time exists and no space exists, God creates everything in an instant, in One point. Everything is a digital design, that has seven stages.
Third: Once God decides to separate into two, the unfurling of time and space and the whole process of creation takes place. It takes billions of years, evolution occurs, similarly to what Darwin postulated, but not exactly. There is one crucial mistake in his theory. Evolution is not by accident! It is by God's plan that was created before separating.
Fourth: The fact that the proteins have the capacity to self improve, is based on the fact that this very thing is planned into evolution, is designed in, and as such is part of the framework of evolution.

[muawiyah]

SWapping out your carburator for fuel injection is NOT evolution on the part of the car.

However, if we could develop "evolving cars", we'd probably never need to buy any new ones.

Whooops, there goes Detroit!

[B-Chan]

Consciousness exists — obviously — but cannot be defined in material terms, nor can its existence be demonstrated by the scientific method. It is therefore by definition a supernatural entity, and its existence disproves the materialist assumption that “if it cain’t be poked with a stick, it ain’t real”.

[GourmetDan]

"I ask again -- please specifically describe a single scientific finding or physical device that is non-materialistic. Your wordplay is, I am sure, gratifying to some. I asked a specific question: please answer it."

Again, pointing out the logical fallacies you commit in support of your personal philosophical worldview has no impact on your thought processes. Your question has the assumption of philosophical naturalism embedded in it and requires the assumption of philosophical naturalism for interpreting any answers. In summary, you commit the fallacy of equating the existence of natural physical laws with philosophical naturalism in your question. Now perhaps you believe that generating fallacious questions is somehow support for philosophical naturalism, but that is only because you lack the critical-thinking capability needed to recognize your error.

My responses are not 'wordplay', but are answers pointed specifically at the logical fallacies you so effortlessly commit in clinging to your philosophical position. That you continue to insist on maintaining your position even after I have showed you the fallacies supporting it merely proves the point that a belief in philosophical naturalism destroys critical-thinking ability.