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 ...
And your point is?
I give up. How many? And how many not?
It’s time to put the magazines away, Francis, and call the therapist.
“What’s he that was not born of woman?”
(Macbeth. Act V, scene VII)
Sure it's "part of the story." Everything's part of the story--how the Earth got here, how water got here, how oxygen got here...it's all part of the story of life. That doesn't mean it all has to be explained before any of it can be studied. It's more like you're saying we can't write a biography of someone without starting with the act of copulation of his parents--and if we don't know who both his parents are, we can't say anything about his life story at all!
Instead they're devising scenarios and experiments to find an origin of life. Evidently the theorists do address the question so that in practice the origin question has become very much a part of the theory.
Sure, some scientists are. But it's you who are lumping them together under the term "Darwinists."
[[So.... I can assume you trained your cat to type?]]
I have no hands, (lost htem in a poker game), and have a custom made typing helmet with rods attached to hit the ketys with- folks laugh at me because I look like a chicken pecking the ground for seeds, but meh... I just shrug off the mean taunts and try to put myself in their shoes to see what they must be thinking “Man oh man he looks doofy”, and that helps.
[[(I’m just curious, as your repeatedly ‘swap’ letters, often on the same word)]]
Actually someone told me it might be a neurological problem- I have been diagniosed with peripheral neurtopathy, dunno if that has anythign to do with it or not, but I’ll even say words backerds sometimes- I wasn’t always liek this, and infact was a highschool proof reader and editor for our school paper believe it or not
Anyway, I'm going to take a guess that the cookers of goo and recipe planners for primordial soup de jour would probably fall under the rubric of Darwinist.
“That doesn't mean it all has to be explained before any of it can be studied.”
Of course that isn't at all what I indicated or said but you know that, obviously.
I don't see why. If "Darwinism" means anything, it refers to changes in reproducing organisms. The terms "goo" and "primordial soup" usually refer to the conditions before there were such organisms.
Of course that isn't at all what I indicated or said but you know that, obviously.
Many here do claim that the theory of evolution has to address the origin of life, and that the theory is invalid unless it does. If I mistakenly inferred that you shared that position, I apologize.
An ad for his new book?
And especially when it's clear the “designer” cannot be just anyone at anytime, It is Intelligent design, it is overwhelmingly superior and powerful Intelligent design from an overwhelmingly and powerful Designer and who fits that description? Joe the Plumber?
But naming God as the intelligent agent isn't going to allow atheists and agnostics much mental wiggle room and may open up discussion of the mean and methods.
Creationists are staking out their position pretty firmly there and I.D. doesn't want to become an adjunct to them.
But evolutionists, yes, they refer themselves as Darwinists too, not all, but some who don't see it as a pejorative only the creationists used, but Darwinists do the very same thing with origin of life questions, “We'll talk about life from the nanosecond it started but not before” attitude.
Why not? Too intractable a problem? Inability to define what life is? Some evolutionists apparently are not put off by such considerations. But they don't get to name species and have their work on the History channel.
The question of the origin of life hangs over Darwinism, life cannot evolve unless it starts. And since natural selection is Darwin's strong horse the question gets even more important as some characteristics have to be present to select from so when did natural selection begin? Not minor questions, I'd say.
The question of who the designer is hangs over I.D. as more than just intelligence is required to design and more than just intelligence is evident in design.
I don't think not dealing with the origin of life question renders the TOE invalid but tip-TOEing up to the knife edge of beginnings of life and saying’ “This far we may come and no farther”, is like trying to remove my birth from what I am and how I arrived here at this point in time. And the fact that I wasn't born as something/someone else.
What's being avoided? Why would I avoid my origin question?
No need to apologize, we're just two guys having a conversation not kids who get hurt feelings. And at the end of the day we'll still be just two guys having a conversation.
He could have used the chair.
You are missing the point that the apparent lack of current explanations for a given subject does not provide falsification for a supernatural explanation.
So no the question has not been answered, simply throwing mud at the Evolutionary theory does not provide falsification of the supernatural.
Again, you cannot simply say it is too complex for us to understand, so God did it.
You cannot disprove a supernatural explanation, which is why they are supernatural.
Science only deals with the natural world, the supernatural world it outside of its methodology. The supernatural world is for ministers, priest, rabbis, or whatever religious leader one happens to choose.
Because the study of the origin of life is Abiogenesis, not Evolution they are separate theories and your silly little straw man cannot change that
As far as you erroneous notion regarding macroevolution, so you are saying that one cannot collect enough pennies to equal to one million dollar’s
The only evidence that you have provided so far is pseudoscience, avoidance, or the always-reliable straw man.
“Instead they’re devising scenarios and experiments to find an origin of life. Evidently the theorists do address the question so that in practice the origin question has become very much a part of the theory.”
What examples do you have of this?
Tahts fnie.
I jsut wnaetd to konw if you kenw you wree diong it.
Snice the hmaun barin is albe to rcegoinze wrods by the frist and lsat letter, eevn if the ohter ltetres are tarsnopesd, I dno’t hvae a porlbem wtih it.
Besides I think you're already familiar with what my answer would be, yes?
But if you have no idea of what I'm talking about I'll sift through the chaff.
Thart’s right-0 just keep ducking behind that belief-
And no- that is NOT what macroevolution is like at all- not even close- talk abotu silly arguments- when you get soemthign substantial to bring to the table- lemme know-
[[Snice the hmaun barin is albe to rcegoinze wrods by the frist and lsat letter, eevn if the ohter ltetres are tarsnopesd, I dno’t hvae a porlbem wtih it.]]
Me either- i’d feel like I was writing in a foriegn languafge if everythign was spelled right
No, the scientists had no explanation. So the chair won't work.
And you are confused as to falsification. It is the existence of a natural explanation which falsifies, just as a shoe in the preCambrian would.
Scientists are throwing mud when they admit that they are baffled?
Again, you cannot simply say it is too complex for us to understand, so God did it.
Sure one can, but that is beside the point. Finding naturalistic explanations is the point. "A" is the negation of "not A".
The supernatural world is for ministers, priest, rabbis, or whatever religious leader one happens to choose.
Are you sure you told the truth in post 61?
You cannot disprove a supernatural explanation, which is why they are supernatural.
So you claim that "turtles all the way down" has not been disproven?
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.