Posted on 10/07/2009 9:22:42 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
The titles of two recent science news articles caught my attention, “More ‘Evidence’ of Intelligent Design Shot Down by Science” and “Intelligent Design ‘Evidence’ Unproven by Real Science.”[1] The evidence in question is a molecular machine. Members of the Intelligent Design Movement and creation scientists have often stated that molecular machines are irreducibly complex and could not be formed by evolution. However, evolutionists now claim the mechanism of “pre-adaptation” is a way that these molecular machines could have evolved...
(Excerpt) Read more at answersingenesis.org ...
Ping!
Pre-adaptation... what kind of theory is that?
So many issues are swirled together in these discussions. A hard liner naturalism advocate could always say that the universe we live in now just lucked into the way it is now. I’d say the “luck factor” required to even be able to get evolution as preached today is pretty darn narrow!
How in the world is this a Kentucky issue, BTW?
Thanks for the ping!
Why do so many so-called christians obsess over evolution? Is their faith in the power and glory of the Lord so weak?
[[Why do so many so-called christians obsess over evolution? Is their faith in the power and glory of the Lord so weak?]]
Shall we just turn a blind eye to what is being preached to kids in public schools all across the world and say ‘oh well- no sense fightign the error of Macroevolution because so many peopel htink Christians should just keep their yaps shut about the issue?
Why do so many people fight afgainst hte idea of global warming nuts liek Al Gore? Because peopel liek them are preachign LIES- that’s why-
Don’t you worry one iota- our faith in God is just fine- We are NOT tryign to validate our faith by pointing out the LIES in evolution no more so than when we point out hte LIES from the likes of peopel like Al Gore- Stating TRUTH is not ‘obsessing’
Here’s the truth about Joe Thornton’s supposed creation of IC (Which by the way doesn’t even begin to resemble IC in the slightest- no wonder he took down his original claim from his website- He obviously knew how lame his attempt was to show IC ‘could arise naturally’ given his lame examples)
“The study by Bridgham et al (2006) published in the April 7 issue of Science is the lamest attempt yet — and perhaps the lamest attempt that’s even possible — to deflect the problem that irreducible complexity poses for Darwinism.
The bottom line of the study is this: the authors started with a protein which already had the ability to strongly interact with three kinds of steroid hormones (aldosterone, cortisol, and “DOC” [11-deoxycorticosterone]). After introducing several simple mutations the protein interacted much more weakly with all of those steroids. In other words, a pre-existing ability was decreased.
That’s it! The fact that this extremely modest and substantially irrelevant study is ballyhooed with press releases, a commentary in Science by Christoph Adami, and forthcoming stories in the mainstream media, demonstrates the great anxiety some folks feel about intelligent design.
In the study the authors wished to see if two related modern proteins called the glucocorticoid (GR) receptor and mineralocorticoid receptor (MR) could be derived from a common ancestral protein. Using clever analysis the authors made a protein that they thought represented the ancestral protein. That protein binds several, structurally-similar hormones, as does modern MR. They then introduced two amino acid changes into the protein which are found in modern GR. The two changes caused the ancestral protein to bind the different kinds of hormones anywhere from ten- to a thousand-fold more weakly. That protein bound aldosterone about three-fold more weakly than cortisol. The authors note that modern GR (in tetrapods) also binds aldosterone more weakly than cortisol. So perhaps, the thinking goes, an ancestral gene that could bind both hormones duplicated in the past, one copy accumulated those two mutations to become the modern GR, and the other copy became modern MR.
Here are number of comments in response:
1) This continues the venerable Darwinian tradition of making grandiose claims based on piddling results. There is nothing in the paper that an ID proponent would think was beyond random mutation and natural selection. In other words, it is a straw man.
2) The authors (including Christoph Adami in his commentary) are conveniently defining “irreducible complexity” way, way down. I certainly would not classify their system as IC. The IC systems I discussed in Darwin’s Black Box contain multiple, active protein factors. Their “system”, on the other hand, consists of just a single protein and its ligand. Although in nature the receptor and ligand are part of a larger system that does have a biological function, the piece of that larger system they pick out does not do anything by itself. In other words, the isolated components they work on are not irreducibly complex.
3) In the experiment just two amino acid residues were changed! No new components were added, no old components were taken away.
4) Nothing new was produced in the experiment; rather, the pre-existing ability of the protein to bind several molecules was simply weakened. The workers begin their experiments with a protein that can strongly bind several, structurally-very-similar steroids, and they end with a protein that at best binds some of the steroids ten-fold more weakly. (Figure 4C)
5) Such results are not different from the development of antibiotic resistance, where single amino acid changes can cause the binding of a toxin to a particular protein to decrease (for example, warfarin resistance in rats, and resistance to various AIDS drugs). Intelligent design proponents happily agree that such tiny changes can be accomplished by random mutation and natural selection.
6) In the “least promising” intermediate (L111Q) the protein has essentially lost its ability to bind any steroid. In the “most promising” intermediate protein (the one that has just the S106P alteration) the protein has lost about 99% of its ability to bind DOC and cortisol, and lost about 99.9% of its ability to bind aldosterone. (Figure 4C)
7) Although the authors imply (and Adami claims directly) that the mutated protein is specific for cortisol, in fact it also binds aldosterone with about half of the affinity. (Compare the red and green curves in the lower right hand graph of Figure 4C.) What’s more, there actually is a much larger difference (about thirty-fold) in binding affinity for aldosterone and cortisol with the beginning, ancestral protein than for the final, mutated protein (about two-fold). So the protein’s ability to discriminate between the two ligands has decreased by ten-fold.
8) One would think that the hundred-fold decrease in the ability to bind a steroid would at least initially be a very detrimental change that would be weeded out by natural selection. The authors do not test for that; they simply assume it wouldn’t be a problem, or that the problem could somehow be easily overcome. Nor do they test their speculation that DOC could somehow act as an intermediate ligand. In other words, in typical Darwinian fashion the authors pass over with their imaginations what in reality would very likely be serious biological difficulties.
9) The fact that such very modest results are ballyhooed owes more, I strongly suspect, to the antipathy that many scientists feel toward ID than to the intrinsic value of the experiment itself.
10) In conclusion, the results (and even the imagined-but-problematic scenario) are well within what an ID proponent already would think Darwinian processes could do, so they won’t affect our evaluation of the science. But it’s nice to know that Science magazine is thinking about us!
http://www.idthefuture.com/2006/04/the_lamest_attempt_yet_to_answ.html
[[[[Why do so many so-called christians obsess over evolution? Is their faith in the power and glory of the Lord so weak?]]]]
Our faith is just fine- but one has to wonder why the Evos have to obsess over ID’ists exposing the lies of Macroevolution by constantly attackign the messengers? Is that the only way they can defend their hypothesis? Evolution isn’t some harmless little cute theory- it’s a scientific LIE that has no scientific evidnece to support (and worse, which the scientific evidence itself REFUTES) that’s being foisted on our kids- if that’s ok with you- then whatever- but soem of us like to htink Scientists are suppsoed to be intellectually honest and objective- and NOT being so driven by their irreversible marriage to a scientific impossibility that they lie to our kids and deceive them with pure garbage assumptions that violate the very scientific principles that govern the hypothesis i nthe first place
Something similar would be an excellent question to ask the Darwinists, would it not?
Maybe on the order of, “Why do Darwinists obsess over pushing their doctrines into every nook and corner of science”, or like that.
OK, fair enough. But you’re just fanning the flames. The secular materialists/atheists detect that it is a sore spot with you and keep trying to rub salt in the wound to get you to make dumb quotes and to buy into their “the existance of the Judeao/Christian God is disproved by evolution” argument. The fact is that God is above evolution or intelligent design or instantaneous creationism, and whatever method He used does not diminish Him.
AiG is based in Kentucky.
Excellent find, CottShop. I thought that guy sounded familiar, now I know why.
Isn’t it ironic that it was he who wound up confirming Behe’s “edge of evolution” thesis?!
You make some good arguments against things not in question and there is no reason that I can see that the question I proposed is “just fanning the flames” any more than your own or to suppose I feel wounded (I can only speak for myself, you understand) in such a way that some sort of salt can be rubbed in.
I know you mean well, but there’s no reason why honest folks should not say what’s on their minds while being civil about it. And judging by the response to these threads it appears there is considerable interest in the subjects dissed, cussed and discussed.
Those that aren’t civil are manhandled a bit but that’s rough justice for you, I guess.
Next day a satisfied patient goes home with a couple of DieHard batteries in tow and the finest Chinese knockoff of a bankrupt American Parts Manufacturer whirling away in his bosom right next to the swelling gratitude.
A few mutations later.....well, it is just a theory and a further study metric is needed, or is it SAE?
[[The secular materialists/atheists detect that it is a sore spot with you and keep trying to rub salt in the wound to get you to make dumb quotes and to buy into their “the existance of the Judeao/Christian God is disproved by evolution” argument.]]
There’s no wound to rub salt in- Truth is truth- I post the truth- I’m certainly not wounded by trying to present truth no more so than I am when tryign to prsent the truth abotu global warming- We’re not to blame, and I have many scientific links proving that it’s nothign but a cyclical warmign trend brought on by purely natural phenomenon like sun spots- When I see someone claiming that we ‘evil humans’ are to blame, I respond with the truth and links to back up what I am saying- and I do the same when I see error posted abotu macroevolution-
I’m not concerned with what the deniers think- they can think we all evolved from little green fruitflies for all I care, but if they are goign to try to foist such an assinine hypothesis on unsuspecting kids- I’m goign to make sure the truth is stated, and that the serious problems and impossibilities of their hypothesis is exposed for all to see, so that noone is left with a mistaken notion that somethign like Macorevolution ‘might be possible’- it isn’t- plain and simple, and htere is enough scientific evidence to present a very strong case against macroevolution-
This isn’t about belief- this is about hte science, and whetehr macroevolution is scientifically possible or not, and whether htere is enough scientific evidence to make a very strong, beyond reasonable doubt case for, the need for a Designer-
[[But you’re just fanning the flames.]]
Sorry- but I’m not goign to allow deceit to go unanswered- The only thing evil needs in order to grow is for good peopel to sit back and do nothing- Why should an impossible process of macroevolution go uncontested? Why shoudl the only hting our kids hear be somethign that defies the very the science upon which it’s supposed to be based? Why shoudl the only hting they hear is lies and deceit?
I’ve documented, and so have many here on FR, many cases of blatant outright deceit on the part of macroevolution scientists and teachers- and if everyone just sat back abnd did nothign for fear of ‘fanning hte flames’, then the truth would never be told, and hte lies of macroeovlution would go uncontested- and that’s exactly what the opposition wants- a forum where they can present hteir lies unchallenged-
Yes- things get heated- but again- my concern is NOT with those that simply deny that macroevolution is impossible, and won’t beleive no matter how much evidence you give them- but rather my concern is about htose who might be reading who are undecided, and who are intellectually honest enough to admit that there may infact be serious problems with Darwinian evolution, and hwo wish to explore the issue further and see for themselves whether the claims of macroevolution stand up to the actual evidence- they will quickly find out it does not, and that it takes more faith to beleive i na scientifically impossible process of macroevolution, than it does to beleive an intelligent Designer was needed, and that htere is more than enough evidence to point to this need.
[[The fact is that God is above evolution or intelligent design or instantaneous creationism, and whatever method He used does not diminish Him.]]
The fact is that htere is enough evidence to show that God did not si9mply allow nature to ‘take it’s own course’ because nature is incapable of doign so- it’s impossible- it’s impossible from the very first chemicals (which suppsoedly turned into single cells- amino acids) and it’s impossible no matter where you ‘start the process of Macroevolution’- Some people reject abiogenisis, and beleive God created some initial species- then left them to evolve into other species- but science shopws us that no matter what step you start at- it’s still impossible for one species kidn to evolve into another species kind- and htere is ample enough evidence to show this- we need NOT fear the science, or simply avoid it because we are Christians, and just take everythign on faith- the science itself SUPPORTS special creation, and hte science itself REFUTES the idea of macroevolution=- regarldess of when one wishes to begin the macroevolutionary process- it’s a scientifc impossibility- plain and simple, and we do not need to fear discussing the impossibilities and building strong beyond reasonable doubt cases for the need for an intelligent designer-
All you have to do is get them to abandon civility, and you're good to go.
[[All you have to do is get them to abandon civility, and you’re good to go.]]
Truth is truth- Truth stands on it’s own accord- just because discussions get heated doesn’t mean that truth suddenly becomes untruth- One can wave their hands and declare that because a discussion becoems heated, that the truth of the issues are no longer relevent if they like, but truth still remains truth whether soemone does so or not. Intellectually DISHONEST people are the only ones who wave the truth away by simply focussing on the delivery- but again- truth can not be simpyl waved away. Claiming ‘Your truth is invalid because you raised you voice’ isn’t an intellectually honest form of debate I’m afraid- soem might fall for it, but again, the truth remains solid
The Braying Bunch have never needed any encouragement to be uncivil and disruptive.
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.