Posted on 10/07/2009 5:05:03 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
Nature has recently published an interesting paper which places severe limits on Darwinian evolution...
(Excerpt) Read more at evolutionnews.org ...
The poor evos just can’t get a break...LOL!
Evolution is dead. Creationism will soon be mainstream!
Amen!
Joseph W. Thornton, professor of biology at the University of Oregon, was honored recently at the White House as a recipient of a 2006 Presidential Early Career Award for Scientists and Engineers (PECASE) -- the highest honor bestowed by the U.S. government on young researchers at the outset of their careers.According to the White House, Thornton was recognized "for innovative research on the evolution of complex molecular systems, for reconstructing and experimentally characterizing ancient genes, for elucidating the mechanisms by which hormones and their receptor proteins evolved, and for educating students and non-governmental organizations about issues at the interface of biology and public policy."
"I'm very grateful for NSF's very strong support of the research that my students, postdocs and I do," Thornton said. "It's quite encouraging that he White House is giving this award to an evolutionary biologist, especially one whose work demonstrates how evolution assembled the so-called 'irreducibly complex systems' that Intelligent Design advocates say can't possibly have evolved."
Evolution was still-born.
It's not enough that you have genetic coding that produces a given protein or enzyme.
Now, you have to have exogenous coding that tells the genetic coding which part of a protein or enzyme to produce, and in which direction, and connected to what.
Much of this coding is in the non-protein coding portion of DNA strands ~ however, they (the famous "they" who work in laboratories) have determined that much of the important intellectual work taking place inside cells occurs in the form of the "non protein coding" regions actually producing RNA instead of DNA.
Even the place of supposedly primitive RNA is being revised quickly as we speak.
The current view of the entirity of the DNA/RNA machinery underlying our forms of live is now Billions of Times more complex than was imagined in the days of yore (a few months ago) when all we had to be concerned with were genes!
Translation:
Writing propaganda that is useful to those in government that wish to spend even more Billions propping up the failed TOE.
bookmark
But you’re always telling us that mainstream science stifles dissent!
“Second, it is repeatedly said that science is intolerant of theories without data and assertions without adequate evidence. But no serious student of epistemology any longer takes the naive view of science as a process of Baconian induction from theoretically unorganized observations. There can be no observations without an immense apparatus of preexisting theory. Before sense experiences become “observations” we need a theoretical question, and what counts as a relevant observation depends upon a theoretical frame into which it is to be placed. Repeatable observations that do not fit into an existing frame have a way of disappearing from view, and the experiments that produced them are not revisited. In the 1930s well-established and respectable geneticists described “dauer-modifications,” environmentally induced changes in organisms that were passed on to offspring and only slowly disappeared in succeeding generations. As the science of genetics hardened, with its definitive rejection of any possibility of the inheritance of acquired characteristics, observations of dauer-modifications were sent to the scrapheap where they still lie, jumbled together with other decommissioned facts.”
One very important point made above and not to be overlooked is that there is a prevailing framework of thinking in science, evolution, that is not to be questioned, except in the minutiae of details in someone else's peer reviewed papers.
“...what counts as a relevant observation depends upon a theoretical frame into which it is to be placed.”
And if an “observation” does NOT fit? It will quietly be buried with nary a trace.
Absolutely. If it wasn't, you'd think there'd be some evidence in the evolutionist camp that a few minutes of FReeper research couldn't debunk completely.
Combined with the point made by Bridgham et al (2009), that even tiny structural/functional changes may not be achievable by random mutation/selection, these considerations pretty much squelch the likelihood of Darwinian processes doing much of significance during evolution.For me the fossil evidence screams loud and clear that phyletic evolution didn't occur. Punctuated... well, perhaps.
GGG reminds me of Keith Olberman.
Nope. Reminds me of all those in the “new media” working to debunk liberal mythology wherever they find it. GGG has done yoeman’s work in bringing new news that is helping debunk the evolutionm myth.
Good work, Gods, Guns, Guts!
Never happen.Evolution is an irreducible tenet of a religion that is held just as fanatically by University scientists as a Wahaabi holds Islam.
The message must be a little tough to hear since the messenger is being so vilely attacked. Darwinism is falling limb by limb. Time to rename it to make it more palatable like the the slimehead fish, renamed and pricey as “orange roughy”.
I’m taking suggestions for Darwinism’s New and Improved Name.
Like Olberman, GGG thinks he is an expert on everything, thinks people hang on his every word, and if you disagree with him, you are on the “Worst person in the world” list.
Unlike Olberman, GGG is not gay.
Our findings indicate that even if selection for the ancestral function were imposed, direct reversal would be extremely unlikely, suggesting an important role for historical contingency in protein evolution. [emphasis mine]
Wow! That is like saying "Methinks it is lake Ottersea" cannot evolve into "Methinks it is like a weasel".
From what little I could get from the abstract of the Science paper, this paper shows that in this case, you can’t go back to the earlier form by just making a single mutation. Nothing having to do with what you put in the false title.
Why don’t these rags spend the $ for a journal subscription and set it up so you can view the source material for free?
Why they don’t- because then people would read the paper and see that these creationist fishwraps are what they are, the equivalent of the Weekly world News.
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.