|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
Proteins with cruise control call for a new perspective - 11/11/2008 10:34:59 AM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 1371
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
I would comment on uncommon descent, but I seem to be banned/indefinitely suspended from there for no reason.
Proteins with cruise control call for a new perspective
quote:
How can organisms be so exquisitely complex, if evolution is completely random, operating like a ‘blind watchmaker’?” “Our new theory extends Darwin’s model, demonstrating how organisms can subtly direct aspects of their own evolution to create order out of randomness.”
No, the new theory contradicts darwins model, showing that, once again, Darwin was wrong (and that random variation does not account for adaption very well).
quote:
Standard evolutionary theory offered no clues.
The hypocrisy. First they claim this is an extension of Darwin's model then they claim that standard evolutionary theory offers no clues. Which is it? It's amazing that this kind of nonsense can pass for science within the secular community.
quote:
It would be statistically impossible for this self-correcting behavior to be random, and the observed result is precisely that predicted by the equations of control theory. The proteins were exhibiting behavior consistent with a system managing itself optimally under evolution.
Evolution is operating according to principles that every engineer knows.
Intelligent design has always contended that it's better to look at biological systems from an engineering perspective than from a random evolutionary perspective.
Not only that, but something like this sounds like front loading. The system was designed, beforehand, to manage itself under a vast array of conditions, it's not random mutation or random occurrences that manage the system (like evolution would traditionally have us believe) by destroying the systems that don't happen to manage and keeping the ones that do. This is exactly what intelligent design has been predicting all along, how can anyone miss such an obvious thing? More on that here
http://www.overwhelmingevidence.com/oe/news
quote:
Evolution is operating according to principles that every engineer knows.
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.”
Wow, the evidence supports claims always made by intelligent design and they claim the opposite is true? This is proof that, no matter what the evidence, they will always claim it's evidence for evolution (ie: Darwin would have never predicted this based on evolution. Evolution only makes postdictions, they look at the data first and try to explain it in terms of evolution in retrospect). It's also amazing how they claim intelligent design isn't important enough to allow proponents to argue for in their peer review journals yet it's important enough for them to attack. They are free to attack intelligent design but they won't let intelligent design advocates defend themselves in peer review journals because they know that if intelligent design proponents had an equal opportunity to defend themselves in those journals, evolution would fall apart completely.
quote:
The scientists are working on formulating a new general theory based on this finding they are calling “evolutionary control.”
Again, more evidence of the postdictive powers of evolution. It doesn't make predictions, evolution would never predict this. It makes postdictions, it looks at the evidence first and then tries to explain it in retrospect. The scientists have to formulate this new theory after observing the new facts because evolution would have never predicted any such thing.
quote:
"Such principles are fully consistent with the principles of natural selection. Biological change is always driven by random mutation and selection, but at certain pivotal junctures in evolutionary history, such random processes can create structures capable of steering subsequent evolution toward greater sophistication and complexity."
No matter what the evidence, it's consistent with evolutionary principles because evolution doesn't make any predictions, it only explains things in retrospect. UCD is unfalsifiable. What intelligent design predicts is that IC and SC structures should never be observed to originate independent of already existing IC and SC structures or independent of design. The fact that these systems self correct themselves is a perfect example of good design and what intelligent design predicts is that these self correcting mechanisms will not originate independent of already existing IC and SC structures or independent design. Computers themselves have ways of self correcting data (Windows has built in scandisk, Linux has FSCK, some operating systems come with defrag, hard drives have error correcting mechanisms, all of which are a product of design and have never been shown to emerge as a result of random evolutionary processes independent design. No one says, "the fact that this hard drive has error correcting mechanisms is evidence that it wasn't design and it's evidence that it evolved and hence this opposes intelligent design." Only in the case of UCD can such nonsense pass as science).
< Message edited by Bettawrekonize -- 11/11/2008 11:01:00 AM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Proteins with cruise control call for a new perspec... - 11/11/2008 3:23:19 PM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 1371
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
For some reason, the above link no longer works and apparently has been moved.
Emphatic non-buttressation of ID
For the original quotes
Evolution's new wrinkle: Proteins with cruise control provide new perspective
quote:
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
This is coming from scientists who oppose ID a priori publishing from a journal that doesn't even have the integrity to publish any opinions in support of ID (unless it's for the purpose of criticizing those opinions). Why should I take anything they say on the subject matter seriously?
The UD response
quote:
Of course it does not…even though ID proponents had predicted we would find such things.
More on that topic:
ID-Compatible Predictions: Foresighted Mechanisms Identified?
(post 2 on the above UD link).
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Proteins with cruise control call for a new perspec... - 11/18/2008 2:17:31 PM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 7604
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: online
|
I have been meaning to comment on this for a while but hadn't gotten around to it.
The idea that life system are 'self-guiding' and contrary to ordinarily understood evolutionary theory don't act according to incidental selective circumstances but according to internal guidance mechanisms is so far outside of the mainstream of evolutionary thought that I think it safe to say that this finding constitutes proof against evolution as Neo-Darwinists understand it.
That being the case, that unless they once again expand their theory to try to encompass yet another exception, science should simply discard ordinary evolutionary thought as the relic of science that it is, and begin to pursue more robust biological explanations that can actually predict and explain what happens in biology.
_____________________________
Jack
I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.
- C.S. Lewis
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Proteins with cruise control call for a new perspec... - 12/6/2008 2:21:56 PM
|
|
|
teagueAMX
Posts: 3
Joined: 12/6/2008
Status: offline
|
Just a general comment - not an attack.
Ppl love to talk about evolution (proteins reorganizing themselves to a higher order), how it could have happened, the pros and cons of the argument, etc. IMHO, discussing the theory evolution (and the Big Bang for that matter, but don't want to get off topic) is like shadow boxing.
I think it's important to take the discussion to the beginning: We see life and have some understanding of it today so we can make logical arguments as to it's origin because the system is very logical (infinite loop). But, assuming for a moment that we had free, un-organized proteins to begin with, how is it they managed to organize themselves without "information" as a guide?
Said another way, today we recognize DNA as a master "blueprint" for the organizations of proteins and hence biological life. Based on that blueprint, proteins know what to do. Given this, how can one assume without that basic information proteins could through trial and error find a path to life?
Given that no science we know of (i.e., excluding fantasy speculation) can truly explain this "first" question, the under pinning of evolution fall apart and the question becomes moot.
|
|
|
|
 New Messages |
 No New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/ New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/o New Messages |
 Locked w/ New Messages |
 Locked w/o New Messages |
|
 Post New Thread
Reply to Message
Post New Poll
Submit Vote
Delete My Own Post
Delete My Own Thread
Rate Posts |
|
|
Forum Tools
Printable Version
