Evolving Enzymes and Testing Darwin's Theory With Ann Gauger

Evolving Enzymes and Testing Darwin's Theory With Ann Gauger

How many mutations does it take?Hint: It is not one.

Click here to listen.

Genetic Piano

Perhaps someone was listening........

A while ago I posted on the idea that we should look at genes like keys on a piano. The number of tunes that can be cranked out is astounding. Sometimes a single key is played or in combinations. Some are rarely played but still can produce beautiful music.

Now someone else has picked up on this idea.

More support for IDvolution.


Study gives clue as to how notes are played on the genetic piano

The NOVA U.S. public television program described epigenetics as “The Ghost In Your Genes.” It is the study of changes in gene expression that occur without changes in DNA sequence. Like keys on a piano, DNA is the static blueprint for all the proteins that cells produce. Epigenetic information provides additional dynamic or flexible instructions as to how, where and when the blueprint will be used. “It corresponds to a pianist playing a piece of music,” said Kohzoh Mitsuya, Ph.D., postdoctoral fellow in the School of Medicine at The University of Texas Health Science Center San Antonio. 



Why Some Genes Are Silenced: Researchers Find Clue as to How Notes Are Played On the 'Genetic Piano' 'Like keys on a piano, DNA is the static blueprint for all the proteins that cells produce. Epigenetic information provides additional dynamic or flexible instructions as to how, where and when the blueprint will be used. "It corresponds to a pianist playing a piece of music," said Kohzoh Mitsuya, Ph.D., postdoctoral fellow in the School of Medicine at The University of Texas Health Science Center San Antonio.'

An Atheist defends intellignet design

Bradley Monton, author of Seeking God in Science: An Atheist Defends Intelligent Design (Broadview Press, 2009), p. 36.

Consider some feature of the universe, such as its beginning to exist (assuming that it did begin to exist). There are various competing explanations we can consider for such a feature, and one of those explanations will be that the feature was due to an intelligent cause. We may judge this explanation to be the best one but it doesn’t follow that the explanation is true. The right account could be that there’s no explanation at all for why the universe has the feature that it does.
Thus, if the doctrine of intelligent design is as I’ve stated above, with the claim that the best explanation for the features is an intelligent cause, then I endorse intelligent design. I can do this, as an atheist, because I reject the inference that the best explanation is true or even likely to be true. My opinion is that it’s probably the case that the true account is that there’s no explanation at all.
- Bradley Monton, author of Seeking God in Science: An Atheist Defends Intelligent Design (Broadview Press, 2009), p. 36.

Peer-reviewed paper defends theory of intelligent design

Peer-reviewed paper defends theory of intelligent design

 

Critics of evolution score publishing success

A new front has opened up in the battle between scientists and advocates of intelligent design, a theory that rejects evolution and is regarded by its critics as another term for creationism.A scientific journal has published a paper that argues in favour of intelligent design — the first time such material has appeared in a peer-reviewed publication, according to biologists who track the issue.

 

St Thomas Aquinas and intelligent design

IDvolution - liking it more and more.

A Response to Professor Feser

For when we call the builder the principle of the house, in the idea of such a principle is included that of his art; and it would be included in the idea of the first principle were the builder the first principle of the house. God, Who is the first principle of all things, may be compared to things created as the architect is to things designed.
- Summa Theologica, Vol. I, q. 27, article 1, reply to objection 3.
Although creatures do not attain to a natural likeness to God according to similitude of species, as a man begotten is like to the man begetting, still they do attain to likeness to Him, for as much as they represent the divine idea, as a material house is like to the house in the architect’s mind.
- Summa Theologica, Vol. I, q. 44, article 3, reply to objection 1.
For just as an architect, without injustice, places stones of the same kind in different parts of a building, not on account of any antecedent difference in the stones, but with a view to securing that perfection of the entire building, which could not be obtained except by the different positions of the stones; even so, God from the beginning, to secure perfection in the universe, has set therein creatures of various and unequal natures, according to His wisdom, and without injustice, since no diversity of merit is presupposed.
- Summa Theologica, Vol. I, q. 65, article 2, reply to objection 3.

Nachman - Purifying Selection

No matter how you spin it the end result is deleterious.......we are devolving.

Nachman - Purifying Selection

PNAS Authors Resort to Teleological Language in Failed Attempt to Explain Evolution of Irreducible Complexity

PNAS Authors Resort to Teleological Language in Failed Attempt to Explain Evolution of Irreducible Complexity


Summary: A recent article in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) purports to explain the evolution of a relatively small molecular machine in the mitochondria that transports proteins across a membrane, thereby allegedly refuting irreducible complexity. Phrases and assertions like “'pre-adaptation' to bacteria ahead of a need for protein import,” “parts accumulate until they’re ready to snap together,” “machines emerge before there’s a need for them,” or intelligently "engineered" macromutations are part and parcel of this latest failed attempt by critics of intelligent design (ID) to answer Michael Behe’s argument of irreducible complexity. As would be expected, when evolutionists are forced to resort to such goal-directed and teleological language and mechanisms, this shows that inherently, blind and unguided materialist explanations are not sufficient to produce irreducible complex systems. As discussed in more detail below, this latest attempt to answer irreducible complexity unwittingly shows the need for intelligent design. A summary of the problems includes:

more...