Cell biology Intelligent Design

Prehoda and Thornton Find New Levels of Serendipity

Spread the love

A recent study out of the University of Oregon purports to show the evolutionary pathway of a key protein that helps to control the mitotic spindle, a structure inside the dividing cell that distributes the chromosomes to the daughter cells. In fact the research adds to a growing line of evidence destructive of evolutionary theory. Consider the following findings:  Read more

8 Replies to “Prehoda and Thornton Find New Levels of Serendipity

  1. 1
    bornagain77 says:

    A Closer Look At Human/Chimp Similarities and Differences – video
    https://www.facebook.com/philip.cunningham.73/videos/vb.100000088262100/1134643976548534/?type=2&theater

    Alternative Splicing Codes are Species Specific
    https://docs.google.com/document/d/1UMbNM8V2b7mRzPJt05mlev3UO4SG1bMTV5wkNunezjY/edit

    A Listener’s Guide to the Meyer-Marshall Debate: Focus on the Origin of Information Question -Casey Luskin – December 4, 2013
    Excerpt: “There is always an observable consequence if a dGRN (developmental gene regulatory network) subcircuit is interrupted. Since these consequences are always catastrophically bad, flexibility is minimal, and since the subcircuits are all interconnected, the whole network partakes of the quality that there is only one way for things to work. And indeed the embryos of each species develop in only one way.” –
    Eric Davidson – developmental biologist
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....79811.html

    Thus, where Darwinists most need plasticity in the genome to be viable as a theory, (i.e. developmental Gene Regulatory Networks), is the place where mutations are found to be ‘always catastrophically bad’. Yet, it is exactly in this area of the genome (i.e. regulatory networks) where substantial, ‘orders of magnitude’, differences are found between even the supposedly closely related species of chimps and humans.
    Needless to say, since Darwinian evolution presupposes the unlimited plasticity of organisms, this is the exact opposite finding for what Darwinism would have been predicted for what should have been found in the genome.
    If Darwinian evolution were a normal science that was subject to rigorous testing, instead of the pseudo-science that it is, this finding, by itself, should have been more than enough to falsify neo-Darwinian claims.

    Of supplemental note as to why Darwinian evolution is properly classified as a pseudo-science rather than a rigorous science.

    Darwinian Evolution is a Pseudo-Science – Mathematics – video
    https://www.facebook.com/philip.cunningham.73/videos/vb.100000088262100/1132659110080354/?type=2&theater

  2. 2
    Mung says:

    The theory of evolution by means of serendipitous happenstance whereby “stuff just happens, that’s all” leads to really cool designs appearances of design.

  3. 3
    tommy hall says:

    Mung I hope you’re kidding. “Stuff” doesn’t “just happen” in biology. Bodies and body parts (or parts of parts) don’t “just happen” to pop into existence. This is a 20th century myth. Unless, of course, you have a few good examples to show me.

  4. 4
    Me_Think says:

    tommy hall @ 3
    Of course stuff doesn’t just happen. The unknown designer monitors trillions of processes and just at the right time by unknown force, guides the process to completion. The designer sure has tiring day, day in and day out. Poor designer.

  5. 5
    tommy hall says:

    Me_Think….bzzt…you are forgetting the third way: lifeforms were designed in such a way that the environment can cue responsive, dynamic, adaptive mechanisms. The 20th century myth that organisms are passive, unintelligent, unresponsive globs of jello who are incapable of anything more than directionless genetic accidents is beyond goofy.

  6. 6
    Me_Think says:

    tommy hall @ 5

    bzzt…you are forgetting the third way: lifeforms were designed in such a way that the environment can cue responsive, dynamic, adaptive mechanisms

    You really need to learn some ID terms. What you described is called Front Loading. The problem with frontloading is that the designer has to predict millions of environmental variables and design the organism’s response (or design organism such that it learns the environment – like say the AlphaGo- but much more adept at multitasking and far more complex neuronetworking ) throughout the lifetime of the organism – and that is only if you believe in common descent. If not, you have to believe that designer practically designed every single species. Of course that still isn’t enough because there are millions of temporal processes that need intervention by designer. These processes are called ‘above UPB’ -and thus ‘improbable’- by IDers. You just can’t escape the need to explain intervention in processes.

    The 20th century myth that organisms are passive, unintelligent, unresponsive globs of jello who are incapable of anything more than directionless genetic accidents is beyond goofy

    Ha no, we believe Bio-Mechanical and Bio-chemical processes acts as a guide. Since there is very less multidisciplinary research in biology, there are many processes which are not understood well enough yet.

  7. 7
    Mung says:

    I disagree that natural genetic engineering is front-loading.

  8. 8
    Phinehas says:

    “Ha no, we believe Bio-Mechanical and Bio-chemical processes acts as a guide.”

    How serendipitous to live in a world where blind, dumb physical processes have the insight and acumen to select and guide such that the result has the appearance of design!

Leave a Reply