Proteins That Regulate Protein Production

_{Cornelius Hunter

January 26, 2010

Intelligent Design

1}_{Categories
Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter/X; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Most people understand that our genes are stored in our DNA but what is less commonly understood is how the cell determines which genes to use at any one time. The DNA in our cells contain tens of thousands of protein-coding genes whose proteins serve a great variety of purposes. They serve as railroad tracks, precision tunnels, enzymes to speed up reactions and environmental sensors to name just a few. And some proteins go back to the DNA and bind to the double helix, as part of a complex regulatory network that determines which genes to use to make new proteins. In other words, the cell determines which genes, to use to make new proteins, by using existing proteins. But from where did those existing proteins come? Read more

Comments

Joseph @9: "So perhaps the higher the education level, the less people think critically." Do you mean to suggest that Dr. Dembski, holder of 2 PhDs is less of a critical thinker than the average layperson?Muramasa_{January 28, 2010
January
01
Jan
28
28
2010
09:50 AM
9
09
50
AM
PDT}

hrun0815- Educated people understand that "evolution" is not being debated. Also I will note that not one person who accepts Common Descent via an accumulation of genetic accidents can support that PoV. Neither can anyone who supports Common Descent minus the mechanism. So perhaps the higher the education level the less people think critically.Joseph_{January 28, 2010
January
01
Jan
28
28
2010
04:29 AM
4
04
29
AM
PDT}

Re 3,4,5,6,7: I was not promoting the argument that acceptance of evolution at higher education levels makes it true. Nor was I making an argument by consensus. I was simply pointing to a flaw in the reasoning that acceptance of evolution is high due to a lack of understanding. I don't see any evidence to support the view, but rather some indicators to argue against it.hrun0815_{January 27, 2010
January
01
Jan
27
27
2010
07:21 PM
7
07
21
PM
PDT}

“acceptance of evolution increases with education level.” I suspect acceptance of global warming increases with education level, which would indicate a stronger correlation between education level and indoctrination than education level and IQ.tribune7_{January 27, 2010
January
01
Jan
27
27
2010
01:16 PM
1
01
16
PM
PDT}

hrun0815 "acceptance of evolution increases with education level." Acceptance of evolution is not at issue. Most people accept evolution as true, even creationists. That is what correlates to education level. However, if you equate evolution with the Darwinian synthesis, that has no correlation to education, but to cultural indoctrination, which sadly is often dispensed through our higher education system.CannuckianYankee_{January 27, 2010
January
01
Jan
27
27
2010
01:14 PM
1
01
14
PM
PDT}

#2
And the people that arguably know most about how cells work (namely biologists) almost universally accept evolution.
They also almost universally accepted evolution as fact long before they knew about anything that could possibly challenge it. I would guess most cannot accurately state the main thesis of ID; many probably believe in the caricature of "ID = creationism". Also, many are philosophically opposed to anything that suggests the possibilty of something non-natural. All of this combined, it's not a surprise most biologists unquestionably accept the modern synthesis as fact ("unquestionably" being the operative word). That is all ignoring the previously mentioned fact that the establishment is actively attacking opposition to it's dogmas. I agree that the less eduacted people are, the less likely they are to believe in evolution. But the vast majority couldn't come close to accurately describing the ID thesis or some general processes of molecular biology. But the more the complexity of life is publicized, the more intelligent youth will grow up knowing about it (as opposed to the simplistic "the fastest gazelle survives" descriptions of evolution I grew up with), and the more potential there will be for open-mindedness when that talent reaches advanced education. That's my theory, anyway.uoflcard_{January 26, 2010
January
01
Jan
26
26
2010
10:06 PM
10
10
06
PM
PDT}

re: 2 hrun0815 "....almost universally accept evolution." I'm glad that you correctly qualified this with "almost." So what you are essentially admitting to is the fact that not all biologists (as ellijacket pointed out) tow the pary line. Consensus arguments almost never work.CannuckianYankee_{January 26, 2010
January
01
Jan
26
26
2010
05:39 PM
5
05
39
PM
PDT}

And the people that arguably know most about how cells work (namely biologists) almost universally accept evolution.
We also see that as you go up the ladder that if you don't accept evolution then you are kicked out of the community. It isn't safe to be a biologist that doesn't tow the party line.ellijacket_{January 26, 2010
January
01
Jan
26
26
2010
01:06 PM
1
01
06
PM
PDT}

I think one of the reasons that so many people are willing to believe in the unintelligent evolution narrative is because they don’t really comprehend the full scenario that exists at the cellular level – IOW, they don’t really know what they are being asked to believe happened as the result of unintentional chemistry and physics.
That is an interesting theory. Yet, when you look at the facts, it turns out that acceptance of evolution increases with education level. And the people that arguably know most about how cells work (namely biologists) almost universally accept evolution.hrun0815_{January 26, 2010
January
01
Jan
26
26
2010
10:54 AM
10
10
54
AM
PDT}

I think one of the reasons that so many people are willing to believe in the unintelligent evolution narrative is because they don't really comprehend the full scenario that exists at the cellular level - IOW, they don't really know what they are being asked to believe happened as the result of unintentional chemistry and physics. I appreciate Dr. Hunter's contributions here because, bit by bit, one story at a time, they paint a more detailed picture of the stupefying, enormous, functionally interdependent complexities at work. It really is like being asked to believe that a fully functioning, self-regulating, self-propagating aircraft carrier came into existence through nothing more than passive chemical attractions, physics and chance. As the saying goes, fantastic cliams require a higher level of evidence; there is no evidence that unintentional forces are capable of such feats, and evidence abounds that intelligent, intentional forces are. After all, we know what builds aircraft carriers, and it isn't the chance interactions of unintelligent physical phenomena.William J. Murray_{January 26, 2010
January
01
Jan
26
26
2010
03:44 AM
3
03
44
AM
PDT}

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply