Tuesday, September 6, 2011

DNA Signals Too: Findings Unexpected But Not to Worry

You know the drill, scientific findings refute evolution’s everything-is-just-a-fluke expectations, evolutionists are flabbergasted, evolutionists re-engineer their theory for the (n+1)th time, evolutionists sing the praise of Darwin, saying their theory explains the evidence so well, and the findings become yet another proof text for our creation myth. This time the finding is that DNA does more than sit at the center of everything like Jabba the Hutt. Evolution’s geno-centric, DNA-is-king myth expects DNA—which is supposed to hold the keys to the phenotype (remember how DNA mutations were supposed to create the dinosaurs, and everything else?)—to receive care and feeding from its various cyto-servants. Remember selfish and greedy DNA?

According to evolution those cellular slaves attended to DNA and sent requests to the double-helix majesty indicating what gene products might or might not needed. Now we find DNA can be just another messenger. DNA has moved off its throne to be part of the cellular signaling chain. As one researcher explained:

It’s a basic change in our way of thinking about cell signaling—that all signals go into the nucleus and dead-end at DNA, that they point to chromatin and stop. Our data show that’s not the case. We have a new fundamental aspect of cellular regulation that we need to now explore.

Next we’ll be hearing how this is a new proof of evolution. Remember when the DNA difference between chimps and humans was found to be only about 2%? A few amino acid swaps per protein does not magically produce Johannes Brahms. Unless, that is, you are a doctrinaire evolutionist. Soon their absurdity became the new normal, and the 2% difference became the latest apologetic, once again proving evolution without a doubt.

Religion drives science, and it matters.


  1. Sadly, we do know the drill

    1) Science makes some new and interesting discovery concerning evolutionary biology

    2) Cornelius Hunter write some nonsensical fact-free hit piece expressing his personal incredulity and repeating his 'science is really religion!' mantra.

    3) Cornelius picks up his 30 pieces of silver from the DI for being a tool.

  2. Yawn. Hasn't your arms gotten tired yet? Looks like more "we do not understand everything, so we know nothing" hand waving.

    CH: Remember selfish and greedy DNA?

    Wow. You've just disingenuously twisted Dawkins' metaphor to suit your agenda. Most likely you think your target audience won't be able to tell the difference. How Christian of you?

    It's as if you think it's OK to twist other people's words because that's what you think God want's you to do. After all if, Yahweh demanded Joshua to destroy unborn children with the edge of his sword, rather than say adopting them, surely twisting someones words must be OK, right?

    Wake me up when you have observations that require an entirely new explanation for the creation of knowledge found in the genome.

  3. Not that I'm a completely unbiased observer or anything, but Cornelius, you've really gone off the rails with the last couple of posts.

  4. ...Cornelius, you've really gone off the rails with the last couple of posts.

    He's been off the rails for a while now. There was a time when his arguments, while not fundamentally different, were at least much more nuanced, most likely in an attempt to head off counter-arguments before they could be raised. Unfortunately they were becoming so nuanced that he was risking losing the original message altogether. Rather than acknowledge what this said about his arguments, he decided to double down and just purge the dangerous nuances from his arguments completely. So what we have been seeing since then are unadulterated, on-message posts that ignore all previous and potential counter arguments. He's learned that trying to actually address the counter arguments leads to the potential loss of the message he's trying to spread, so it's better to just speak as though they don't exist.

  5. CH

    It's interesting CH that your critics here have no scientific credentials, and yet seem to think they know the subject better than you. I guess that is just more proof of the delusional lifestyle of the evolutionists. I now see why you let these people continue to post their worthless dribble. It is just more confirmation of what you are saying. I don't know if it is cruel to let them continually embarrass themselves in public like this. However, it is a free country and they have the right I suppose.

  6. Peter wadeck -

    "It's interesting CH that your critics here have no scientific credentials.."

    1) What on Earth makes you claim that? Who exactly do you know the educational background of every random person who posts on here? In fact we do sometimes get biologists such as Joe Felsenstein, who Cornelius has quoted in his posts, taking the time to come on and tell us all that Cornelius is totally misrepresenting them themselves.

    2) If, as you seem, you are hiding behind the Argument from Authority, then how exactly do you dismiss the fact that the vast (and I do mean vast) majority of scientific academics accept the Theory of Evolution? It's a contradiction to say 'Listen to Cornelius! He's an academic!' and then dismiss out of hand others who disagree yet are equally or more qualified.

    The sad truth is that Cornelius' arguments are so sloppy it really doesn't take a seasoned academic to point out the flaws.

  7. We Do know the drill.

    1. Cornelius posts commentary on new research results, quoting one of the researchers.

    2. The self-aware Thornton, obsessed with insulting the blogger and who watches his screen every hour of every day for an opportunity to do so, accuses said blogger of nonsensical fact-free post. And seeming not to verify, in support of the accusation, whether or not the quotation has been made up. Or even debate the points raised. One wonders how much time Thornton has to do useful work in support of the blessed theory being discussed.

    3. Young people watching this blog get a lesson in how a totally speculative but state-funded theory in support of materialist cosmology is collapsing, and happily accelerated by the seemingly irrational posts herein, like the one mentioned.

    4. Young people can witness the increasing desperation and irrationality of some of those posting here, and their behavior, as a fascinating and historical unfolding of a major paradigm collapse. And to the obvious happiness and satisfaction of the others posting here.

  8. MSEE, in your self-righteous blustering you completely forgot to provide those details for the Intelligent Design Creation claims.

    What is the ID explanation for the observed phenomenon in the OP? When was the design done, and how, and by what processes, and who were the designer(s)?

    Get in the game there big boy. Give us your detailed explanation. Any coward can throw rocks from the sidelines.

  9. MSEE,

    You seem to have skipped a step

    01.5 Cornelius shows how said commentary is actually relevant in falsifying the underlying explanation behind Neo-Darwinism, rather than merely waving his hands.

    However, this appears to be absent from his post.

    And in regards to 04, people such as yourself have been making that prediction for over 150 years. Lest this be construed as an inductive argument, I explain polar opposite observations over this same time span with the theory of neo-darwinism reflecting an ever increasingly more accurate understudying of how knowledge in the genome was actually created, in reality.

  10. I wrote: an ever increasingly more accurate understudying of how knowledge in the genome was actually created, in reality.

    What did I mean by this? Explanations are not 'True' in the sense of being exhaustive and absolute descriptions of reality. In fact, I'd suggest such a explanation will never exist as, given enough time, we could continue to make infinite progress without ever actually explaining absolutely everything.

    We can contrast this with a theistic view that some source of knowledge "just was", complete with exhaustive and absolute knowledge already present - and this source occasionally decides to reveal these Truths while impersonating a whirlwind.