Gene evolution process discovered (advance, universal, light, format)

[Brian.Pearson]

"Scientists have believed for many years that differences in the way genes are expressed into functional proteins is what differentiates one species from another and drives evolutionary change – but no-one has been able to prove it until now."

[bluepacific]

Originally Posted by Brian.Pearson

"Scientists have believed for many years that differences in the way genes are expressed into functional proteins is what differentiates one species from another and drives evolutionary change – but no-one has been able to prove it until now."

This is another incredible undertaking to read something into a subject that simply does not exist. One of the best communicators I've ever listened to as far as a scientist who had the ability to reach out and educate the so-called "layman" was scientist Carl Sagan. He had the skill to dump the condescending intellectual speak and use a simple illustrative terminology that could capture the attention of many people who otherwise would have zero interest in anything about the Cosmos. I volunteer conducting a school in public discourse and art of teaching and although I have not always agreed with everything with regard Carl Sagan's views on evolution, he was indeed gifted with the ability to communicate. There was a subject that he dealt with in regards the difference between "Astronomy" and "Astrology" Here's an opening quote of Carl Sagan's read on "Astrology".

Originally Posted by Carl Sagan

"There are two ways to view the stars. The way they really are and the way we wish them to be."

You might be interested in listening to the program itself:

YouTube - Carl Sagan on Astrology

Biochemist Michael Behe had this to say at the end of September 2006.

Michael Behe

"If you search the scientific literature, you will discover that nobody has made a serious attempt-an experimental attempt or detailed scientific model-that explains how such molecular machines arose by Darwinian processes. This is despite the fact that in the ten years since my book was published, many scientific organizations, such as the National Academy of Sciences and the American Association for the Advancement of Science, have issued urgent appeals to their membership to do everything they can to fend off the idea that life provides evidence of intelligent design."

It's interesting that these two major well known journals put forth such urgent desparate appeals for scientists to bring forth evidence quickly to dispel anything to do with "Intelligent Design", especially in the light of all the pseudo-scientists in all the debate forums telling us evolution is FACT. Perhaps some of these geniuses should inform the scientific community of their findings, since science itself still uses the term theory. One of the reasons for this desparate appeal was an article presented forth around the summer of 2006 by George Gilder who penned a brilliant piece disproving the theory of evolution by using Shannon Information Theory. The article itself is a bit on the intellectual side, but if you understand the processes he is talking about, then you can appreciate the anger it brought and the personal attacks against he and his family, because the opponents had no answer for many of the questions put forth.

Enjoy Evolution and me: 'the Darwinian theory has become an all-purpose obstacle to thought rather than an enabler of scientific advance' | National Review | Find Articles at BNET

[Brian.Pearson]

I believe my favorite was Crick.

BTW, I believe Behe has been thoroughly refuted.

[bluepacific]

Originally Posted by Brian.Pearson

I believe my favorite was Crick.

BTW, I believe Behe has been thoroughly refuted.

Trust me, I'm no creationist (which is only a political pressure group movement anyway), but the reading of something into a subject isn't science either just because in a persons heart it's what they want to believe. Creationists make the same mistakes on reading things into something that simply isn't there. In the end I find both falling back on mythologies of long ago.

Actually I like many of the factual findings of Crick. They've allowed us to take huge steps forward. At least with Francis Crick you would get a great measure of honesty when he did'nt know something.

Francis Crick

"In spite of the genetic code being almost universal, the mechanism necessary to embody it is far too complex to have arisen in one blow."

"An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle."

I especially liked Francis Crick's conclusion that life must have been the result of "panspermia" or as Richard Dawkins said, life came from an Alien or extraterrestrial source. But that's the fallback you are forced into when your insistance on Intelligent Design is simply out of the question.

Panspermia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I guess such a fairytale story that is suffcient to get it off and away from the Earth so that origin does'nt have to be discussed or explained. That way the Marxist Biology can fuzzy the air or cloud the waters and all "Layman" therefore are to except without question what the geniuses say on all these important matters for which only they have the professional right to explain to us. But if you don't except their conclusions, then you are attacked and called delusional, stupid, an idiot, an ignoramous, etc for no other reason then they have no satifying answers to the important questions that plague all mankind.

And yet, looking at scientist leadings of mankind in the last century and the environmental and social disasters we all now face as a result of their work would belie the claim that their expertise should be unquestionably believed.