More on evolution as a biological function
by KrauzeYou know, I really hate it when people just post a quote from somewhere, with little or no commentary. So I don't really know whether to be apologetic or self-loathing about the fact that I'm about to do the very same thing myself. But I'm pressed for time, and there really isn't much to say about this, except to say that I've blogged about it before. So here goes:
Kirschner and Gerhart propose that their new theory, "facilitated variation," provides an original solution to this longstanding puzzle of random genetic change. They show how the deep molecular biology of the cell actually fosters biological novelties when plants and animals need them most, not merely when random chance generates them. "The key is the way the organism is constructed, so that random genetic variation does not produce random phenotypic variation and the type of non-random phenoytpic variation is related to physiological variation, the kind of thing the animal uses every day to respond to the environment," explained Kirschner.
Darwin's Dilemma, my emphases
January 25th, 2006 at 10:34 am
Krauze…you must hate a lot of my posts;-) I'm the epitome of posting without much commentary. I'll try to improve, I promise.
Comment by bipod — January 25, 2006 @ 10:34 am
January 25th, 2006 at 10:38 am
The next paragraph may be more provocative for followers of this blog:
(The emphasis was added by moi.)
Comment by Art — January 25, 2006 @ 10:38 am
January 25th, 2006 at 2:13 pm
Facilitated variation is intelligent purposeful variation. The responses the animal uses every day to respond to the environment is intelligent and purposefu, not "random with respect to fitnessl". Self designed variantion is no less designed. Darwinists might try to claim such purposeful variation is "Darwinism", but it bears no resemblance to "random mutations" and "natural selection" plays no role in its organization.
Comment by Bert — January 25, 2006 @ 2:13 pm
January 25th, 2006 at 3:58 pm
No, they came to the conclusion that life was designed to evolve.
Strange how they spin a refutation of the Darwinian framework into a refutation of intelligent design. I'd say that facilitated variation falls within "˜intelligent design', or maybe EAM. Nice pick, Art!
Comment by AdR — January 25, 2006 @ 3:58 pm
January 25th, 2006 at 4:01 pm
The erroneous conflation of anti-evolution with ID is one of the things that keeps most ID critics from making good/relevant arguments.
Comment by Guts — January 25, 2006 @ 4:01 pm
January 25th, 2006 at 8:51 pm
What the heck does that mean?
Comment by onething — January 25, 2006 @ 8:51 pm