Mendel wasn't entirely right

First of all let me berate you for beating me to opening a new thread on this topic, and then not telling me so I wouldn't have wasted my time creating one! Grrrr.Ah well...I actually think several issues can be seen within this, but I'll stick with your two.1) Yes, it is possible that this will change models of mutation. It certainly already has for that one plant, but there could be more.2) I don't think it shoots down ToE as "trustworthy" in general, because nothing in this strikes at the general idea of evolution. It appears to involve a mechanism for healing, which could simply be a trait that effects specific tenets of evolution, rather than the larger picture. Frankly it almost sounds like lamarke could have a bit of a come back.However I think it does allow some creos and IDists to get their foot in the door. Until the mechanism is understood, it is logically possible to view this as an example that DNA is not simply copy and mutate, but that there is an underlying "code" which unpacks itself on command and was prepackaged at the beginning (creation) of life.This argument could be launched because obviously the plant was able to mutate, yet still have its original code packaged and hidden somewhere else. What's more it was able to utilize the hidden original code in the next generation. What else is packaged away somewhere? Maybe that's what all of life has been about?Not saying I believe that, but it does get a foot in the door.They might also use this to show how evolutionary theorists originally tried to undercut the study by not funding it, since it seemed to dispute evo dogma, but then discovered something amazing because they invested in the research despite doubts. IDists have been making noise along those lines for years.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Uhmmmm, I hate to say this, but that doesn't actually help your case. I realize it could have been "overlooked" rather than "hidden", but the result is the same.And even worse, this is almost exactly what IDists have been arguing, that evos have been overlooking areas of research based on evo dogma. If this has been overlooked, what else might have been? To be honest, I do not have the technical knowledge to know just how ridiculous it would be. However, I'm certain there could be ways to "shorten" the template such that it is only compressed... maybe in in the "junk DNA"? Heheheh... does it have to be better?

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

You haven't learned much about scientific method then? BOOM has been the history of modern science. That's what makes it so robust, the process generates new paradigms, not dogmatically insisting the old ones must be true.The level of BOOM here, does not extend to the overall structure of Evolutionary theory. Even if it did, then science would keep marching on.The problem is denying scientific models all along, waiting for a specific BOOM, and seeing each other BOOM as somehow a body blow to science itself and a precursor to the one you have been waiting for.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Perhaps the clue train missed your stop. Heheheh (again, light topic, just needling).What this whole event shows, if not proves, is that evolutionary theory is not dogmatic, that it is allowed to change overnight (well over a few months of study), and that nothing about it is set in stone.How do you come away from an article which is by evos, pulling at a string on the fabric of evo theory, saying this is an example of why evos must be less dogmatic.How about you surprise me with an article on creos becoming less dogmatic and resorting to approved scientific methods to prove a case?

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Well unfortunately for creationism, this actually puts another feather in the cap of those supporting MN (methodological naturalism) as a basis for scientific investigation, by proving it is not overly exclusive and dogmatic.However, you are right that it does open the door for such discussions and I am of the opinion that is what EvC debates are essentially going to boil down to in the end.Do we continue with MN and the science humans have built up over the last 300 years, or do we return to the scientific methods (and results) of Western Civilization from the early Greeks to about the 1200-1400s?

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Yes I am in DA mode right now. However I think you are underbilling actual points that can be made by the ID crowd.While evos certainly did research this and it does not in itself refute evolutionary theory, the fact is that this study was almost NOT funded because it appeared doubtful to NSF based on its rejection of the totality of mendelian mechanisms. I don't think this is in any of the links given, but I also started my own thread on this topic and had a link which gave the history in that.The IDist can easily point to this case and ask "If this is the result of funding one study which challenged a tenet of evolutionary theory, isn't this reason to take a chance on further "doubtful" projects which challeneg other tenets?"And I believe this will open the door to more Behe-sian claims of our having overlooked other mechanisms which control evolution. Remember he does not claim that evolution does not exist, only how it works. He could easily say this shows that we don't know enough to claim exactly what forms what we see. Maybe there is "intrinsic programming", which existed from when life was created. Agree 100%. Regardles of any other arguments which come out of this, I hope most people understand the intriguing implications this has for life in general (or at least that one plant). Personally I have found most creo work to betray an enormous lack of interest and imagination.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

It's late, so what's it to ya? Heheheh. I should have said Lamarckian-like. I was trying to capture that it was not a true mendelian scheme and had elements of an entity "choosing" some characteristics over another in order to best fit an environment. Also, I was trying to be slightly hyperbolic anyway (to generate comments from both sides) so I wasn't as careful with my wording as I should have been.Two good catches... ya jerk. Oh wait, I argued for people to be more stringent. Good show good show!

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)