|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Questioning The Evolutionary Process | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ihategod Member (Idle past 6050 days) Posts: 235 Joined: |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminWounded Inactive Member |
Please refrain from making entirely contentless posts.
TTFN, AW
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bertvan Junior Member (Idle past 5839 days) Posts: 29 From: Palm Springs California Joined: |
Chiroptera
quote: Many Darwin defenders these days admit that “natural selection” might not be adequate to organize a bunch of genetic accidents into complex biological structures, but that modern evolutionary theory includes “other things”, but are kind of vague on what exactly the “other things” do. ID does not question common descent. It questions RM&NS as the driving force behind evolution. The Endogenous Adaptive Mutagenesis view of evolution suggests that biological change does not originate in genomes, it originates in individual responsive, adaptive organisms. All organisms have some ability to change, override instincts, and adapt. Used organs develop and unused ones atrophy. Adaptations are inherited epigenetically, as they develop and are only encoded into the genome if persistent over generations. An instinct is nothing more than a memory. Just as no one has located a “stored” memory in a brain, I predict no one will ever locate a “stored” instinct in a genome. Following is an excerpt from an article no longer available on the web.
quote: http://30145.myauthorsite.com/ Edited by bertvan, : No reason given. [uel]Qeustions about Materialism[/url]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bertvan Junior Member (Idle past 5839 days) Posts: 29 From: Palm Springs California Joined: |
I'd like to add that I align myself with ID because of the Darwinist penchant for denouncing anyone who questions RM&NS as a "nutcase". Academic freedom is more important than any scientific theory.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2497 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
bertvan writes: I'd like to add that I align myself with ID because of the Darwinist penchant for denouncing anyone who questions RM&NS as a "nutcase". That's good scientific reasoning, is it? If Darwinists started calling creationists "darling", presumably you'd change your alignment. Perhaps "Darwinists" would be more respectful of critics of the Theory of Evolution if they would back up their criticism with evidence for their preferred alternatives. We're weird, that way. We tend to go by evidence, not what someone calls someone, when we make our decisions about what are or are not strong scientific theories.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Wounded King Member Posts: 4149 From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA Joined: |
Academic freedom is more important than any scientific theory. Is that why you have so 'freely' put forward a theory built of nothing but groundless claims and baseless assertions? As opposed to any sort of scientific theory?
Many Darwin defenders these days admit that “natural selection” might not be adequate to organize a bunch of genetic accidents into complex biological structures, but that modern evolutionary theory includes “other things”, but are kind of vague on what exactly the “other things” do. The most obvious 'other thing' is the mutation you so conspicuously left out. If you had so more specific example it might put some flesh on this tenuous attack on 'Darwin defenders'.
I predict no one will ever locate a “stored” instinct in a genome. This seems like a pretty futile prediction given the continuing refinement of genetic analysis of complex behaviours using techniques such as Quantative Trait Loci analysis. For example see Manoli et al. (2006) who detail research on the genetic basis of innate mating behaviours in Drosophila. TTFN, WK
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
Academic freedom is more important than any scientific theory. No one is stifling academic freedom. Anyone is free to pursue whatever research projects that might validate whatever theory they wish to consider. Now, if the research looks like it's not producing any useful results, it will be very hard to get funding, but that is the problem of trying to validate something that is incorrect, not a stifling of academic freedom. -
I'd like to add that I align myself with ID because of the Darwinist penchant for denouncing anyone who questions RM&NS as a "nutcase". I usually use the word nutcake. Some people are pretty nutty. Like those who disagree with the consensus scientific opinion just because they don't like the choice of words used by one particular person who accepts the scientific consensus. In many respects, the Bible was the world's first Wikipedia article. -- Doug Brown (quoted by Carlin Romano in The Chronicle Review)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1487 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
I'd like to add that I align myself with ID because of the Darwinist penchant for denouncing anyone who questions RM&NS as a "nutcase". I'd like to add Carl Sagan's words: "Sure, they laughed at Einstein. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown." Being ridiculed has nothing to do with being right. Sometimes the people who are being ridiculed actually are wrong and just haven't gotten the message, yet. Incidentally - the ID guys have plenty of their own little names for those who accept the scientific consensus of evolution. More, in fact. So why doesn't that convince you that "Darwinism" is more right?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
Many Darwin defenders these days admit that “natural selection” might not be adequate to organize a bunch of genetic accidents into complex biological structures, but that modern evolutionary theory includes “other things”, but are kind of vague on what exactly the “other things” do. They are vague probably because they don't actually say this. The vast majority of biologists, as far as I know, accept that natural selection is the driving force that creates complex structures. --
All organisms have some ability to change, override instincts, and adapt. Used organs develop and unused ones atrophy. Adaptations are inherited epigenetically, as they develop and are only encoded into the genome if persistent over generations. It would be interesting if there is actual evidence that these acquired traits are indeed inherited. Without evidence, this is just "making stuff up". In many respects, the Bible was the world's first Wikipedia article. -- Doug Brown (quoted by Carlin Romano in The Chronicle Review)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bertvan Junior Member (Idle past 5839 days) Posts: 29 From: Palm Springs California Joined: |
quote: I predict overwhelming evidence of inheritance of acquired characteristics. I also predict that Darwinists will claim they supported the idea all along. http://30145.myauthorsite.com/
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Annafan Member (Idle past 4599 days) Posts: 418 From: Belgium Joined: |
That's fine.
So all we have to do now is quietly wait until the "overwhelming evidence" exposes itself. Do you mind if I go get a cup of coffee?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1425 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Welcome to the fray bertvan
I predict overwhelming evidence of inheritance of acquired characteristics. I also predict that Darwinists will claim they supported the idea all along. I predict that if you study the data that you will find that this has already been invalidated. I further predict that if you deny this evidence that invalidates your concept that this will not make it any more valid, but will just show that you are deluded:
Message 48 Adaptations are inherited epigenetically, as they develop and are only encoded into the genome if persistent over generations. How are these adaptations encoded into the genome? What is the mechanism that changes the genome to match the development? How do you reconcile this definition of epigenetic with this concept of later incorporation of the trait in the genome (genetics}:
This development of the embryo is based on the genome and the growing environment (chemicals, hormones, nutrition, etc), but not on any inheritance of non-genetic characteristics developed by any parents. You do not have any means to transfer adaptations except through the genes.
... are only encoded into the genome if persistent over generations. How would they know if they are generation 1 or generation 1000? Looks like you concept has some serious logical flaws in it .... not least of which is that it has already been invalidated. Enjoy. compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click) we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bertvan Junior Member (Idle past 5839 days) Posts: 29 From: Palm Springs California Joined: |
Bertvan originally wrote:
quote: quote:: The Darwinist view is that the genome only changes by accident. My view is that the organism changes its own genome, intelligently and purposefully, to reflect adaptations already achieved. Anyone believing in the accident scenario would not look for mechanisms. A new generation of biologists may find some. ..Bertvan originally wrote: quote: quote: Does a habit know when it becomes a habit? Generation 1 or 1000? Or are you suggesting that habits are supernatural? http://myauthorsite.com/ (Questions about materialism with some pretty funny stuff about Freud) No webpage found at provided URL: Qeustions about Materialism
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
Anyone believing in the accident scenario would not look for mechanisms. A new generation of biologists may find some. In other words, you believe in something for which there is no evidence. And you expect everyone else to take this seriously. Interesting. In many respects, the Bible was the world's first Wikipedia article. -- Doug Brown (quoted by Carlin Romano in The Chronicle Review)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1425 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
The Darwinist view is that the genome only changes by accident. My view is that the organism changes its own genome, intelligently and purposefully, to reflect adaptations already achieved. Anyone believing in the accident scenario would not look for mechanisms. A new generation of biologists may find some. Actually they did. Extensively and continually. As I said, the theory of inherited developed features has been invalidated. This went under the moniker of Lamarkism quote: In other words it has been and is extensively studied. Genetic studies have ruled out transmittal of information to the DNA, studies that involved things like cutting off the tails of mice to see if tailless mice would evolve, showed that there was no effect of cutting off the tails on the genomes of the mice. Even if other non-genetic hereditary effects (methylation etc) are passed on this is not due to the organism directing it's development, as it too is passed to the organism in the germ cell from the parent. This makes it subject to natural selection (on the phenotype) and normal evolutionary processes, but it is not the development of the feature that causes the hereditary effect (methylation etc) but the other way around. In fact these non-genetic hereditary effects (methylation etc) are due to random processes in the same way that mutations are random processes, it can develop in one subpopulation but not in another that is otherwise identical (ecology and genome), while your hypothesis would require it to develop in both.
Does a habit know when it becomes a habit? Generation 1 or 1000? Or are you suggesting that habits are supernatural? In other words you have no clue how your system operates, when your (unknown) mechanism kicks in, and how this hypothetical "something happens" can be differentiated from evolutionary theory or from the invalidated Lamarkism theory. And we should consider this science? Enjoy. compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click) we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024