A Logical account of creation

The alternative to this interpretation of the evidence is that organisms can bury themselves inside rocks. While some bacteria might be able to get inside rocks to some extend, I don't think an organism like a fish is going to manage to swim through solid rock. So, when you find a fossil fish, what is more likely, that the fish is at least as old as the rock, or that the rock is old and the fish is recent?

---

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.

According to the theory of evolution, primitive fish evolves to modern fish by random mutation and natural selection. It has been established in molecular genetics that random mutations do not just consist of point mutations in an otherwise static volume of DNA, but also of duplication, transposition, and deletion of whole chunks of DNA, thereby enlarging or shrinking a volume of DNA to any possible size. The point is that random mutation and natural selection, in the long run, are able to change a genome of any length and composition to another genome of a completely different length and composition. This means that there is no invisible barrier beyond which lifeforms cannot evolve.You acknowledge the existence of primitive fish (as opposed to modern fish, I suppose). So, if you think evolution is false, then what mechanism do you propose transforms primitive fish into modern fish? And why do you think this process of transformation is limited, and how is it so? Mentioning the "fish family" betrays at least some ignorance with respect to biological classification, which does not bode well for your knowledge of other subjects regarding evolution. It's up to you prove me wrong.Edited by Parasomnium, : typo

---

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.

This is the abstract of Gilbert's publication that I found on the site of PubMed.

quote:

---

Resynthesizing evolutionary and developmental biology.
Gilbert SF, Opitz JM, Raff RA.

​

Department of Biology, Swarthmore College, Pennsylvania 19081, USA.

​

A new and more robust evolutionary synthesis is emerging that attempts to explain macroevolution as well as microevolutionary events. This new synthesis emphasizes three morphological areas of biology that had been marginalized by the Modern Synthesis of genetics and evolution: embryology, macroevolution, and homology. The foundations for this new synthesis have been provided by new findings from developmental genetics and from the reinterpretation of the fossil record. In this nascent synthesis, macroevolutionary questions are not seen as being soluble by population genetics, and the developmental actions of genes involved with growth and cell specification are seen as being critical for the formation of higher taxa. In addition to discovering the remarkable homologies of homeobox genes and their domains of expression, developmental genetics has recently proposed homologies of process that supplement the older homologies of structure. Homologous developmental pathways, such those involving the wnt genes, are seen in numerous embryonic processes, and they are seen occurring in discrete regions, the morphogenetic fields. These fields (which exemplify the modular nature of developing embryos) are proposed to mediate between genotype and phenotype. Just as the cell (and not its genome) functions as the unit of organic structure and function, so the morphogenetic field (and not the genes or the cells) is seen as a major unit of ontogeny whose changes bring about changes in evolution.

---

It shows that Gilbert's ideas fall well within the Darwinian paradigm. As usual, creationists and ID-ists have latched onto this idea and ripped it right out of its context. It pays to go to the source, traste. Quite so. But it just as easily creates whole copies of genes which are subsequently altered by more mutations. "Hard to believe" doesn't cut it. It's also hard to believe that a man on a stage can saw a girl in half, and have her dart around the stage in one piece a minute later. It's hard to believe until you know how the trick is done, which suggests it might be a good idea to study the magic of Darwinian evolution before you declare it "hard to believe". This so-called "law of recurrent variation" is pure invention in aid of creationist/ID-ist arguing. It has no scientific standing whatsoever. You're not paying attention. I was merely saying that you don't know what you're talking about, and it shows. For your information: in Linnean classification fish are a class, in modern taxonomy things are a little more complicated. In any case, fish are not, as you suggested, a family.

---

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.

The magic of evolution is revealed to anyone with an open mind, who is prepared to put some work in it and study it in some detail. If it is so well-established, then I'm sure you can produce one or more links to some peer-reviewed articles about it. Could you name and cite them please?Edited by Parasomnium, : No reason given.

---

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.