|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 2963 days) Posts: 706 From: Joliet, il, USA Joined: |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Does the Darwinian theory require modification or replacement? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
A theory based upon adaptations that are directed, modified, regulated and controlled by information exchanges in the cell rather than by mechanical physical, chemical driven adapations driven by random mutations and natural selection. Well, far be it from me to point out the bleedin' obvious, but however you slice these mechanisms they are in fact "mechanical physical, chemical driven adaptations", because everything that happens to the genome, which is a mechanical and physical and chemical thing, is; and they are subject to natural selection because everything that reproduces is.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
To put it as succinctly as possible:
The theory of evolution is genetics.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
The difference is that these are driven by information in the cell, not by purely mechanical processes. This is a false dichotomy. You can talk about "information in the cell" all you want; but the fact remains that the changes are made to an actual physical sequence of DNA in accordance with the laws of chemistry.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
If in fact the theory does change in accord with Shapiro and others who are researching about a 21st century theory of evolution that does not rely on random mutation, but rather information in the cell that engineers change then Special Creation will become something that Science will have to deal with. No it won't. One more actual known physical mechanism contributing to evolution would not be a reason to put more credence in imaginary supernatural mechanisms.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
This is because you effectively touch upon one of the two basic principles. Well no, not really. As I explained in the last thread on this, the fact that mutations are random is actually a problem for evolution. The genius of Darwin was to realize that the law of natural selection surmounts this problem. The theory of evolution explains how evolution happens despite variation being random. It doesn't depend on the randomness, it explains how even though variation is random evolution still manages to happen. If it turns out that some variation is Lamarckian, that's all grease to the wheels of evolution.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Determinism is not a synonym for planning.
(Your mistake is presumably the natural counterpart to the standard creationist blunder of confusing "unplanned" with "random".) As to whether NS is deterministic, that depends how you look at it. You could say that NS was merely stochastic; or you could say that NS as such is deterministic and that any random element is genetic drift. As with Shapiro's blather, your choice of description would do nothing whatsoever to change the underlying reality. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Yes. Soon this era between Darwin and the present will be labelled the "dark age of modern science". "Soon" ... The Longest Running Falsehood In Creationism. The belief that you guys will triumph any day now has literally been handed down from generation to generation. This is most amusing. Ah, paranoia.
There are nearly as many scientists on both sides of the argument ... I'm afraid that someone has been telling you silly lies.
... and recent finds in RNA and DNA disprove Darwinism. Though apparently this fact is known only to you (who have never made any discovery concerning DNA and RNA) rather than to scientists, who have.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
In a very real sense the majority of bacterial evolution is Lamarckian. It is only with the establishment of a germline/soma distinction that offspring stop inheriting virtually all the mutations that their parent organisms acquired. But Lamarckism does not merely require that somatic changes should also be changes in the germ-line; it also requires that they should be reactive adaptations to the environment.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
I admit that I accept the work of Shapiro, a world renown molecular biologist at the University of Chicago, who happens to be outfront of the old dogma defenders of a theory that is being devasted by molecular biology discoveries. ("Devastated", of course, in a way that has gone completely unnoticed by molecular biologists.)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
And pray tell how does the enviroment direct in a random world? A moot question, since we don't live in one.
Non-random means directed or planned. Of course not, don't be silly.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
I have read and quoted experts on this board who disagree with some very important tenets of the modern synthesis and have taken the postion that the modern synthesis's postion that "secular naturalism" is not the explanation of evolution. Translated from Shadowese into English, you have repeatedly pointed to a naturalistic evolutionary mechanism which is a minor but well-accepted part of the theory of evolution --- and talked gibberish about it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
It is your opinion that I misinterpret Shapiro's findings. But they aren't "Shapiro's findings", are they? He has attained notoriety by talking nonsense about discoveries which have, overwhelmingly, been made by people other than him.
In a court of law I, as the attorney, present the Expert, in this case Shapiro via his papers that contain the data, and then with the evidence admitted into evidence, I interpret his testimony in my argument to the jury. That is what I am trying to do in this thread. We the jury find your client guilty of being nonsensical in the first degree and sentence it to perpetual derision.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
That is a bit unfair, he has done quite a bit of work on Mu bacteriophage transposable elements, and that also seems to be the principle basis for most of his claims. Is there anything special about his pet transposable elements that makes them different from all the others? If there is, shouldn't they have been mentioned more often on this thread?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
It surely seems some scientists are in fact challenging the modern synthesis. A scientist investigating genetic mechanisms for evolution is participating in the modern synthesis. That's what it's all about.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
I will be gone from this board for a about a week but when I return I will try to reply to all messages. I will be at New Melleray – A Cistercian Abbey praying for all on this board Thank you so much. In return, I shall spend much of the week dedicating your soul unto Ba'al-Hamon, Lord of the Multitude, in the goetic rite of the Threefold Sacrifice. I go now to purify myself.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024