question for evolutionists

dearYou say:
'..Richard Dawkins and the selfish gene idea..'PB: Richard Dawkins is already backpeddeling on his selfish gene stupidity. (read his book 'Unweaving the rainbow')
Besides, it can be demonstrated that he doesn't even know the most elementary stuff on DNA (see my thread: Richard Dawkins...exposed), so let alone genes (He is a zoologist; You don't go to the bakery to buy meat, isn't it?). And since the scientific proof of non-random mutations, his ideas are completely redundant.best wishes,
Peter
Peter

dear Page,The content of your replies now almost reach the zero-level. How low can you go?In another thread, you confided that you are an anatomist by education. Still you write on primate phylogenetics? How come?Best wishes,
Peter

Dear Cat,Regarding your questions:1) Can one believe in evolution without believing the selfish gene theory? ie without believing that ultimately all living things are selfish?PB: The selfish gene hype has been postulate by somebody who doesn't understand anything about genes, a zoologist. Although this zoologist is already backing away from his selfish genes, he is still under the impression that 97% of the genome is junk. In the 1970s when we didn't know anything, it was a nice try. However, in the meantime science has proven evolutionism (from microbe to man) to be wrong. After 150 years of scrutiny NDT should have been proven and there should be a workable origin of life hypothesis. There isn't. Therefore the hype should be replaced by something else that better describes what we actually observe. My guess would be that it will not happen. They will keep it up, and propagate this outdated view by twisting and turning facts according to evo-interpretations. It is pseudoscience.2) How would the above theory explain our love of beauty, not of people (i expect i know how it would explain that!) but of other things like flowers, etc - and of our love of music - and of the insights and feelings gained from music, as well as insights gained from quiet contemplation? If passing on our genes was our sole purpose - why would any of this be necessary? or is it that when we become fully concious, we really do transcend our biology?PB: The hype of evolutionism is NOT explanantory. It merely tells stories.3) also how does it explain our use of contraceptives? if we really are automatons here to perpetuate our genes, why do we use contraception? Why do we choose not to have children?PB: Incomprehensable, isn't it? Ever heard of the swimreflex in conjunction with the gag reflex in newborn? Yeah, you better believe we used to be aquatic apes 4) why do we ask questions beginning with 'why?' - if science can only explain the 'how'?PB: Exactly my point. Evolutionism should be replaced by the GUToB.Best wishes,
Peter

Dear Dr Page,quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------In another thread, you confided that you are an anatomist by education. Still you write on primate phylogenetics? How come?--------------------------------------------------------------------------------page: "Confided"? Your memory is a kaput as your reasoning skills. In the post that I 'confided' that my graduate major was Anatomy and cell biology (you keep leaving that off for some reason), I also mentioned that my minor was physical anthropology (evolution) and that I did my graduate research on the molecular phylogeny of primates.I am well qualified to write on the subject.PB: Congratulations! However, I have the feeling that you are only able to confirm the world from your own paradigm. Ever heard of confirmation bias? Try to overcome it.Page: What are your qualifications to write about phylogeny, evolutionary biology, etc., again?PB: Ask Schrafinator, she published my almost complete CV on this board.Page: When you try to argue from authority (or against it, in your vendetta against Dawkins), you just dig your little creaton hole a bit deeper.PB: In pondering the riddles of life I encountered some serious problems for evolutionism. You didn't provide a solution, either. I bet the current scientific paradigm is wrong!Best wishes,
Peter