Book review of Nature\'s I.Q. (Evolution)

by David Turell , Saturday, September 12, 2009, 16:35 (5549 days ago) @ xeno6696
edited by unknown, Saturday, September 12, 2009, 16:49

And how on earth am I supposed to know that it IS incorrect? Keep in mind this was a major source of info for me for quite some time. *You* know more about this stuff than I do. (Remember, paleontology is NOT anything I have any experience with whatsoever. You've spent much more time with it.)-I realize, now, in your 'past life' you have used shortcuts to gain knowledge, but I have the impression that you have always picked websites that agreed with your preconceived notions. Not a good way to research an area of new knowledge for you. You must look at both sides, and make up your own mind to be an independent thinker, and I know you know all of that. Moral: no shortcuts. For example, I don't agree with Kenneth Miller but I read his book. i've read atheist books, etc. I didn't make up my theories until I had digested both sides. I maintain a skepticism against popular ideas. ('Global warming' is a liberal farce attempting to give UN third-world more money and large governments more governing controls. Lets not debate this here, wrong website, just an example of my research conclusions)
 
> The only sticking point I might have is on the predation issue. If we see predators rapidly evolving alongside of prey, do you simply consign that to "correlation only?" -You are absolutely right here. The 57 or so phyla in the Cambrian Explosion (CE) contained prey and preditors. They always evolve together and create a balance in nature. Ask the Australians about rabbits, or why Hawaiians keep out snakes.
> Part of your argument also seems to be (correct me if I'm wrong) that evolution is much more internally directed than it is by environmental influences? Help me out by describing how this statement could be proven. -You are correct: I believe RNA drives evolution and epigenetics.-> If changes in phenotype happen epigenetically, but they are not passed on, then traditional evolution would still be safe. -But that is the point of current research. Lamark had the right idea, but the wrong result. Kammerer was on the right path. Epigenetic changes are passed on, moving evolution along.-As an aside, cells die and are replaced. The process is called apoptosis. The dying cells call the garbage men by eluting chemicals that draw in the macrophages. Isn't life very complex and wonderful?-http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v461/n7261/edsumm/e090910-13.html