Darwinist ignorance and confusion (Introduction)

by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Friday, June 11, 2010, 02:37 (5279 days ago) @ David Turell


> > It's a sieve; a filter. Genetic change comes from deeper things in the genome: that's what I was trying to point at from my criticism. Sober was talking about an idea that is antiquated; the newer models of evolution when compiled together paint a very complex picture. NS is only a small part of the whole and IS NOT the SOLE source of change. But if we're going to single out one idea that pervades every aspect of biology--no idea is more prevalent or--as I said--useful. It is the glue across all the sub-disciplines.
> 
> NS is the cause of microevolution to a degree. It does not cause speciation by itself, if it contributes at all. In the newer research all the other epigenetic mechanisms seem more important.-Again... epigenetics does not touch *every* aspect of biology. Any discussion of an organism will ALWAYS contain information on its fitness for its environment and the role it plays in the local ecology; all things that epigenetics doesn't touch. However, NS and its ideas of fitness can conversely filter into the genetic level. Epigenetics might be the cause of change itself, but you dismiss NS too quickly at its power as a filter. It's the driveshaft that determines whether or not an organism gets to stay around. In the car analogy, epigenetics supplies only the acceleration.

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"