Genetic Variation (Introduction)

by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Friday, September 24, 2010, 19:08 (5174 days ago) @ David Turell

George, please relax. We all have agendas. I've read some of the creationist stuff also, just to see what they are writing. My agenda is pro-Big Bang, anti-literal creationist, partially anti-Darwin. You know this. These are my conclusions from reading all sorts of material, and even quoting some of it to agree or dispute it. I see my agenda as somewhat like b_m's and certainly unlike b_m in his disbelief of the Big Bang when the cosmic wave background radiation sits out there as WAS predicted and the wave form fits the math prediction!-Dave, George,-Just a note on the Big Bang/Darwinian Evolution theories. The theories were ok for the time when they were posited, and in some respects, both have done much to increase sciences understanding of the world and universe around us. The same could be said for Aristotle, Copernicus, Galileo, or any other number of well respected scientist for whom I the greatest respect for. But, when Copernicus noted the flaws in Aristotle's work, he felt, near the end of his life, compelled to finally publish his opposing theory because the new data did not match the old theory. When Galileo noticed that the effect of a vacuum wasn't enough to account for the strength of non-fibrous materials. That is not to say that the theories that came before were useless, but that they did not fit the available data discovered after they were made. -Yes, the Big Bang theory made a few accurate predictions, such as CMBR, yet there are a number of other areas where it has failed miserably, such as the total mass of the universe, formation of elementary particles, formation of stars, etc etc. because it does not fit the data. Instead, we have to make a logical leap of faith into the realm of dark matter, chance, mass from nothingness, etc etc. The same could be said for evolution/abiogenesis where we have to accept staggering odds at finite time scales in unfavorable conditions, and now, cometary impact as the likeliest candidate. Or Einsteinian relativity(which the CMBR also puts doubt on). The scientific method says that we should revise the theories based on the results of new data.-Unfortunately, we have split the world into two main camps, the "Darwin-did-it"s and the "Designer-did-it"s, and each side has become so dogmatically entrenched in their beliefs that they can not see the gaping holes in their own arguments. -I am not going to poke anyone here with the labeling rod, and I would hope, that in the spirit of enlightened debate, that same rod will be withheld from me. We all have a 'favorite to win' when it comes to competing theory because we all see the theory differently and pick up on different strengths and weaknesses. But only by admitting those strengths and weaknesses can the theories themselves be revised to account for the constant inclusion of new data.