Genetic Variation (Introduction)

by George Jelliss , Crewe, Friday, September 24, 2010, 23:09 (5153 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained

Hidden agenda? I am fairly certain that I have been quite open and honest with my agenda. Abolition of Darwinian evolution, to be replaced with a theory that fits the data, not vice versa. Abolition of the Big Bang theory for the same reason. We are wasting a whole lot of time and money on two theories that do not work. It is suffocation to advancement. I do not really care if creationism replaces the theory, in fact, I expect it won't seeing as how unless we have proof that would be unscientific, but it is time for the death of theories that do not fit the data and a chance to get pack to the principles of science.-The modern theory of evolution (which goes well beyond what Darwin proposed - since he knew nothing about genetics), and the Big Bang theory (with all its latest refinements like inflation and dark energy) both fit an enormous amount of data, and conform to the principles of scientific method. -Until some alternative theories emerge that better fit the data I can see no good reason for wishing to see them "abolished". Personally I have no emotional attachment to either theory, except in so far as they also fit in with my humanistic philosophy. Many others would also fit in with that philosophy. Back during my schooldays I rather liked the mathematical elegance of the steady state theory of cosmology, but that has not kept pace with the Big Bang scenario. -There is really no credible alternative to evolutionary theory at all that I have seen. Just nit-picking as you have been doing, without offering a sound alternative theory is not at all helpful. -As far as I have been able to unpick your arguments you seem to have put your bets on some medium-term creationist scenario, that requires the universe to be much younger than the 13.7 billion years, and the earth to be of the same age, and for all species to have been created at the same time much as they are now apart from variations due to "microevolution". How much humans have "microevolved" since creation you seem to be in doubt. but I suspect that you would prefer us not to have evolved at all to any extent.-Your desire for the truths of science to be concordant with your interpretation of the bible, would seem to indicate that you are a strong religious bible believer, and therefore want to fit the data to the procrustean bed of your interpretation of Genesis. Sorry if I've misinterpreted your motives, but that is how you come across to me.

--
GPJ