Darwinist ignorance, confusion & epigenetics (Introduction)

by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Sunday, November 14, 2010, 20:01 (4912 days ago) @ David Turell

David,
> So far it appears that Epigenetics guarantees survivability in species, but not new organs. I believe new organs or new species arrive de novo, by a mechanism in DNA (the genome) we have not yet discovered, unless this is a part of the epigenetic mechanism we do not yet understand. There are several sudden changes that affect survivability: gelologic sudden change, climate sudden change, and the sudden appearance of a new predator. This is a continuous process, so a surviving organism needs to adapt continously. The evolutionary process looks to be very directed from simple to complex. To get to US reqires all that epigenetic protection. Extinction is due to BAD LUCK. Ask David Raup by reading his book. And remember this adage: we top the list of evolutionary animals because we made up the list.
> > -Considering that the bacterial studies in the early 80's demonstrated that knocking out lactase genes caused the organisms to modify or adapt another existing gene for the same purpose, to me it seems that the creation of new organs can/would be certainly plausible under NS. How absolute are you that NS cannot cause innovation? I think the blanket you throw here is too wide...-> > I shall be away for a few days now, but will catch up next week, assuming there will have been a few epigenetic changes to this thread!
> 
> While you are away, I hope some epigenetic mechanism in your brain, stimulated by my challenges, will change your mode of reasoning, making you come to understand that fence-sitting is painful to the rump, presuming we are using a picket fence, with its insertion of many points for consideration.-Heh; maybe painful to you--some of us more ascetic spirits have come to like and enjoy the "fence." My rump has become rather calloused, and I find that I can even lie down in some comfort upon it. -However, your position to someone like myself seems rash--even for all your searching. (No I haven't read your book just yet; I need to finish the Iliad first and then get back to asking you more Masoretic questions...) I think you've communicated your gist here often. I cannot epistemologically justify a position such as yours or Adler's; my "Will to Truth" is too strong for it; demands more than a hypothesis can give. Accepting it for me wouldn't be so much a bitter pill, but the acceptance of comfort at the price of a probable lie. God isn't a statement--it's a question.

--
\"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.\"