Darwinist ignorance, confusion & epigenetics (Introduction)

by David Turell , Wednesday, November 17, 2010, 17:54 (5119 days ago) @ xeno6696


> Again, I need to read some Gould, unless the Google of "Punctuated Equilibrium" is sufficient?-Probably
> 
> > Really? Mandate? Not string theory and not multiverse theory. The only thing we know is this universe exists.
> > 
> 
> But if you remember you recent article you directed us towards; they flat out say that if those suppositions are correct, it directly suggests a multiverse, otherwise, there is no other way---I can offer the opposition viewpoint. String and multi are not proven and the latter is unproveable.
>> 
> 
> > I am intelligent, you are intelligent. It is like pornography. I know it when I see it. What definition are you straining for?
> > > 
> 
> The one that puts logic like that in its place. The pornography claim was ludicrous at its best...-I agree. I was being facetious. BUT, we still recognize intellect.
> 
> 
> > Exactly. Give science 50 years uncovering all the asecrets in the genome and Darwin will be dead. I have full faith in that statement.
> > > 
> 
> I'm not so particular of Darwin per se... I can see the appeal in a completely nondeterministic universe as suggested by quantum mechanics.-The genome is not at a quantum indeterministic level. Biochemical molecules are deterministic.
> 
> > > 2. It is not possible in any way that evolution can be a passive process. 
> > > 
> 
> > It is easy to make that an absolutist statement. Chance mutation is passive. According to Darwin any 'advance' comes from chance genome changes. Nothing about that part alone mandates progress, however that is defined in evolution. Now NS accepts what it is given and there are survivors, and not always the best ones. Perhaps the lucky ones. 
> > > 
> 
> Yes, but you assert that this never happens--at all. I can't abide by that. Maybe not to the point of causing all changes, but really? Nothing?-I believe in evolution, but I believe it is guided. There are changes all the time. Chance advances ARE passive.
> > > 
> 
> I will say this again; in this line of argumentation you're a creationist. The fossil record gives us only snapshots. This is absolute. An 'increment' would be a single generation.-Of course I am a form of creationist. I have a God. 
> 
> > Wiki is wrong. Just peek in my book at Reznick's guppies. Inherited changes. More recent work (Reznick is still at it but the guppies are so 1990, to use valley-girl speak) expands greatly on the inheritability of epigenetics. And not just through methylation. 
> > 
> 
> Trust me... as soon as I get done with the Iliad an my Gnostic scriptures, I shall devour your book rapidly!