Natural Selection (Evolution)

by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Saturday, August 06, 2011, 19:35 (4856 days ago) @ David Turell


> > Matt:The version of evolution that I see David attacking in his book is Darwin unchanged; NOT the version I learned in school which combined several different mechanisms for genetic change. 
> 
> What I see is an age difference problem. I stated re-reading about Darwin in 1998 when encouraged to do so by my first editor, from the now defunct Huntington House Publishers. The key epigenetic discovery I could find was the N.Y. Times article on Reznick and his guppies, and then I looked at his articles. That is when I realized that old-style Darwin was going by the wayside with these new discoveries. A great deal of epigenetics has appeared now, and changed my thinking even further, which is why I have this book revision idea in my head, but not on paper. I've kept on reading, Shapiro coming next, even I can ever get though the Jesuit philosopher and his re-proving First Cause.
> 
> We both know scientific advance changes everything as it goes along. That is why our differences. I learned about Dawrin in the 1940's.I still view NS as an end process which is active as competition between living organisms for survival, plant or animal. We now know there are both passive and active processes leading to the starting gate of the race for survival. I don't see how NS has any difference from that analogy.-Pretty much took the words out of my mouth; I just didn't want to be the first one to bring up age. (not negatively, mind!) I entered college when many findings were already accepted and things were assimilated into a "newer" theory of evolution. I think this might be a difference for dhw and myself as well... we'll see...

--
\"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.\"