Epigenetics prove original sin!

Discussion in 'Religion' started by garbonzo, Sep 3, 2014.

  1. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Those 'reasons' are misappropriated and open-ended. They do not support a belief in God. They are a supposition; you have chosen to suppose they mean God, but there is no reason to conclude this.

    Well, my points were very pertinent. If you believe in God, is that belief insufficient for you without naturalistic evidence? The issues you cite do not support your preconception. Neither are they a naturalistic representation of the idea you are propounding - a scientific basis for sin. Sin is not a naturalistic phenomenon, although guilt might be, as an emotion. You are attempting to build a sand castle using a paint set. The twain - science and faith - do not meet.

    I feel that it is a threat when 'Christian scientists' attempt to appropriate the tools of actual science for their own ends - there are many ignorant people in the world, and it does real science no good, as a field, when provocateurs try to achieve some kind of respectability for their core concepts among lay people using ideas they have misemployed for that very purpose. You dismiss the work of those far more knowledgeable than you as a 'house of cards', when in fact the evidence behind evolution represents the greatest mass of evidence that man has ever collected for a concept still called a 'theory'. There certainly is no 'house of cards' lest it be Christian science - on which rests the entirety of their self-identification. So many cards are missing, today, that Christian science stands erect only through force of will alone, and not on any objective appreciation of its strength.

    I don't want you to be booted from the forum, but you are attempting to locate support for your preconceptions using concepts that do not back you, and dismissing DWM - and genuine scientists - at the same time. These are, in my view, unacceptable. You are pursuing a religious perogative, not a scientific one. You have also attempted to engage in proselytisation here, which is not allowed. I recommend that you review available evidence on evolution and return with a less dismissive perspective on work in this area. 'House of cards', indeed.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Aqueous Id flat Earth skeptic Valued Senior Member

    A lot of things are written. The trick is to understand who wrote them and why, and what the writing actually means in the context of the person or cult that said it.

    It's remarkable that a translator can map the word "awl" but not find the etymology of the word Elohim.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    It's only the most important word to you, the first subject of the first sentence of the tome you worship, which establishes the authenticity and meaning of all that follows. And yet it's been given to you as a fraud, and despite all the tools for you to discover the deception, you have chosen to accept the fraud and discount the evidence, as a means of propping up the error which you have convinced yourself is the truth.

    Such is denial.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. garbonzo Registered Senior Member

    Godless evolution is a house of cards. If it were fact, then it would presuppose that nature itself impels the spontaneous spark of life along with vigorous adaptation. It would have to be so vigorous in fact, that evidence would be easily located such as groups of a species breaking away and establishing new, separate species to take advantage of new environmental opportunities. But the fact remains that species remain static.

    Dogs for instance have been bred and managed for centuries and a beneficial or attractive or weird mutation would be taken advantage of immediately so someone could claim a new breed (it’s quite laughable to even suggest they’d expect it to qualify as a new species). But lo no such mutations happen, dogs remain dogs. Even if they could capture a mutation, the dogs would still remain dogs and the mutation would fade away after a generation or 3 if not for selective breeding (of which there is none in the wild).

    When you observe how ubiquitous life is on earth with lichen, algae and bacteria living on the top of Mt. Everest or the plethora of creatures found at sulfuric volcanic vents at the depths of the ocean, it would be fully reasonable to expect SOME life on our neighboring planets despite their extreme climate and yet none are to be found. In fact there should be not only simpler life forms found on other planets, they would have ‘evolved’ into somewhat advanced animal and plant life by now. But alas, they are all truly barren.

    Your argument now will probably be that our planet was the only one lucky enough to enjoy that sole improbable spark of life and all other life forms have sprang from that first twig of life. That too defies logic since the pursuant immediate changes that would have to occur for a single-celled organism to survive the first 30 minutes would have been just as mathematically impossible. These would include providing the little guy a way to eat, digest, poo, replicate….then start mutating into new species.

    If all life on this planet came from a first single-celled organism, then you must infer that the billions of mutations pushing it into one species after another after another happened as well AND must continue to happen. The evidence for it would be overwhelming. Continued morphing of one species into another would be happening before our eyes and yet there is NONE.

    Of course i’m aware that some evolutionists are now leaning towards abrupt massive changes in species as opposed to long, slow gradual changes. Uhhh – that’s creation brotha!

    Species are dropping like flies (going extinct), no new ones are showing up. None are adapting to the new environmental challenges man is creating through overpopulation or pollution by evolving into new species.

    It’s common sense…use your head to THINK FOR YOURSELF. Godless evolution is a fairy tale and those pushing it have their head in the sand. Their simply is no true evidence to support it.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Bells Staff Member

    Yes, it's more common sense to believe that some great father in the sky made us...

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    There is much more evidence of evolution than there is as written in the Bible or any other religious text.

    Your questions about why there are no plants on other planets is puerile and shows a clear lack of understanding of the basics of evolutionary theory.

    Secondly, we are only now starting to explore the solar system to search for life in a bit more detail. It is ridiculous to declare that it is barren when we have only ventured so far as the moon and have only sent robots to one other planet. It's not a matter of looking for lichen or shrubbery.

    Thirdly, perhaps you should stop being so human or earth centric in your outlook. Just because there are plants here does not mean there needs to be plants elsewhere. You also overlook the fact that Earth exists within the Goldilocks zone, which theoretically is perfect for life to exist, not to mention evolve as it has. And this simply pure dumb luck. We know that water existed on Mars once and it is quite likely that 'life' probably existed or could have existed there had it had the chance and time to develop and evolve.

    And finally:

    That's not how we evolved. And evolution is not something that happens overnight. It takes thousands and thousands of years and is very gradual. And there is clear evidence. From our size and height changing so much over time, to the fact that we now have longer life spans and our dietary changes have altered so significantly that things like our wisdom teeth are not coming in until much later in life, if at all (some never get them) and when they do come in, they need to be removed as our jaws are no longer big enough to accommodate them, to our shrinking brain size over the last few thousand years. It is a slow and gradual process.
  8. billvon Valued Senior Member

    And that has happened time and time again. The intelligence of border collies. The swimming abilities of the Gordon Setter. The speed of the Greyhound and the strength of the bulldog.

    I take it you haven't seen many dogs, then. The breeds are quite different from each other.

    ?? How do you know that? How do you know there is no lichen on Mars, or bacteria on Europa, or archaea in the atmosphere of Venus?

    That's a pretty big (and unsupported) assumption you are making.

    You got it!

    We have watched dozens of new species evolve right in front of our faces. There's even a squirrel currently evolving wings (iditarus macrotis.)

    If you want to define "evolution" as "creation" - fine, but you're going to confuse people.

    Here's a list of species that have "split" and created new species:

    Evening Primrose (Oenothera gigas)
    Kew Primrose (Primula kewensis)
    Hemp Nettle (Galeopsis tetrahit)
    Madia citrigracilis
    Maidenhair Fern (Adiantum pedatum)
    Woodsia Fern (Woodsia abbeae)
    Stephanomeira malheurensis
    Yellow Monkey Flower (Mimulus guttatus)
    Fruit fly (Drosophila paulistorum)

    Google "cichlid radiation."

  9. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    No. This is sheer insinuation.

    What is "nature itself"? Are you deifying nature?

    That is the worst kind of absurd tripe. They do not. See billvon's list, above. I can provide others, in-lab and out, which also invalidate your argument, a point you seemingly ignored. But one is forced to ask: if species do not speciate, where then the room for God to play with the biological history of the planet? If species really don't speciate, where then is the room for God to drive speciation, which you say doesn't exist because species are static?

    Environmental conditions promote selection in the wild. You seem sometimes aware of these phenomena and at other times not. Why so?

    Why? Do you take our limited range of environments on earth as representative of all possible physical characteristics of all planets? Why? Where did the first bacteria evolve?

    Why would I make such a foolish argument? We know essentially nothing at all of other planets and whether they contain life, or of their geologic histories. We certainly do not know enough to be able even to say whether Mars definitively had life. Your digression should be in the building of better straw men.

    I will ask this, however:

    Why would such changes be immediate to the generation of life, instead of just being extant at the time life is naturalistically created?

    Indeed!: imagine if all species on earth were related in terms of DNA sequence by some simple mathematical construction - as if they'd all spring from a common ancestor. Even humans might have genetic relationships to other extant species! Of course, if you're some kind of "Schroderingian dodger", you have to actually open the book to see whether or not the cat is dead. Will you do at least that much?

    Actually, it's saltation, brotha. Like epigenetics, it has nothing to say about the existence of any god. Should I assume all rapid radiations were the direct result of his whimsical work? I thought He'd just made all the animals and everything that once and left them static - as you mention in your post - instead of revising all the time.

    Strangely enough, evolutionary work is the finest expression of common sense, and backed by a body of evidence so astounding that it could not all be read in several lifetimes. That you have not consulted such evidence is hardly my fault. Instead of complaining, why not read a book? Surely better than burning them. As you say: think for yourself.
  10. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    You don't even understand evolution and you are making hoops through which it must follow? Species do evolve relatively rapidly to colonize new environments. You don't know enough to calculate odds. You don't know if Mars once had life. The evidence IS overwhelming. We can observe species morphing into other species. There are many adaptations that species make to adapt to pollution and life in urban environments. Yours is one big argument from IGNORANCE, which is a requirement to believe in creationism.
  11. garbonzo Registered Senior Member

    The supposed plagiarism of Proverbs from the Instruction of Amenemope consists of parts of 3 chapters and there is not a little contention among scholars about which has priority. The first date assumed for the Egyptian work was 1st century BCE! Only when a more influential scholar attributed it to the 21st Dynasty did this critical view gain traction. It’s called “mob mentality” Aqueous. Just because a cabal of scholars adopt the popular view doesn’t make it right.


    John Ruffle takes a more conservative approach: “The connection so casually assumed is often very superficial, rarely more than similarity of subject matter, often quite differently treated and does not survive detailed examination. I believe it can merit no more definite verdict than ‘not proven’ and that it certainly does not exist to the extent that is often assumed”, and “The parallels that I have drawn between [the ueuetlatolli of the Aztecs], (recorded by Bernardino de Sahagun in the 1500s) and ancient Near Eastern wisdom are in no way exhaustive, but the fact that they can be produced so easily underlines what should be obvious anyway, that such precepts and images are universally acceptable and hence that similar passages may occur in Proverbs and Amenemope simply by coincidence.”


    One could take Amenemope’s council about the outcome of The Silent Man Vs The Heated Man and compare it to our modern reference to Type A/Type B personalities along with Alpha Males and their propensity to fill our prisons and likewise accuse some poor modern bastard of plagiarism of Amenemope. A lot of the wisdom of Proverbs is common sense…in other words, common to all cultures because we’re not all that different.
    I’ve already addressed the Elohim/Jehovah subject. Elohim is a title like LORD not a personal name as is Jehovah, therein lies your great mystery – solved! You’re welcome!

    Saul “lived much later and in a different quadrant”???? He was born about the same time as Christ and Tarsus is just north of Syria up the coast from Israel. You speak as though he lived in Spain.

    Origen (185 – 253) is spoken of as having used the same 27 books of the ‘New Testament” and i would assume the elders of the early Christian congregation were first responsible for gathering the accepted canon together, not your Catholic fellow. I do have faith in the ultimate author of scripture, Jehovah God – that He made sure His Word was protected throughout the long process. Psalm 12:6,7

    Collosians’ reference to baptism and “having been raised up” refers just like in Romans to a resurrection to a “newness of life” or “putting on the new personality”.

    It’s exactly what is referenced at 1 John 3:14 “We know that we have passed over from death to life, because we love the brothers. The one who does not love remains in death.”

    Being submerged under water represented dying as to one’s former course of conduct and coming out of the water being resurrected to a new life as a Christian. There is no light between the two books regarding baptism. They are perfectly in harmony.

    It’s of no special skill to be able to grab some other culture’s pagan belief in angels and demons and assume some large influence on the bible. You could like John Ruffle opined, find something similar in more distant cultures if you tried. Belief in angels and demons is practically universal in ancient cultures for a reason.

    The first reference to the Messiah was in the first prophecy in Genesis 3:15 regarding “the woman’s seed/offspring” eventually delivering a fatal blow to the serpent’s head. This offspring’s lineage through Abraham on down was a major theme of the entire Bible, as when Abraham was told (Gen 22:18) “And by means of your offspring all nations of the earth will obtain a blessing for themselves because you have listened to my voice.’” The lineage leading to Christ was given in detail in two of the gospels.

    The obscene reference is fitting as it describes the mutual task undertaken by ‘intellectuals’ as yourself to undermine God’s Word. You’re only entertaining yourselves but providing a messy distraction to your audience. You start with a predisposition that the bible is only a work of man and proceed to find any similarities you can within near-contemporary (sometimes not even close) works of whatever civilization around at the time. It’s WEAK.
  12. garbonzo Registered Senior Member

    “What is “nature itself”? Are you deifying nature?”

    Are you deifying Mr. Natural if you refer to “natural selection”? That’s an odd God to worship but at least he can sell posters to hippies.

    You refer to breeds of dogs as different species. I guess that’s how evolutionists get around their rather large problem – redefine the meaning of species. Brilliant! Species used to mean different kinds that could not breed. Just like your cichlids – they’re still CICHLIDS, no matter how many ‘breeds’ you can count in Lake Malawi. Put them in an aquarium and most will willingly mate with each other and produce viable offspring.

    And just because geneticists or botanists can force a new species of freakazoid cabba-radish doesn’t prove that it happens in nature by itself. I wouldn’t put it past the abilities of scientists to do whatever their heart’s desire if given enough time.

    That, if you didn’t notice IS intelligent design. You “playing God” with DNA doesn’t prove blind evolution.

    How many millions of acres of corn have been grown and meddled with? How many blades of grass growing next to these fields have spontaneously sprouted ears of corn?

    That’s what i thought…

    Flying mice are not “growing wings”. There are many members of that family of rodents just as there are many flying squirrels. Are they “growing wings” too? If one of them is able to flap a bit and gain lift, good for him – he’s still not a bird.

    Again, variation within a species does not evolution make.

    “Goldilocks zone”…I think you’re referring to the orbital zone around the Sun that would make sense for God to create life. I’m sure some sort of life is possible on other planets – where is it? Is the blind force of evolution prejudiced? Why would it care what’s comfortable to a human? Sure, earth is ‘juuuust right!’ for us, but if you were here before the Carboniferous Period, you might not think so. You’d say, “This porridge SUCKS and is too F’N HOT!”

    “Why would such changes be immediate to the generation of life, instead of just being extant at the time life is naturalistically created?”

    So you’re assuming that all the abilities necessary for the first single-celled organism to do all it had to do to live just came about at once? What are the mathematical odds of that happening? You really are like Aristotle – believing in Spontaneous Generation (which science accepted for 2,000 years *cough*).

    Now excuse me, i must attend to this box that keeps purring.
  13. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Many no longer can; they have evolved too far apart. This is the first step in speciation.
    Most of the above happened in nature itself.
    Millions. Corn IS a grass.
    Yes, they are. The one I specifically mentioned has a new bone that causes his wing to spread much further than a normal flying squirrel. This allows his flight membranes to attach to his limbs rather than his phalanges, which allows him a little more mobility on the ground and in trees.

    He is evolving a wing as we watch. From that one bone - produced spontaneously through a mutation - a better wing may well come.

    No, he'd be more like a bat, another family of mammals that evolved wings.
    Billions to one. It would take hundreds of millions of years for life to happen at that rate. Fortunately, we had hundreds of millions of years.
  14. Bells Staff Member

    Who is deifying nature?

    What an odd thing to say!

    Do you think if people speak of nature or say the word, they are deifying it?

    Canidae is a very large tree, encompassing not just dogs, but also foxes, wolves, jackals, and other wild species of canines..

    And no, not all cichlids will mate with each other since their breeding methods can vary quite distinctly. For example, some need caves or holes in rocks or in fallen logs in the water to lay their eggs, others do it out in the open. Some carry and allow the eggs to hatch in their mouths and others do not. Just because it is a cichlid does not mean that it will automatically breed with other types of cichlids, even if it is in the same body of water.

    What? You aren't even making much sense. What is a cabba-radish?

    Who said that it did?

    Evolution is clear enough to witness and observe in varying degrees in many animals and how and where they live, to note how they adapted to certain conditions and how they evolved to have these sometimes subtle differences to ensure their survival. The tortoise of the Galapagos Islands are a prime example. Don't need to play God with DNA. Just walk out and look at the animals and insects around your home and see how they adapted to live where they are.

    Which has what to do with this thread? The irony is that if we did believe in 'God did it', then we would be blaming God for having tampered with 'nature' to create everything 'just so'.

    You are thinking?

    Who said that they were?

    Umm, why would they need to grow wings?

    Not all birds can fly and some other species, like squirrels and gliders can glide and bats can fly. It doesn't make them birds. Just that they evolved to be able to do what they do.
    I would say the absolute opposite is true.

    What does God have to do with it?

    Leaving aside the simple fact that we are only now, in recent years, starting to focus more closely on the planets in our solar system and the fact that it takes years to send probes to these planets.. Why do you think that every planet has to have plant life?

    Why do you think in such an earth centric manner, so much so that you expect life on other planets to be like it is here?

    Well, it is not a change that happened over night and it was not something that was guaranteed.

    The odds were minute. What of it?

    And frankly, I don't know whether to laugh or cry at your woeful misrepresentations and lack of knowledge and comprehension on the issue.

    Does it make you uncomfortable to realise that you are here simply by chance?
  15. garbonzo Registered Senior Member

    Mr. GeoffP said this.
  16. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Well you seem to be searching for a causative intelligent actor. So far as science is concerned, there is none.

    And that's the end of the argument: "most". Not all species do willingly mate with each other and produce viable offspring, which certifies the concept of a species; and without reasons behind the prevention of such recombination, then all of reality becomes a "Just-so" story. I like Kipling too, but those tales were deliberately fanciful. These tales - of the willful God directing every atom - are fanciful also.

    You think that cross-breeding in science is just toymaking? You surprise me, as a person who puts much weight on the relevance of artificial breeding. Who do you think created the breeds of agricultural stock - animal and plant - that we use today?

    And over greater or shorter time, natural processes produce new species of old, or diverge. What I would like to know is whether you really believe that all species are static.

    Selection on that variation does, however, and both have been demonstrated. Where did bats get their wings? You have previously insisted that species are static, so did God make their wings especially for them?

    Rather: why would life be produced in a completely inhospitable environment? There are limits.

    Rather that an organism capable of reproducing would be able to do so in its environment. I'm sorry if this sounds tautological, but you sounded like you were arguing for predictability.

    Only because it knew no better. What is your excuse?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  17. garbonzo Registered Senior Member

    Not that i don’t enjoy our argument but i feel like i’m playing a game of Whack A Mole. You can’t be pinned down because your science isn’t even on the same page. You (collectively) don’t even agree on the ever-changing definition of the very word, “species”. So how can the rest of your science be a cohesive base of knowledge? It’s not.



    “To make sense of these observations, biologists recognize the importance of grouping similar individuals into species—that is, distinct types of organisms. This task requires agreement on what the word species means. Perhaps surprisingly, the definition has changed considerably over time and is still the topic of vigorous debate among biologists.”

    So before you get lost in drooling ecstasy on the carpet in a rolling guffaw at my “woeful misrepresentations and lack of knowledge”, you might want to take a sober look at your own house. It’s not in order.

    Let’s clear up the confusion and use biblical terminology: “KINDS”. The point is kind sir, no one KIND has ever been observed to morph, evolve or radiate into another KIND. Sure, a Great Dane might not choose to mate with a Chihuahua but that doesn’t mean they aren’t both still dogs.

    Are you a neutralist or a selectionist? You’re obviously a microevolutionist, seeing the gravity you give small differences in dog breeds as proof of evolution.
    Are you an adaptationist? If so, how do you contend with those of the genetic constraint and phylogenetic constraint schools of thought opposed to that sort of thinking?

    Geez, i’m getting flashbacks to studying about the schisms among Christendom…i guess that’s because Godless Evolution is a religion.

    How did it affect you when they had to finally trash Haeckel’s “BIOGENETIC FUNDAMENTAL LAW” (now referred to as ‘Haeckel’s Lie) that “ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny”?

    How many more evolution-lies have been finally served up as bogus? (I’ve been out of the scene for awhile). You can only hide a lie so long even if it does make a catchy phrase.

    Have you given thought to taking a course in the epistemology of evolutionary science? I guess that’s a silly question as there would be no end to it (or if i were teaching it would last about 5 minutes as long as the school provided a rather large trashcan).

    “The odds were minute. What of it?”…….Right – all those silly numbers with endless zeros, who needs em?!
  18. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Life on Earth still favours evolution over creationism:

    Charles Darwin's Theory of Evolution, first published in 1859, offered a bold new explanation for how animals and plants diversified and still serves as the foundation underpinning all medical and biological research today. But the theory remains under attack by creationists in various parts of the world, particularly the US, Turkey, Indonesia and the Middle East.

    Perhaps three of the most powerful ways to test evolution are through comparative genomics, homeobox genes and transitional fossils.
    Collectively these provide solid evidence for evolution as a robust theory to account for the diversification of all life. So allow me to explore some recent discoveries in these fields.

    Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2014-09-life-earth-favours-evolution-creationism.html#jCp

    Humans share 98.8% of their genes with chimpanzees. As we know the time at which divergent mutations accumulate between lineages, we can estimate that humans and chimpanzees last common ancestor (LCA) lived about 6-8 million years ago.
    This date is supported by the known fossil evidence of ancient human species and prehistoric apes.

    To date these results have all supported the existing theory of evolution from what we already knew about the anatomy of such organisms. It is powerful evidence for evolution as it would only take one such case to be out of the predicted phylogenetic position to challenge evolutionary theory, but this has not yet happened.

    Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2014-09-life-earth-favours-evolution-creationism.html#jCp
  19. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Congratulations! You've set up your own straw man so you can knock it down. What other mental masturbation do you have to offer?
  20. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    This is my favorite:
  21. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Imagine how we feel! Some days, it's like every vague attack that we crush generates two more - not that the first one ever admits defeat anyway, powered as they are by a deluded kind of theism.

    Well, that's a load of bollocks. It's not a system of changing goal posts - as you used here and which you infer for the nature of the discussion around speciation. It is a system of competing concepts used to try to fit a process into a definition, which sounds as though I support the 'cladistic species concept', and perhaps I do in concert with the classical 'BSC'. You should understand that the process of speciation is not an instant effect. Species do not take a sudden step overnight (barring an extraordinary saltation, perhaps) and become new species. Long-term reproductive isolation is achieved most often, it is thought, by geographic isolation, so that different populations adopt changes that prevent them from recognizing each other as members of the same species later on. Many species are able to reproduce if forced - I saw several curious salmonid hybrids that still 'worked' even though such hybrids do not occur in nature - but do not do so because of barriers that exist that prevent them attempting to mate, such as visual cues. The same is true for dogs, wolves and coyotes, which do not breed except in extremis but which are different species.

    By the by: linking to the notorious ICR is not helping you here.

    And? What exactly is your difficulty with this situation?

    Well, of course not, because God just created them all. How much simpler that would be, just the one answer: because. And think of all the problems that one word - just one - might answer! Why are there birds? Because. Why are wolves and dogs capable of interbreeding, but generally don't? Because. Why do some kinds of fish and amphibians hybridize in-lab but not in nature, while others do in fact hybridize in nature? Because. Why are there seasons, Daddy? Because. Why is the sky blue?

    ... but most of us are not content with such answers. Most of us - you perhaps not included, in your drooling ecstasy at not understanding concepts you attack? - would like a functional solution to such issues. We are not content to say that Sky-Daddy did it all, just so, for the benefit of us. We'd like to know what's causing disease, and birth defects, and deforestation, and species change, extinction, heat, weather and pollution. We wonder about such things. If you do not, why do you worry what we think?

    As described that would indeed be a retrograde, so we will not. In point of fact, your 'kinds' is no more than another species concept, and so, dismissed. We have definitions enough already, thankyou.

    Goodness, you have found terms! Indeed, I am all of the above. I do not fall into the nonsense trap of the weight of one school or another: I give more weight to selectionism, but I am a quantitative geneticist, and so that is to be expected. I am interested in the genes of functional differentiation. (By the way: "small differences in dog breeds"?? The average weight of a chihuahua is 2 kg. The average weight of a Great Dane is 45 kg, more than a twenty-fold difference. How is that a small difference?) As for dealing with the phylogenetic constraint schools, I'm actually working in an area distal to that with a concept that might revolutionise all biology. I don't worry too much about the constraints.

    It didn't. Neither is it completely wrong; embryos do resemble embryos of other species broadly. There are vague similarities, and many species do contain ancestral features, or occasionally breed them out. It's just not a perfect representation... you know, like how the Bible isn't apparently a perfect representation of God's will, or of history.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Well, we did have a hand in refuting that YEC thing. (Sorry about that.) Where is the 'finally' coming from?

    Well, if you're asking for my advice, I certainly think you should take one if it's on offer. I think you need to understand - finally, and with perseverance - that answers to life's questions don't generally spring out into the ethos, complete and absolute and in their final form. Instead, they take time and require revision, sifting through various ideas to locate the good ones, conserve them and preserve them for the next round. If that sounds like a allegory about the contrast between creationism and evolutionism, that's because it is.
  22. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    I guarantee you that, were the estimates of the exact estimated day of divergence between human and chimp lines based on sequence evidence not to match the exact day of ancestral divergence based on the fossil record (perhaps a quarry would reveal a chimpanzee having fallen dead in the midst of giving a 'come-hither' gesture to a human having fallen holding his or her hand up in a gesture of explicit refusal, or possibly the reverse), creationists would come on this site to bitch about it.
  23. garbonzo Registered Senior Member

    So i guess we can blame conjoined twins on evolution then? I’m sure in your mind, if it’s an evolutionary step then it must be “Great! Two heads are obviously better than one!” but if evolution is bogus, “It obviously proves God is inept and heartless”. I’ve got more to reply but i’ve been busy with a flooded house. In the meantime, enjoy a hoe down dance party!:


Share This Page