Robert Jameson,
what does your reply above to river-wind have to do with Retrotranscriptence?
what does your reply above to river-wind have to do with Retrotranscriptence?
Evolution and instincts
- Thread starter one_raven
- Start date
Robert Jameson
Registered Senior Member
Quote from River wind.
If anti-body code is being passed on to offspring through RNA->DNA recombination, then why was I not born immune to the Mumps? My parents got it, produced anti-bodies to become immune from re-infection, and I was born 25 odd years later. Why did I not receive Mumps immunity from my parents?
This appears to be saying that my parents both have blue eyes and I resulted from the matching of my parent’s gametes so I should have blue eyes. But we know that this is not always the case. Even identical twins will sometimes have different coloured eyes.
Cells make RNA retroviruses? Why have I never heard of this? You'd think that this would be huge information, possibly requiring a re-classification of viruses! If Mammalian cells can produce viruses, then suddenly viral infection could be considered a non-sexual reproductive strategy. It would be huge!!!
Does the fact that you have not heard about it mean that Steele, Lindley and Blanden are wrong? I expect their work would be better known if it complemented what the scientific establishment want to believe is true. That natural selection is the driving force of evolution and we can understand it and eventually we will answer all those big questions. But there is no simple model explaining the Lamarckian inheritance of acquired traits and it is suggestive of a “guiding hand”. It puts the “Big Questions” far beyond the reach of conventional science and the scientific establishment does not want to know about it.
Riverwind presented a lot of data in his reply to one of my earlier posts which is very likely true but I do not see how it contradicts the findings of Steele, Lindley and Blandon. But I am not an expert in this field and the point he/she was making may well have gone over my head. As mentioned in an earlier thread I have directed my research towards supporting evidence for the God Gametes theory. Lamarck’s Signature is clearly supportive of the inheritance of acquired traits and this is information I was looking for. Given that Steele is a Professor of Biology and Blandon a Professor of Immunology and Cell Biology I believe it is reasonable for me to use their findings; even if I am merely an amateur scientist.
The God Gametes theory argues a purpose for life and a reason for evolving greater complexity. Modern day Darwinism can not explain the inheritance of acquired traits but God Gametes presents a model in which this would happen. Interestingly Charles Darwin himself was a Lamarckian.
In Chapter 2 of The Origin of Species he writes:
“with animals the increased use or disuse of parts has had a marked influence ... in the domestic duck ... the bones of the wing weigh less and the bones of the leg more, in proportion to the whole skeleton, than do the same bones in the wild-duck; and this change may be safely attributed to the domestic duck flying much less, and walking more, than its wild parents.”
Darwin continues:
“The great and inherited development of the udders in cows and goats in countries where they are habitually milked, in comparison with these organs in other countries, is probably another instance of the effects of use.” 2
From Chapter 12 of God Gametes which can be downloaded free at www.e-publishingaustralia.com
Ted Steele is attempting to knock over the Weismann’s Barrier but does not have a model to replace it. This presents serious ideological problems for the scientific community. If natural selection is not the primary force driving evolution, then what is?
Weismann placed his barrier at the end of the scientific road for he knew it was not possible for science to explain the inheritance of acquired traits. Steele simply showed that it happens but cannot explain how. For 100 years Darwinists have been trying to deny the inevitable and instinctively must have known that the Weismann’s Barrier was being broken. It was because they could not explain it that they said it was not happening.
The God Gametes theory has a model for replacing the Weismann’s Barrier but it comes with a cost. It draws distinction between two levels of understanding. We live in a classical world where natural selection will work yet there is also the world of the parent species where the traditional methods of scientific investigation break down. We can never understand this world for it is a barrier that cannot be penetrated. To comprehend the world of the parent species we would need to be one of them. As long as our consciousness is one of their reproductive cells, this is impossible. It is like asking a female egg or a male sperm cell to transform into a human body without first being fertilised.
The God Gametes theory places ‘classical biology’ in the same position as ‘classical physics’. We suggest that science will have to accept a level of ‘biological uncertainty’. Darwinism, we believe, only applies to the classical or ‘naive world’ where earthly environment will impact on the course of evolution. Maybe in the future we will talk about a ‘new biology’ where there are probabilities of something happening yet never a certain scientific outcome.
Fortunately though this provides the scientific community with the security it needs. A barrier between our classical world and the parent species applies equally to science and theology. The God Gametes theory does not believe it is any easier for theologians to comprehend the consciousness of the parent species than it is for scientists.
If anti-body code is being passed on to offspring through RNA->DNA recombination, then why was I not born immune to the Mumps? My parents got it, produced anti-bodies to become immune from re-infection, and I was born 25 odd years later. Why did I not receive Mumps immunity from my parents?
This appears to be saying that my parents both have blue eyes and I resulted from the matching of my parent’s gametes so I should have blue eyes. But we know that this is not always the case. Even identical twins will sometimes have different coloured eyes.
Cells make RNA retroviruses? Why have I never heard of this? You'd think that this would be huge information, possibly requiring a re-classification of viruses! If Mammalian cells can produce viruses, then suddenly viral infection could be considered a non-sexual reproductive strategy. It would be huge!!!
Does the fact that you have not heard about it mean that Steele, Lindley and Blanden are wrong? I expect their work would be better known if it complemented what the scientific establishment want to believe is true. That natural selection is the driving force of evolution and we can understand it and eventually we will answer all those big questions. But there is no simple model explaining the Lamarckian inheritance of acquired traits and it is suggestive of a “guiding hand”. It puts the “Big Questions” far beyond the reach of conventional science and the scientific establishment does not want to know about it.
Riverwind presented a lot of data in his reply to one of my earlier posts which is very likely true but I do not see how it contradicts the findings of Steele, Lindley and Blandon. But I am not an expert in this field and the point he/she was making may well have gone over my head. As mentioned in an earlier thread I have directed my research towards supporting evidence for the God Gametes theory. Lamarck’s Signature is clearly supportive of the inheritance of acquired traits and this is information I was looking for. Given that Steele is a Professor of Biology and Blandon a Professor of Immunology and Cell Biology I believe it is reasonable for me to use their findings; even if I am merely an amateur scientist.
The God Gametes theory argues a purpose for life and a reason for evolving greater complexity. Modern day Darwinism can not explain the inheritance of acquired traits but God Gametes presents a model in which this would happen. Interestingly Charles Darwin himself was a Lamarckian.
In Chapter 2 of The Origin of Species he writes:
“with animals the increased use or disuse of parts has had a marked influence ... in the domestic duck ... the bones of the wing weigh less and the bones of the leg more, in proportion to the whole skeleton, than do the same bones in the wild-duck; and this change may be safely attributed to the domestic duck flying much less, and walking more, than its wild parents.”
Darwin continues:
“The great and inherited development of the udders in cows and goats in countries where they are habitually milked, in comparison with these organs in other countries, is probably another instance of the effects of use.” 2
From Chapter 12 of God Gametes which can be downloaded free at www.e-publishingaustralia.com
Ted Steele is attempting to knock over the Weismann’s Barrier but does not have a model to replace it. This presents serious ideological problems for the scientific community. If natural selection is not the primary force driving evolution, then what is?
Weismann placed his barrier at the end of the scientific road for he knew it was not possible for science to explain the inheritance of acquired traits. Steele simply showed that it happens but cannot explain how. For 100 years Darwinists have been trying to deny the inevitable and instinctively must have known that the Weismann’s Barrier was being broken. It was because they could not explain it that they said it was not happening.
The God Gametes theory has a model for replacing the Weismann’s Barrier but it comes with a cost. It draws distinction between two levels of understanding. We live in a classical world where natural selection will work yet there is also the world of the parent species where the traditional methods of scientific investigation break down. We can never understand this world for it is a barrier that cannot be penetrated. To comprehend the world of the parent species we would need to be one of them. As long as our consciousness is one of their reproductive cells, this is impossible. It is like asking a female egg or a male sperm cell to transform into a human body without first being fertilised.
The God Gametes theory places ‘classical biology’ in the same position as ‘classical physics’. We suggest that science will have to accept a level of ‘biological uncertainty’. Darwinism, we believe, only applies to the classical or ‘naive world’ where earthly environment will impact on the course of evolution. Maybe in the future we will talk about a ‘new biology’ where there are probabilities of something happening yet never a certain scientific outcome.
Fortunately though this provides the scientific community with the security it needs. A barrier between our classical world and the parent species applies equally to science and theology. The God Gametes theory does not believe it is any easier for theologians to comprehend the consciousness of the parent species than it is for scientists.
you would first have to prove that there is such a thing as inheritance acquired traits
edit: and quoting books won't do, because everybody can write a book.