Godlike Productions - Reply to Thread

Users Online Now: 1,442 (Who's On?)	Visitors Today: 490,718
Pageviews Today: 630,628	Threads Today: 188	Posts Today: 2,219
05:33 AM

REPLY TO THREAD

Subject EVOLUTION DOGMA CHALLENGED

User Name

Font color: Font:

In accordance with industry accepted best practices we ask that users limit their copy / paste of copyrighted material to the relevant portions of the article you wish to discuss and no more than 50% of the source material, provide a link back to the original article and provide your original comments / criticism in your post with the article.

[quote:nomuse (not logged in) 2380183:MV8yMDc4MDYzXzM0OTg2NTMwXzY0ODZFNjFG]
[quote:Anonymous Coward 23223519:MV8yMDc4MDYzXzM0OTg1ODQ0XzM2Qzc4ODdD]

and, scientifically speaking, the origin of body plans and biodiversity actually is a mystery, full of what amounts to little more than educated guesses. (maybe it was this mechanism,  maybe it was that mechanism) It helps tear down the facade of certainty that fanatics like you have been keeping propped up for decades.  
[/quote]

Still not sure what you mean by this.  What is it that you are describing with the term "body plan," and what part of that do you believe lacks all explanation?

[quote:Anonymous Coward 23223519:MV8yMDc4MDYzXzM0OTg1ODQ0XzM2Qzc4ODdD]

I wonder if you and your cohorts could ever admit that your beliefs are far more philosophically motivated than scientific.  It just all had to be a natural accident, didn't it?  
[/quote]

Missed my Galileo quote?

I'll put it another way.  I just caught a production of "Nutcracker" recently.  I found the singing lacking.  Completely lacking, in fact.  Is that a legitimate complaint?  I also listened to an amazing children's choir not long ago, but they didn't do as much as a single arabeseque.  Is that a legitimate complaint?

Yes, perhaps one of the pieces they sung would have been more interesting, would have made something wonderful had they danced as well as sung.  But dancing was neither their purpose nor the expectation, and you can't criticize their performance for not including it.

Science IS naturalism.  It is a priori.  You can't go into science saying "If we can't find an answer, then we'll just sing."  Or fall back on magic, gods, aliens, or whatever.

The task of discovering a naturalistic explanation is the task of discovering a naturalistic explanation.  Full stop.  It is as silly to say that they should include something that is completely outside of that brief, as it is to ask why the prima ballerina refuses to demonstrate whether she is a soprano or a mezzo.

As an individual -- as an amateur, an interested observer, a student, or a practicing scientist -- you can have whatever philosophical stance you want.  If you wish the believe the entire universe is an illusion, that is fine.  But when you apply for that grant, do that research, tabulate that data, write that paper, respond to reviews, you do so within the frame of the field you have chosen.

The BEST you can say for suddenly breaking out into song when you find your elevation is insufficient to properly perform a move is that it is cowardice.  You are attempting to cover your own insufficiency by suddenly pretending it was all about something else.

So, yes, it is a philosophical stance.  There is no half-a-science; just science....and bad science.

Oh, and why is it Creationists pull this card?  Ever?  Since they were the ones who took a PHILOSOPHICAL debate and attempted to fight it out on the terms of science instead?

They are like rowdy footballers crashing a chess club.  They want the panache of being able to beat anyone at their own game, so they cheat, tip over boards...fooling no-one but themselves as to their achievement of that victory.

[quote:Anonymous Coward 23223519:MV8yMDc4MDYzXzM0OTg1ODQ0XzM2Qzc4ODdD]
LOL, as opposed to your hand-waving about superstitious magical mutations that can not produce a single novel protein, yet must have been creative enough to fill every ecological niche on earth with the most fantastically designed creatures imaginable.
[/quote]

Would this be the same processes you yourself cited (err...mentioned) as having created a protein with novel application?
[/quote]

Original Message In this paper, "Modern Synthesis", refers to the commonly taught evolutionary mechanism of incremental Random Mutations + Natural Selection as the primary factor for creating all of biodiversity.

Yes this is the dogma that you've been called 'stupid' and 'ignorant' for not believing in for decades.

Mainstream Science is finally being forced to admit that it was a failed assumption. And fanatical Evos are kicking and screaming.

What 'Soft Inheritance' refers to is Epigenetics. These are developmental changes in an individual organism that gets inherited by its offspring, that do not include genetic variations in the underlying DNA.

[link to www.somosbacteriasyvirus.com]

Soft inheritance: Challenging the Modern Synthesis

This paper presents some of the recent challenges to the Modern Synthesis of evolutionary theory, which has dominated
evolutionary thinking for the last sixty years. The focus of the paper is the challenge of soft inheritance - the
idea that variations that arise during development can be inherited. There is ample evidence showing that phenotypic
variations that are independent of variations in DNA sequence, and targeted DNA changes that are guided by
epigenetic control systems, are important sources of hereditary variation, and hence can contribute to evolutionary
changes. Furthermore, under certain conditions, the mechanisms underlying epigenetic inheritance can also lead to
saltational changes that reorganize the epigenome. These discoveries are clearly incompatible with the tenets of the
Modern Synthesis, which denied any significant role for Lamarckian and saltational processes. In view of the data
that support soft inheritance, as well as other challenges to the Modern Synthesis, it is concluded that that synthesis
no longer offers a satisfactory theoretical framework for evolutionary biology.

----------

There are many more papers supporting this and scientists adopting this viewpoint as well. Look into the Altenberg 16 conference.

Yes I know all of you religious evos will argue that this doesn't change the fact that your sacred non-intelligently designed, naturalistic Evolution is still the only truth.

That is expected. You have more faith than any theist on Earth.

Pictures (click to insert)





\| Next Page >>