[alexander_busek]

it’s Its adherents continue running themselves further on to the reef of failed human ideas, because it creates nothing and properly predicts nothing we see in experiments at the cellular level (the real world). it really is easier to think of the vast cell proteome consulting a persistent genomic database as it goes about adapting to it’s its environment. it is also creating it’s its environment as it goes along. life is an infinite feedback loop, each cell can do it’s its own thing (uh oh, cancer). now, experiment proves the cell can store hard data in it’s its own local copy of the genome. voila, it’s Lamarck (us believers never left him). [...] the apparent options the simple the cell has available to deal with in it’s its environments is incredibly vast, basically infinite. good thing too because the universe that life can explore is potentially infinite, too, like it’s its Creator.

Dawkins and Noble are not in actual disagreement about Darwinian evolution, and Noble's version of "Lamarckianism" - q.v. "tubulins" - is a far cry from that which Lamarck, himself, ever espoused. And to twist Noble's words into some sort of an endorsement of "Intelligent Design" would be dishonest. This is all more like a "tempest in a teapot."

I think that you are reading a little too much into this article.

Regards,

[dadfly]

lol. good morning thanks for correcting my comment’s possessives and punctuation. i don’t pay enough (any) attention when writing quickly.

this post is great and exciting to me because, the science of cellular biology is now far advanced over the time of Darwin and Lamarck. we begin to understand more about the amazing things going on in the cell. both Lamarck and Darwin had no real idea what actual mechanism(s) God was using to build-in adaption. we’re still in the infancy of understanding what the cell actually does based on cell bio-chemistry.

my point is that Lamarck didn’t eliminate the idea of adaptation outside of traits passed *solely* though inheritance/reproduction. thus he was right and Darwin wrong philosophically.

like Darwin, Dawkins philosophically can’t cope with that truth. Noble obviously can.

no. i stand firmly on what i wrote (punctuation errors not withstanding :)) there’s a *fundamental* difference between Darwin/Dawkins and Noble. interesting that you don’t see it. i see it because the truth conveyed in God’s Word (for me it’s the KJV despite it’s punctuation and translation errors) stands *forever* as unassailable Truth. ‘He who has an ear, let him hear.’

may God bless you and yours!