Skip to comments.
Scientists shun Kansas evolution hearing
Washington Times (via India) ^
| 08 April 2005
| Staff
Posted on 04/10/2005 3:53:04 AM PDT by PatrickHenry
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 881-900, 901-920, 921-940, 941-946 last
To: Ronzo; Alamo-Girl
I find it very interesting that scientist[s] aleady know that it is an entire fertilized egg, not just the DNA inside, the determines how a creature devolops from an embroyo, and what sort of characteristics that creature might have. DNA plays a role, but, surprisingly, not a major one! The DNA is just data for the egg's computer. Excellent discussion, Ronzo! Thank you so very much!
941
posted on
04/28/2005 7:22:04 AM PDT
by
betty boop
(If everyone is thinking alike, then no one is thinking. -- Gen. George S. Patton)
To: Ronzo; betty boop
Thank you oh so very much for your excellent and informative post, Ronzo!
The tremendous hole in neo-Darwinian evolution is the complete lack of evidence for randam, beneficial mutations that give an animal an extra edge in survival. But if mutations are not the answer to evolution, then are we really talking about evolution, or something completely different?
Indeed. I predict that when the randomness pillar goes away, the term "evolution" will be used as a synonym for "natural selection" - but the concept will no longer invoke images of long, gradual changes over time but rather species battling it out for survival.
To: Ronzo
my copy of Jacques Barzun's "From Dawn to Decadence: 500 years of Western Cultural Life." That book is on my shelf! Coincidence? I think not. :-)
To: betty boop
Outstanding book, Ronzo! It's on my library shelf, too. LOL! Me too. I agree, it's outstanding!
To: Ronzo
Thanks for your very interesting post!
That's something that bothers me a lot, too - there is so much we don't know. I remember my high school biology text because in a very condescending way it made fun of Lamarckism and wondered how scientists of that era could have been so foolish to believe it. I wonder what the texts 100 years from now will say about the Darwinists and their belief in random mutation?
To: colorado tanker
I wonder what the texts 100 years from now will say about the Darwinists and their belief in random mutation?
Sorry to sound so pessimistic, but I don't think we have 100 years...and that's actually a good thing, from my perspective anyway! :^)
Never-the-less, I think Lamarckism has better long-term chances than Darwinism. Lamarckism isn't dead yet, and there's still some things out there in nature land that seem to suggest Lamarckism has some applications that are very useful. It is not a replacement for Darwinianism, but it does have it's place.
But if I'm wrong, and there are textbooks written 100 years from now, I think they will give credit to Darwin for helping to understand variation within a species, but in terms of specification, it will be shown to have been much to do about nothing.
946
posted on
04/28/2005 11:39:57 AM PDT
by
Ronzo
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 881-900, 901-920, 921-940, 941-946 last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson