Scientists shun Kansas evolution hearing

Washington Times (via India) ^ | 08 April 2005 | Staff

[betty boop]

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!

[Alamo-Girl]

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.

[colorado tanker]

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. :-)

[colorado tanker]

Outstanding book, Ronzo! It's on my library shelf, too.

LOL! Me too. I agree, it's outstanding!

[colorado tanker]

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?

[Ronzo]

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.