|
|
Due to spam and off-topic content, these forums are being phased out and replaced with new great books forums. Please join us!
Posted by Spotcheck on August 23, 19100 at 05:21:00:
In Reply to: Re: A Slight Divergence? posted by Chatterbox on August 22, 19100 at 11:50:29:
Big snip, where you admit that your theory is exactly the same as Darwin's,
I never said my theory was exactly the same as Darwin's What I did say is that it could easily be confused with evolution as it exists today. But I am saying that is NOT the evolution that exists today. Big difference right there.
and would be accepted by any scientist familiar with modern-day evolutionary theory, expect for the genetic mechanism for which you admit you have no evidence.
It most uredly will not be accepted by any scientist familiar with modern-day evolution. And thereis evidence that more DNA than necessary exists in all beings. Start at the simplest level and examine this yourself. Check out DNA of the ancient algae and protozoans of 3.5 billion years ago, and you might be surprised. I want to know why it's there!
A theory that is almost exclusively Darwinian is not going to make Darwinism obselete.
Except that is NOT what I am describing.
: : Darwin knew nothing of genetics - neither did he need to. His greatest contribution to science had nothing to do with genetics.
: : I suspected as much genetically. I do not know what contribution you are referring to here though.
: : Can you tell me what Charlie's greatest contribution was?
: : No, but I would have to guess that species evolve by means of natural selection with descent through modification. Now what is it really?
The answer is in there somewhere. He was not the first to postualte that all animals may be related in some way. That idea goes back to at least the ancient Greeks.
Back to Anaximander of the mid 6th century BCE. He postualated that man, like every other animal was descended from fish, except that man must be more closely related to another being since we have such long infancies.
He was not the only one to postulate descent with modification as the major mechanism for change, Lamarck suggested it was driven by inheritance of aquired characteristics.
Oh, yes, it has been a while since I've been through this. I'd not forgotten Lamark's name but seem to recollect that he believed that long necks of giraffes were acquired by necessity.
The answer should be clear from what I have said about Mr. Darwin's theory.
One day Darwin and evolution theory will be viewed somewhat differently than they are right now. Darwin will no longer be villified by the religious as an atheist, nor will he be almost worshipped by secular humanists. He will be seen as someone who was almost on the right path. I know you realize that God must fit in here somewhere. Well, that is the piece that will be the undoing of all of this along with scientists who are honestly willing to go back through everything and say that the inexplicable is precisely that. That extra DNA, convergent evolution(the odds of eyes evolving in 5 genetically separate phyla are 10^170 possible genetic combinations[highly unlikely almost doesn't capture this number]), the fact that only five basic body plans come out of the Cambrian explosion of 530 million years ago, all argue for something quite different that what you have been discussing. As someone who was once a die-hard evolutionist, I have been forced to change my ideas because the facts do not add up as once I thought they did. Evolution is not the free agent I was taught to believe that it is. But what will be intersting is to see what happens when more and more people figure this out.
Geez, hold onto your seat friend. It shocked me to the core at first, and only now am I
sufficiently recovering!