Re: Serious proof of why the theory of evolution is wrong
On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote: variants like Larmarkianism may well be possible. There are a number of problems with Lamarckism, such as it never having been observed to occur in the lab or in the wild, and it being completely inconsistent with our understanding of embryology, but there is an even more significant flaw. As Richard Dawkins has said Lamarckism can only work by riding on the back of Darwin. According to Lamarck we can inherit the acquired characteristics that our parents developed during their lives, like powerful arm muscles if your father was a blacksmith and thick skin on your feet if your mother did a lot of barefoot walking; but not all acquired characteristics are beneficial and in fact the vast majority of them are not. If Lamarckian evolution is to proceed in the direction of greater adaption then you can't inherit things from your parents like scars or broken legs or a poked out eye or the general decrepitude of old age. So Lamarck needs a way to separate out the good acquired characteristics from the bad acquired characteristics, and the only known way to do that is Darwinian style Natural Selection. Therefore as Dawkins says Darwinism is the only known theory that is in principle CAPABLE of explaining certain aspects of life John K Clark ** -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: What God wants us to do
On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 8:57 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: God doesn't necessarily want *us* to do anything. He wants [...] God wants? He's omnipotent, why doesn't God have? instead to work *through* us. If for some obscure reason God want's something then He should get off His lazy ass and do it Himself. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Serious proof of why the theory of evolution is wrong
If not all acquired characteristics are beneficial and in fact the vast majority of them are not how is that functionally different from mutations. Richard David Ruquist On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 10:37 AM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote: variants like Larmarkianism may well be possible. There are a number of problems with Lamarckism, such as it never having been observed to occur in the lab or in the wild, and it being completely inconsistent with our understanding of embryology, but there is an even more significant flaw. As Richard Dawkins has said Lamarckism can only work by riding on the back of Darwin. According to Lamarck we can inherit the acquired characteristics that our parents developed during their lives, like powerful arm muscles if your father was a blacksmith and thick skin on your feet if your mother did a lot of barefoot walking; but not all acquired characteristics are beneficial and in fact the vast majority of them are not. If Lamarckian evolution is to proceed in the direction of greater adaption then you can't inherit things from your parents like scars or broken legs or a poked out eye or the general decrepitude of old age. So Lamarck needs a way to separate out the good acquired characteristics from the bad acquired characteristics, and the only known way to do that is Darwinian style Natural Selection. Therefore as Dawkins says Darwinism is the only known theory that is in principle CAPABLE of explaining certain aspects of life John K Clark ** -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Serious proof of why the theory of evolution is wrong
On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 11:11 AM, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote: If not all acquired characteristics are beneficial and in fact the vast majority of them are not how is that functionally different from mutations. It is NOT functionally different from mutation, that was precisely my point. No matter what theory you try to dream up to explain the existence of complex life, except for the invisible man in the sky theory, Darwin's natural selection is always hiding in that theory somewhere. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: What God wants us to do
John, adding to the clatter? Who does what? Wants? What??? If somebody has sweet dreams, let him dream. JM On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 11:00 AM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 8:57 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: God doesn't necessarily want *us* to do anything. He wants [...] God wants? He's omnipotent, why doesn't God have? instead to work *through* us. If for some obscure reason God want's something then He should get off His lazy ass and do it Himself. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
RE: Serious proof of why the theory of evolution is wrong
John et al -- Not sure how demarcated the usage is here between the terms Lamarckian Evolution and Epigenetics - some feel Epigenetics should only refer to the actual molecular mechanisms (such as DNA methylation and histone modification) that alter the underlying gene expression; I find this restrictive and use epigenetics to also describe inheritance of changes in the expression of genes. There appears to be increasing evidence that points to epigenetic inheritance - from what I have been able to find out -- by different credible researchers and it there is evidence that it occurs in different species, including our own. This is quite topical a subject. for example: A recent study by Los Angeles Biomedical Research Institute at Harbor-UCLA Medical Center, published online by the American Journal of Physiology -- Lung Cellular and Molecular Physiology, reported that maternal nicotine exposure during pregnancy is linked to asthma in the third generation in disease models. This is known as a transgenerational linkage because the third generation was never directly exposed to nicotine or smoking. Previous research had found nicotine exposure was linked to asthma in the second generation, or was a multigenerational cause of asthma. Isn't this essentially describing a Lamarckian process? If in fact - as two independent studies have concluded - cigarette smoking triggers epigenetic changes; causing increased incidence of asthma across at least three generations -- doesn't this appear to show that the epigenetic inheritance is occurring? Hasn't it been demonstrated that both DNA methylation and histone modification can regulate gene expression without altering the underlying DNA sequence? Or is this still a matter of some contention? Quoting from the article on ScienceDaily http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/08/130805131009.htm that was quoting the study published online by the American Journal of Physiology [don't have a subscription to that journal] In previous studies, the researchers have concluded that the cause of the second generation's asthma was epigenetic modification (an environmental factor causing a genetic change). Nicotine was affecting both the lung cells and the sex cells in ways that caused the lungs that developed from those cells to develop abnormally, causing asthma. The current study paves the way for determining the epigenetic mechanisms behind smoking and the transmission of asthma to future generations, the researchers concluded. Cheers, -Chris de Morsella From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of John Clark Sent: Friday, August 09, 2013 7:37 AM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Serious proof of why the theory of evolution is wrong On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote: variants like Larmarkianism may well be possible. There are a number of problems with Lamarckism, such as it never having been observed to occur in the lab or in the wild, and it being completely inconsistent with our understanding of embryology, but there is an even more significant flaw. As Richard Dawkins has said Lamarckism can only work by riding on the back of Darwin. According to Lamarck we can inherit the acquired characteristics that our parents developed during their lives, like powerful arm muscles if your father was a blacksmith and thick skin on your feet if your mother did a lot of barefoot walking; but not all acquired characteristics are beneficial and in fact the vast majority of them are not. If Lamarckian evolution is to proceed in the direction of greater adaption then you can't inherit things from your parents like scars or broken legs or a poked out eye or the general decrepitude of old age. So Lamarck needs a way to separate out the good acquired characteristics from the bad acquired characteristics, and the only known way to do that is Darwinian style Natural Selection. Therefore as Dawkins says Darwinism is the only known theory that is in principle CAPABLE of explaining certain aspects of life John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit
