Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, All:

I'm unable to do that. Life stuff is always front and center.

In fact, I wonder if you could remove all that "religious" stuff from your thoughts..... would science remain?

excon

---

Hi Ex,

Good point and I hope you don't think I was directing you what to do. I just find things easier to understand when I turn off life, which I can not understand at all.

But if I shut off my religion stuff... would science remain? No, only because, I respect science meaning I believe it has a huge purpose and I respect scientist, but I don't understand it much, but do respect it.

Truth? If I turned off my religious thoughts, I would think, what's the purpose of even being here. To me, I see nothing but struggle, heartache. But then a see a child smile and back come my religious thoughts.

Does any of that make sense.

Ex, hope you know I wasn't be smart or anything, K?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Allheart

Truth? If I turned off my religious thoughts, I would think, what's the purpose of even being here. To me, I see nothing but struggle, heartache.

---

I think that's probably the biggest difference right there between yourself and us who don't have a need for religion. We do not see only struggle and heartache, we are more optimistic I guess. Plus, if I may speak for myself, how can keep thinking about struggle and heartache went I have my kids, my wife, my job, my house, road trips, sports, etc. to occupy my time.

It is possible that you have had a hard life and I'm sorry for that but you can't attribute your 'coping mechanism' to the rest of us - you've found what works for you, we have what works for us.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

I think that's probably the biggest difference right there between yourself and us who don't have a need for religion. We do not see only struggle and heartache, we are more optimistic I guess. Plus, if I may speak for myself, how can keep thinking about struggle and heartache went I have my kids, my wife, my job, my house, road trips, sports, etc. to occupy my time.

It is possible that you have had a hard life and I'm sorry for that but you can't attribute your 'coping mechanism' to the rest of us - you've found what works for you, we have what works for us.

---

Oh NK I understand what you are saying. And I am grateful for the beatufiul things in my life more then you will ever know. I could never say I had a hard life... ever... when I see starvation.. and all the other hardships.

That's what I mean about struggle. From people starving, seeing their heartaches, hearing they have cancer... to just have a disagreement with someone.

There are beautiful things in life that I hold precious... but I also see pain and heartache and lots of it.

I just can't find complete joy with all that going on.

NK I am more blessed then I could ever relay and wonder every day why? I have been told I am too optimstic but that's what I mean about struggle.

For me, God's love helps to lighten the load of what I see and gives me the strength to somehow change.

In all painful things of this life - I see God's love. Have you ever seen a special child (down syndrome or something similar?) smile, I light up inside because in that smile I see God's love.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Allheart

I just find things easier to understand when I turn off life, which I can not understand at all………… There are beautiful things in life that I hold precious....but I also see pain and heartache and lots of it.

---

Hello again, All:

Now we're getting somewhere.

I don't understand life either. But, I understand our nature. What you see as good and evil, I see as the natural acts of man.

Lest you think that leaves me depressed, however, you are wrong. I'm quite optimistic about our future.

Man has outlived (evolved if you will) beyond his need to act tribally, which is the way we've ALWAYS acted. The speed of technology has far outpaced the speed of evolution. But, I'll bet evolution is just going to speed up too, though.

Therefore, our species will adapt/adjust/morph/evolve into one that's better able to survive in a technological age, rather than a tribal age. We DO think like tribes, don't we?? Oh, we look very cool in our three piece suites, but we're barely a generation or two out of the jungle. That's a minuscule amount of time to observe evolution at work. Evolution hasn't caught up.

But we will survive, or we'll wind up in the dustbins of history with the millions of other species that didn't pan out.

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, All:

Now we're getting somewhere.

I don't understand life either. But, I understand our nature. What you see as good and evil, I see as the natural acts of man.

Lest you think that leaves me depressed, you are wrong. I'm quite optimistic about our future.

Man has outlived (evolved if you will) beyond his need to act tribally, which is the way we've ALWAYS acted. The speed of technology has far outpaced the speed of evolution. But, I'll bet evolution is just gonna speed up too, though.

Therefore, our species will adapt/adjust/morph/evolve into one that's better able to survive in a technological age, rather than a tribal age. We DO think like tribes, don't we???? Oh, we look very cool in our three piece suites, but we're barely a generation or two out of the jungle. That's a miniscule amount of time to observe evolution at work. Our culture hasn't caught up.

But we will survive, or we'll wind up in the dustbins of history with the millions of other species that didn't pan out.

excon

---

Ex - I just think you are such a special and precious man and hope you don't mind me saying that or I embarrass you - I don't mean to.

I completely understand what you are saying and no we really are not that very far removed from hunt or be hunted - but I have hope to that we are better then that.

I don't necessarily see "evil" so much - I see far more good and mostly all good. Rarely do I see evil. I see struggle. The only time I would say I see evil, is when someone is so disturbed there is no way back for them. Where they are brilliant and of sound mind - but evil has pentrated them so much that all they want to do is cause harm merely for the sake of causing harm.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Capuchin

Why are we still expecting things to have to evolve by chance? I've said over and over that evolution doesnt work by chance, any source who says so obviously doesn't understand evolution or it's mechanisms.

Furthermore are you really expecting full detailed explanations of morphologies etc in a popular science article? The evidence is recent and i'm sure many scientists will study it further and explain how it evolved in the future. Science is an ongoing thing. We don't have all the answers right now.

---

If it isn't by chance, its by design.

By chance (adv)

Synonyms: accidentally, by accident, unintentionally, inadvertently, coincidentally, unexpectedly, by luck, fortuitously, by coincidence, by a quirk of fate

Antonym: on purpose
Synonym for by chance (adv) - antonym for by chance (adv) - Thesaurus - MSN Encarta


Antonyms: chance

Adj

Definition: accidental, unforeseeable
Antonyms: designed, foreseeable, planned, understood
chance: Definition, Synonyms and Much More from Answers.com

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by De Maria

If it isn't by chance, its by design.

---

No, it's by selection. Which is nether chance or design. The selection is done by who ever survives to reproduce hence "survival of the fittest".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by michealb

No, it's by selection.

---

You are using "selection" as a synonym for "survival". In other words, since it is "left behind" after the others have died, then it has been "selected" or "chosen" for survival. This is what is more commonly called "natural" selection. But natural selection is the result of so called "random" mutations in the genes which permit some individual specimens to overcome the changes in the environment while others don't. These individuals then pass on their genetic mutations and they become the norm.

Now tell me, who rolled the dice? In other words, who put these variations in the genetic code so that they might appear as mutations when they were needed?

Who wrote the genetic code in the first place? A code implies intelligence, communication, language and design.

Quote:

---

Which is nether chance or design.

---

It is design. Are you familiar at all with programming? Have you ever heard of an "if" statement? What does it do?

The surviving individuals are the "if" statements of nature.

Quote:

---

The selection is done by who ever survives to reproduce hence "survival of the fittest".

---

Correct. But that selection was made by an intelligence.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by De Maria

It is design. Are you familiar at all with programming? Have you ever heard of an "if" statement?

---

So it is your contention that your god programs all the DNA in every cell of every living thing?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

So it is your contention that your god programs all the DNA in every cell of every living thing?

---

He must use a mac.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

So it is your contention that your god programs all the DNA in every cell of every living thing?

---

Not only programs it, but created it to start with.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fr_Chuck

not only programs it, but created it to start with.

---

Busy guy, no wonder he has no time to heal amputees.

No wonder he has no time to answer prayers and grant miracles.

He's too busy chasing down bugs and eliminating them.

God as a Dev/GM in an online game makes it soooooo much easier to understand!

No time for the average player, just the ones that scream and whine for his attention, the "bugs" that are fixed are random, based on what He feels like working on, or on what people are demanding the most, every now and again someone figures out an "exploit" that God scrambles to fix, only in fixing it, He screws up 17 other things that generally leaves most of the game's community unhappy with his customer service, and they report him to the OTHER "devs" (the other gods) who can't do anything about what HE is doing, but they fix the problems those players come to them with, so even though they're "lesser" devs, they have a large following because they do what they can to fix the things the main dev has screwed up.

All we need now is God announcing that he's selling out to Sony, who can better handle the customer service complaints and distribution.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

So it is your contention that your god programs all the DNA in every cell of every living thing?

---

Yes. If you've ever looked at and considered a DNA strand, the order and design which it reveals leaves no question that an Intelligence designed it.

Nah, that's not my belief. Sorry.

I think more why do you believe in god a book that was written thousands of years ago.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by De Maria

You are using "selection" as a synonym for "survival". In other words, since it is "left behind" after the others have died, then it has been "selected" or "chosen" for survival. This is what is more commonly called "natural" selection. But natural selection is the result of so called "random" mutations in the genes which permit some individual specimens to overcome the changes in the environment while others don't. These individuals then pass on their genetic mutations and they become the norm.

Now tell me, who rolled the dice? In other words, who put these variations in the genetic code so that they might appear as mutations when they were needed?

---

I think you might actually believe in evolution De Maria you just don't know it, yet.

I think we just need to define mutations a little and I think you'll have it. How the mutations come across is because a copy is being made. No creature is able to replicate its self with 100% accuracy because if it could it would be perfect and only god is perfect right. So when a creature replicates its self there are minor changes some good, some bad. The bad ones don't reproduce the good ones do "survival of the fittest". Now that is all evolution states if you want to say that it's all gods plan that's fine but as long as you get that the good genes get passes on because of survival and the genes change because of mutation(coping errors) that is evolution.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by michealb

I think you might actually believe in evolution De Maria you just don't know it, yet.

---

I'm Catholic. I believe in evolution by God's design.

Evolution and the Pope

To paraphrase Santayana: Newspapers ignorant of history are condemned to reprint it. How else should we interpret the recent headline, describing Pope John Paul II's address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, "Pope Says Evolution Compatible with Faith"?

There's not much "news" there. Fifty years ago Pope Pius XII said almost the same thing in the encyclical Humani generis: "The Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, insofar as it inquiries into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter."

While not exactly canonizing Darwin, Pius XII did imply that the theory of evolution isn't necessarily inimical to Christianity. Certainly he didn't reject evolution altogether. How then do we explain the big headlines when John Paul II says basically the same thing in 1996? ....
Article: EVOLUTION AND THE POPE

Quote:

---

I think we just need to define mutations a little and I think you'll have it. How the mutations come across is because a copy is being made. No creature is able to replicate its self with 100% accuracy because if it could it would be perfect and only god is perfect right. So when a creature replicates its self there are minor changes some good, some bad. The bad ones don't reproduce the good ones do "survival of the fittest". Now that is all evolution states if you want to say that it's all gods plan that's fine but as long as you get that the good genes get passes on because of survival and the genes change because of mutation(coping errors) that is evolution.

---

Thanks Michealb. Because you have just permitted me to say what has seemed to twist everyone else's panties into knots. You said, "...if you want to say that it's all gods plan thats fine...".

That's EXACTLY WHAT I WANT TO SAY.

Thanks. Sounds like you and I have come to understanding.

You see, for us, Christians, science is a means by which we come to understand God's universe. But secular scientists have written God off and they accuse anyone who believes in God of being anti-reason. But that is far from the truth.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by michealb

I think you might actually believe in evolution De Maria you just don't know it, yet.

I think we just need to define mutations a little and I think you'll have it. How the mutations come across is because a copy is being made. No creature is able to replicate its self with 100% accuracy because if it could it would be perfect and only god is perfect right. So when a creature replicates its self there are minor changes some good, some bad. The bad ones don't reproduce the good ones do "survival of the fittest". Now that is all evolution states if you want to say that it's all gods plan thats fine but as long as you get that the good genes get passes on because of survival and the genes change because of mutation(coping errors) that is evolution.

---

Okay - what mutaions led to the development of the eye,
Flight in birds
Bipedalism in humans
Echolocation in bats
From invertebrates to vertebrates
Exo vs endo skeletons
etc..
These cannot be "proved" or "tested"





Mutations are responsible for:

Cystic fibrosis
Sickle cell
Huntington's
Tay sachs
Breast cancer [ brca 1 ]
Certain post chemo leukemias
Muscular dystrophy
Certain types of alzheimer's
Crohn's [ nod 2 ]
Some forms of colon cancer

The list of medical diseases caused or associated with or a increased risk for
By gene mutations grows every year, but this is the process by which we are to have developed from a single cell? Remember selection cannot work if there are no mutations.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by inthebox

Okay - what mutaions led to the development of the eye,
flight in birds
bipedalism in humans
echolocation in bats
from invertebrates to vertebrates
exo vs endo skeletons
etc..
these cannot be "proved" or "tested"

---

Of course they can, we see the eye in many stages of development in creatures that are alive today. - It's outlined in the origin of species. And, shock horror, God gave octopi better eyes that he gave us, maybe he loves octopi more.
I don't have time to go over all of these. Try reading a book.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by inthebox

mutations are responsible for:

cystic fibrosis
sickle cell
huntington's
Tay sachs
breast cancer [ brca 1 ]
certain post chemo leukemias
muscular dystrophy
certain types of alzheimer's
Crohn's [ nod 2 ]
some forms of colon cancer

the list of medical diseases caused or associated with or a increased risk for
by gene mutations grows every year, but this is the process by which we are to have developed from a single cell? Remember selection cannot work if there are no mutations.

---

Yes. It is. You ignore the mutations that let people run 100m in under 10 seconds, that let them hold their breath longer underwater, that give them resistance to developing cancer, that stop them from developing AIDS etc etc etc.

Taking cystic fibrosis as an example - these people would die at birth outside of our society. They would be unable to procreate.

I agree with you One hundred percent you can't get something from nothing, This is something I strugled with growing up in a cristian home however I can give you two examples one from each side.

First off the non believers you can't get something from nothing that is correct based off
Everything we know and what our experience teaches us growing up, For example you put a fire craker inside a glass cube and sispend that from a scale giving you a weight now regardless of what it wheighs if you set it off will the box wheigh the same? Most people would assume no because there is no fire cracker left however the box will wieght the same every time, Why? Because the powder and everything that made up the firework has now been turned to gas or smoke however the weight still remains the same!

Now if your able to think outside the box for just one moment and consider the possability that the universe and I don't me god! Has its own set of rules not like what we all believe
Is it possible that what most of us believe is parcialy a buyproduct of what our parents have engrained into us? Perhaps society? Or is it simply because we can't wrap our minds of which we only us ten percent of around the possability that a human's perseption of thing works much like every other species. Take a great white shark for instance usually when a shark approches a object of which it cannot understand it becomes cureus and will test the object by rubbing up against it and biting it. Is this much different than a child learning and testing new things? Instanly learning the first time it cry's out in hunger pains and gets a bottle, or cry's and gets picked up, These thing's become programed into our minds as fact and reality!

The point Im trying to make here is that is it mabe possible that the reason we believe we can't get something from nothing is because that's what we live what we see?
We cannot understand it because everything on our planet lives and die's, Its bourne and then expires, Our brains simply cannot comprehend always has been because we and everything around us are not! But if your willing to think outside the box then this maybe a interesting theory for you!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Concretelycan

I agree with you One hundred percent you can't get something from nothing, This is something I strugled with growing up in a cristian home however I can give you two examples one from each side.

First off the non believers you can't get something from nothing that is correct based off of
everything we know and what our experiance teaches us growing up, For example you put a fire craker inside a glass cube and sispend that from a scale giving you a weight now regardless of what it wheighs if you set it off will the box wheigh the same? Most people would assume no because there is no fire cracker left however the box will wieght the same everytime, Why? Because the powder and everything that made up the firework has now been turned to gas or smoke however the weight still remains the same!

Now if your able to think outside the box for just one moment and concider the possability that the universe and I dont me god! Has its own set of rules not like what we all believe
is it possible that what most of us believe is parcialy a buyproduct of what our parents have engrained into us? Perhaps society? Or is it simply because we can't wrap our minds of which we only us ten percent of around the possability that a human's perseption of thing works much like every other species. Take a great white shark for instance usualy when a shark approches a object of which it cannot understand it becomes cureus and will test the object by rubbing up against it and biting it. Is this much different than a child learning and testing new things? Instanly learning the first time it cry's out in hunger pains and gets a bottle, or cry's and gets picked up, These thing's become programed into our minds as fact and reality!

The point Im trying to make here is that is it mabe possible that the reason we believe we can't get something from nothing is because thats what we live what we see?
We cannot understand it because everything on our planet lives and die's, Its bourne and then expires, Our brains simply cannot comprehend always has been because we and everything around us are not! But if your willing to think outside the box then this maybe a interesting theory for you!

---

df

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by inthebox

Okay - what mutaions led to the development of the eye,
flight in birds
bipedalism in humans
echolocation in bats
from invertebrates to vertebrates
exo vs endo skeletons
etc..
these cannot be "proved" or "tested"





mutations are responsible for:

cystic fibrosis
sickle cell
huntington's
Tay sachs
breast cancer [ brca 1 ]
certain post chemo leukemias
muscular dystrophy
certain types of alzheimer's
Crohn's [ nod 2 ]
some forms of colon cancer

the list of medical diseases caused or associated with or a increased risk for
by gene mutations grows every year, but this is the process by which we are to have developed from a single cell? Remember selection cannot work if there are no mutations.

---

If you're really interested in learning about mutations, differing mutation rates across species, and how mutation rates within a species change in response to environmental conditions, check out Evolving Mistakes - The Wild Side - Olivia Judson. If your mind is closed on the subject and you aren't willing to open it again, don't bother.

Oh, and inthebox, some variants of sickle cell anemia have resistance to malaria - so it has it's advantages in places like africa where malaria is rampant.

Hi everyone -

I am just popping in to say hello and just comment on how bright you folks are. I truly mean that.

You possess such great blessings.

That's all I can contribute - as I'm lost on the outside - but I just had to share my observation.

I do often wonder sometimes, this may sound strange, but does it get to be frustrating when you are so bright, see things so clear, as clear as day, and then there are folks, like myself, not ashamed to admit it, have no clue what you are talking about?

I am not putting myself down, honest I am not. I just wonder if it can get frustrating.

Carry on :).

It only gets frustrating when people argue out of ignorance. It is perfectly acceptable to say that a scientific theory is wrong, if you have proof it's wrong or there is no proof it's right, but when you don't understand the theory that your claiming to be wrong that gets annoying.

Gotcha.

You'll never catch me doing that :).

My post on faith are just based on what I do know.

The Science stuff, which I am so incredibly impressed with Scientist and Engineers minds,
But it's almost like another language.

But I would never say it's wrong, when I don't know what it is. :)

I just recogonize the intellectual gifts that people have. My husband is very smart and sometimes he gives me a very funny look.

Guess I am trying to say is I respect and am in awe of all of your intellegence and hope that you do enjoy that.

There are times that am glad that I am in the dark - Sometimes to know so much is not always a blessing. Not even on this topic, politics, life , people.

Anyway - Embrace your blessings - I truly think it's wonderful.

Like I said Cap.

Brca is associated with a higher risk for breast cancer.

A single amino acid substitutionis responsible for sickle cell.

Again what SPECIFIC mutation is responsible for bipedalism or echolation?

What specific gene or mutation is responsible for a sub 4 minute mile?
Name names.

How do you control for training, shoes, nutrition, wind, better expression of an allele that has always been present? Jimmy the Greek sound familiar?



Do humans that can dunk have different genes than the rest of us? A hundred thousand or more base pairs in their dna?

Read more about mutations and disease - the science is there if you're willing to do the research.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Allheart

Hi everyone -

I am just popping in to say hello and just comment on how bright you folks are. I truly mean that.

You possess such great blessings.

That's all I can contribute - as I'm lost on the outside - but I just had to share my observation.

I do often wonder sometimes, this may sound strange, but does it get to be frustrating when you are so bright, see things so clear, as clear as day, and then their are folks, like myself, not ashamed to admit it, have no clue what you are talking about?

I am not putting myself down, honest I am not. I just wonder if it can get frustrating.

Carry on :).

---

I agree with you Allheart most things go right over my head

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nicki143

I agree with you Allheart most things go right over my head

---

LOL I kind of like in the world of Fog :)

Colon cancer test maker's shares soar - Daily Business Update - The Boston Globe



"Exact Sciences makes a noninvasive test in which a patient collects a stool sample at home and ships it to a lab that analyzes the DNA to look for MUTATIONS that could indicate COLON CANCER."



Yeah I'm reading ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by inthebox

Read more about mutations and disease - the science is there if you're willing to do the research.

---

Nobody is arguing that all mutations are beneficial or denying that most mutations are harmful. But you seem to be arguing that mutations can never be beneficial, and therefore that mutations cannot produce successful evolutionary innovations. If that's your position, you're the one who needs to "read more about mutations". A good starting point would be the link I provided above.

inthebox, there are no single genes for the beneficial adaptations you listed. The things you listed are complicated things that evolve over large stretches of time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ordinaryguy

Nobody is arguing that all mutations are beneficial or denying that most mutations are harmful. But you seem to be arguing that mutations can never be beneficial, and therefore that mutations cannot produce successful evolutionary innovations. If that's your position, you're the one who needs to "read more about mutations". A good starting point would be the link I provided above.

---

Read your link -

viruses and bacteria, due to their high reproductive rates mutate an enormous amount of times over a short period. The article claims 100,000 deleterious mutations to one beneficial. But no where does it state or even imply that despite all these mutations e.coli remains e.coli, influenza remains influenza. No "proof" that humans came from single celled organisms. No "macroevolution"

Well.

I'd just like to point out that we haven't been watching those bacteria for millions of years yet, either.

Macroevolution was made up by the creationist to make evolution sound implausible. Macroevolution doesn't exist. There are no great leaps in evolution like you are thinking.
What you get are minor almost undetectable changes that add up to great leaps over thousands of years. That is why Darwin himself said that if any organ was found that didn't break down into a simpler form it would disprove his entire theory.
Evolution for the most part is slooowwww. That's why it takes thousands of years for species to evolve.

Also just so you know almost every scientist out there would love to disprove evolution. If I could disprove evolution as a valid theory, I would do it in a heart beat. Why would I do that you ask? Simple I want to be better known than those that came before me and who better to debunk than Darwin. It's what scientist do, they seek knowledge not cover it up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by inthebox

No "proof" that humans came from single celled organisms. no "macroevolution"

---

The physical and life sciences deal in inferences and interpretations, not proof. If it's proof you're after study mathematics.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by michealb

Also just so you know almost every scientist out there would love to disprove evolution. If I could disprove evolution as a valid theory, I would do it in a heart beat. Why would I do that you ask? Simple I want to be better known than those that came before me and who better to debunk than Darwin. It's what scientist do, they seek knowledge not cover it up.

---

This is very true, it's almost like creationists think that evolution was thought up to challenge creation. That's very arrogant of them. Scientists couldn't give a rat's behind. They want a better model for the world, if they end up crushing some widely held delusions then that's just the way it goes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by inthebox

read your link -

viruses and bacteria, due to their high reproductive rates mutate an enormous amount of times over a short period of time. The article claims 100,000 deleterious mutations to one beneficial. But no where does it state or even imply that despite all these mutations e.coli remains e.coli, influenza remains influenza. No "proof" that humans came from single celled organisms. no "macroevolution"

---

We know that multicellular life took 3.5 billion years to form on Earth. It's a hard thing to do. You need a lot of time, even reproducing at the rate of bacteria or viruses.

Scoop: Mazur: Altenberg! The Woodstock of Evolution?

A bunch of evolutionists and they can't even agree among themselves. Some interseting excerpts:


"Oh sure natural selection's been demonstrated. . . the interesting point, however, is that it has rarely if ever been demonstrated to have anything to do with evolution in the sense of long-term changes in populations. . . . Summing up we can see that the import of the Darwinian theory of evolution is just unexplainable caprice from top to bottom. What evolves is JUST WHAT HAPPENED TO HAPPEN."




"Pigliucci cites epigenetic inheritance as one of the mechanisms that Darwin knew nothing about. He says there is mounting empirical evidence to "suspect" there's a whole additional layer chemically on top of the genes that is inherited but is not DNA. Darwin, of course, did not even know of the existence of DNA"



-----Evolution cannot explain DNA and yet these scientists think there is something more complex than just genes involved? ------



"Thus the scramble at Altenberg for a new theory of evolution.

But Kauffman also describes genes as "utterly dead". However, he says there are some genes that turn the rest of the genes and one another on and off. Certain chemical reactions happen. Enzymes are produced, etc. And that while we only have 25,000 to 30,000 genes, there are many combinations of activity.

Here's what he told me over the phone:


"Well there's 25,000 genes, so each could be on or off. So there's 2 x 2 x 2 x 25,000 times. Well that's 2 to the 25,000th. Right? Which is something like 10 to the 7,000th. Okay? There's only 10 to the 80th particles in the whole universe. ARE YOU STUNNED?"




No wonder they are scratiching their heads: trying to fgure out how what is actually known fits into the evolutionary theory.