Nick has a follower!
The sure-fire, simple way to tell if an article about epigenetics is full of crap.
Nick has a follower!
Don't have your own ideas? This is a forum.
Actually, in my own words, and not with links, I have already rebutted several nonsensical things that you said, while attempting to clarify your misconceptions. For instance, you claimed that cells reproduce without errors. I pointed out, in my own words (not a link) that replications are shot through with errors: they are called mutations. You also seemed to imply that you thought modern cells emerged in their full complexity somehow in the deep dark past; and you chided science for being unable to explain how this could happen. I explained, in my own words and without a link, that scientists do not think think this; I also asked you whether you were aware of prokaryotes and eukaryotes, the difference between them and the implications of this; you did not answer. You claimed that cells evolved; I corrected you, in my own words: populations evolve, not cells. I did all of this and more and you did not respond to any of it. No clicks were required to understand anything I wrote, I did not include any links at all. In fact my link to the discussion of epigenetics, which you fail to understand, was the first link I have placed in this thread! At all events, I am not aware that there is any rule here against linking to other sites. (The link is to the blog of an evolutionary biologist -- that you don't like the slogan he uses for his blog is completely irrelevant to anything.) The bottom line is you don't know what you are talking about and are desperate to find some way to change the subject. You're welcome.PauloL wrote: ↑Thu Aug 17, 2017 12:48 amDon't have your own ideas? This is a forum.
Many forums have a posting guideline stating basically that "No clicks should be required to understand the post".
Besides that, do you offer me a weblog on "random biological ejaculations from a godless liberal" to rebut an article by Nature Neuroscience?
Give me a break.
Cells do not evolve, they exist in the state they are created, but one cell can produce a cell that is slightly different from itself, that is evolution especially if the difference is an advantage to the new cell.
I'm not a theist, sorry, especially for such a poor argumentation. That was too much of a hurry.
I don't think many will understand what you are on about.
I dare say. So what is the idea?
If it was the case that a disease had wiped out all humans who did not have red hair, such that thereafter all humans had red hair, that would be the explanation of why humans had red hair. However, if there is no selection, if humans with all hair colours can produce fertile offspring, then the natural variation in genes that determine hair colour would be preserved, and thus the diversity, will continue.
Yes, Evolution describes species. Darwin's book was 'On The Origin of Species by means of natural selection'.Evolution describes species? Again, evolution is expected to explain the existence of species in the first instance.
There are explanations of how this might have occurred readily available on the internet which I'm sure you have also read. What is there in such explanations you find contrary to science?Of course Biology is by no means contradictory to Chemistry, but I can't say the same about the contradiction of Evolution to the origin of life. If everything evolves swiftly by selection, tell me how mineral matter evolved to the first cell apt to evolve.
Something mistyped there? I can only keep asking, where exactly is the problem? Where is the mistake? If I wanted to dispute Climate Change (say) I might question data, point to statistical flaws, question the physics and so on. Then, we could see whether my objections were right or not. But in this discussion we never seem to reach that stage.The one thing explicable by science is the formation of the cell on the other hand, and evolution on the other. Darwinian evolutionism is a paranoid illusion in my opinion.
Evolution is not a path. Natural Selection is trail-blazing. We can observe many who have cut their way into the briar patch, and cannot find their way forwards. Others have blazed a trail off the end of a cliff, whilst others have go their foot stuck in a hole.
Failure to understand that negative behaviours, and traits can even be preserved in the genome just so long as the host organism produces viable progeny: a confusion between (1) the claim that evolution is a process in which creatures with adaptive traits are selected and (2) the claim that evolution is a process in which creatures are selected for their adaptive traits. Modern Darwinism is committed to inferring (2) from (1); that this inference is invalid (in fact it's what philosophers call an 'intensional fallacy'); and that there is no way to repair the damage consonant with commitment to naturalism, which (Fodor and Palimanteri) take to be common ground.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests