From: Kenneth Van Oost (email@example.com)
Date: Thu 13 Oct 2005 - 19:15:06 GMT
----- Original Message -----
From: Dace <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> I overstated my case regarding the structure of the eye. Any trait that
> varies from one individual to another ought to reveal a genetic component.
> This would include not only eye color but quality of vision and the shape
> the eye. It would not, however, include the fundamental "design" of the
> eye. I put design in quotes because, in reality, there is no design for
> feature of any organism on earth. There's no blueprint, in either the
> of God or the nucleic acids of chromosomes. Embryos merely mimic, on the
> basis of species memory, the developmental steps of their predecessors.
If there 's no blueprint, why bother to bring creatonism to our attention !?
Do you favour creatonism above darwinism and do you believe that
morphogenetics is the answer to get both ' beliefs ' right !?
Darwinism got its natural selection scheme, creatonism holds water as
long God or whatever ID they will come up with next is involved and
morphogenetics adapts the view that everything is memory skattered
around over space and time. But what if the mechanism behind all 3 is the
same and merely boils down to ' belief ' !?
The ID, The Great Designer in the Sky, the God for that matter who set
all things in motion_ AND LEFT !!!!! - isn 't the one people pray to !
The former only set things alight and strictly doesn 't care less what
next. The latter is an active God, one who intervenes_ the stranger on the
bus trying to get home. But can creatonism atleast explain what happened
in the old world and preparing new ways for other better or worse ex-
No, it can 't ! Creatonism only have potential if it would explain
that regular scientific investigations can 't explain. And untill now, all
what it de-
pends upon can regected by neo- darwinism. All what matters is that any
must be adjusted when something is wrong and can be righted. But creatonism
' belief ' pure and simple, it is religion, theology about nature packed as science. The danger for darwinism, and for other interpretations for that matter, is that the trend will try to win the debate by depicting Darwinism as something that won 't take criticism. If the ideas of creatonism will become ' science ' we go back in time for atleast a 100 years.
Evolutionists do need only the dispositions made by Darwinism to explain
how a human eye evolved over the eons. ID's do need besides those dis-
positions yet a designer. And do we not know that nature economize on
its efforts !? If creatonism is a religion, ok then we may talk about God,
if we talk about science, we do NOT !!
> Genetic reductionism is problematic to say the least. First starters, as
> Harry Rubin points out, the sequential combination of genes required to
> produce even the simplest organic compounds is vastly more complex than
> sort of physical problems that yield to calculation. Gene combinations
> "transcalculational." Like Newton's three-body problem, there literally
> no solution. Genes therefor cannot mechanistically determine how they
> combine to produce tissues, organs and bodies. The only possibility is
> they're mimicking previous, similar genomes on the basis of memory.
Oh, but has it to be morphogenetics to explain it !? There is maybe yet one
monkey up nature 's sleeve we didn 't see; one paradigm of genetics, or of
memetics for that matters that will yield to solution.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu 13 Oct 2005 - 19:24:12 GMT