Originally posted by: Gilby
Originally posted by: dgevert
Ironic, this, from someone who had just said "How did he conclude this fact? How can he assume that..." What's the reasoning for this lame ad hoc explanation, one so poorly written that I had to read it several times just to be sure Terumo wasn't stupid enough to seriously advocate lamarckian evolution?
I did read it a number of times...and she is advocating a Lamarkian idea (albiet one modified with a smattering of simplified genetic ideas.) She also, if you didn't catch it, was actually critiqueing a Creationist article without realizing it. Try this
link for more of that particular author's writing.
Edit: I really should read more before posting. Not only did she forward a bastardized Lamarkian view, she followed it up by mentioning that she is reading John Major Jenkins, a scam artist in the Carlos Casteneda mode.
In the effort to "save face" guess what was Gilby's error was:
1. I'm no proponent of any Evolutionist or Creationist POV.
2. I knew he was arguing
against a creationist POV. That didn't matter. What mattered was his critical thinking in what he was arguing
about (and to bring this whole trainwreck back on topic). His conclusions didn't factor in other variables. He assumed because a genetic component was x-amount of years old it means a trait HAD to come later, not earlier. His problem is he doesn't know if there was redheaded or blonde early hominids (no evidence exist to prove his point, hair and eye color is unfortunately not saved by the erosive effects of time). That albinos exist, there's a good chance a genetic "oopsie" could've occured 1,000,000 years ago that produced redheaded hominids in Africa - or - a long pattern of adaptation (and breeding) of protein starved bands (or genetics can be influenced by environmental factors AND nutritional deficienies -- folic acid is but one that if absent causes horrible fetal deformities and fetal death) could've long passed on that recessive gene. Being Asia was further away, it didn't spread as it was one l-o-n-g walk, and the recessive gene had to find a match to produce a redheaded offspring -- a stray traveler to a remote area couldn't exploit the remote area's "gene pool" as much as a band of hominids that settled in enclaves. Very basic deduction.
3. That you didn't know John Major Jenkins and his work tells me your assumption (again to "save face") is out of ignorance and/or stupidity (what did you do run to talkorigins to "know" him too)? Instead of bad mouthing what you don't understand let alone read, how about grabbing Jenkin's book and
read it. And you can also hit the bookshelves and grab "Tao's of Physics" and "The Web of Life" by Fritjof Capra, and "Art and Physics: Parallel Visions in Space, Time & Light" by Leonard Shlain. But before you do, grab Hegel's primer, as you'll be needing it.
In order for Science to survive and not go the way of the dodo, Science must understand and be
willing to expand it's very structure to
adapt to a changing world -- it must
evolve.
You guys are instead, burying your heads in the sand and getting reamed in the process. All because of convention is more important than
common sense.