Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Creation & Evolution
Swapping out, that which does not match the "peak" - is more effective than Evolution
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Guy Threepwood" data-source="post: 76158284" data-attributes="member: 423388"><p>'raw instinct' raises a good point, we are all familiar with examples of simple hypothetical morphology - e.g. Giraffes developing gradually longer necks thorough random variation and natural selection- fossil evidence aside, the theory at least is extremely easy to grasp.</p><p></p><p>But what random mutation accidentally lends an individual superior mental instincts? e.g.an innate fear of specific animals? innate human capacity to learn code conventions in language? At the very least this is a little less intuitive than simple morphological size/length/color control gene examples.</p><p></p><p>Some scientists <em>are</em> raising the possibility of 'Lamarckism' once more- where environmental/epigenetic driven expressions of genes might be inherited. Some experiments claim to show mice inheriting learned responses to otherwise arbitrary stimuli. That might help fill in some of the lacking 'generative powers' of random mutation, but still runs into some of the same macroevolutionary barriers.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Guy Threepwood, post: 76158284, member: 423388"] 'raw instinct' raises a good point, we are all familiar with examples of simple hypothetical morphology - e.g. Giraffes developing gradually longer necks thorough random variation and natural selection- fossil evidence aside, the theory at least is extremely easy to grasp. But what random mutation accidentally lends an individual superior mental instincts? e.g.an innate fear of specific animals? innate human capacity to learn code conventions in language? At the very least this is a little less intuitive than simple morphological size/length/color control gene examples. Some scientists [I]are[/I] raising the possibility of 'Lamarckism' once more- where environmental/epigenetic driven expressions of genes might be inherited. Some experiments claim to show mice inheriting learned responses to otherwise arbitrary stimuli. That might help fill in some of the lacking 'generative powers' of random mutation, but still runs into some of the same macroevolutionary barriers. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Creation & Evolution
Swapping out, that which does not match the "peak" - is more effective than Evolution
Top
Bottom