I'd also ask that you produce some evidence of him 'denouncing' evolution. I can't find anything that would indicate such a thing.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Several prominent scientists denounced evolution on account of these kinds of experiments, including the famous case of Richard Goldschmidt.
The thing is recent new discoveries about genetics have pointed to the very least that the theory of evolution needs to be revised. Evidence such as horizontal influences on our genetics make up.
did you even read the link or dismiss it out of hat. there is a lot more than just that but i didn't want to go on about it myself as it is said better by the experts.
No I didn't. I prefer actual papers or at least a science reporting site rather than a popular press article. Unless this is something new, the overblown rhetoric about HGT sounding a death knell for evolution is something I've read before, seen addressed and offered my own two cents on above.
There simply isn't the amount of HGT in animals (since the Cambrian) for it to confound establishing phylogenetic relationships the way there is in micro-organisms, plants and the earliest Metazoans.
The video didn't say anything about DNA.
because their is no upward evolutionary branching, merely sideways variation of kind
The article was taken from new science life a science publication. There are several write ups on it. There are tests done by scientists in universities so i dont think they are coming from some media tabloid. If you read it first then you can reply to what im talking about.
because their is no upward evolutionary branching, merely sideways variation of kind. Just like we have witnessed with your own eyes in cats and dogs.
Its hard for me to summarize that's why i included the link which is only a summary of the complete study and evidence im sure. But basically what they are saying is you are influenced by your environment and that can influence what is passed down to the next generation and affect their behavior.
Natural selection in each generation, genes undergo random mutations, making offspring subtly different from their parents; those mutations that enhance an organism's abilities to thrive and reproduce in its own particular environment will tend to spread through populations, while those that make successful breeding less likely will eventually peter out.
From two elementary notions random mutation, and the filtering power of the environment have emerged, over millennia, such marvels as eyes, the wings of birds and the human brain.
Yet epigenetics suggests this isn't the whole story. If what happens to you during your lifetime living in a stress can affect how your genes express themselves in future generations, the absolutely simple version of natural selection begins to look questionable. Rather than genes simply "offering up" a random smorgasbord of traits in each new generation, which then either prove suited or unsuited to the environment, it seems that the environment plays a role in creating those traits in future generations, if only in a short-term and reversible way.
There are other implications this brings with a persons behavior as well which can be read in the reference. But basically it is suggesting what we believe about species evolving into better and more complex creatures that adapt well to the environment may not be the only way our genes are affected and what we will pass onto the next generation. The environment around us can have a big affect which goes against evolving into more suitable and adapted creatures and adds other possibilities. It more or less goes against what natural selection says.
How odd. Because that article has a tree with an upward trunk and several two limb branches - and that's a very simple evolutionary tree.
I don't see any sideways lines there. Could you point them out to me?
They used to tell me the pretty picture on the left is correct, untill actual evidence falsified it, so we redraw the picture but never reconsider the actual theory itself. Such unbiased scientists. Scientists that know if they do not claim evolution as fact would never get a single paper published. And bye-bye to their careers.
peer pressure
government grants
fear
yuppyism
sheep/herd instinct
Most scientists do not make that much money.money
ethical challenges
You could probably come up with a few others but that's the gist of it.
Yes, it's a pretty picture full of imaginary links, of which there exists no evidence whatsoever.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?