Re: What does an evolutionist actually believe?

Hi, see inside. I'm snipping the old.

"Sylvia Knörr" <sylvia.knoerr_NoSpam_@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:dhs5l8$9f1$03$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> "Comm" <no@xxxxxxxx> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> news:m300f.8621$q1.1721@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

>> I think that the combined theories of Darwin - plus discoveries that
>> modified Darwin - and Lynn Margulis - along with knowledge about how
> viruses
>> can alter organisms (such as viral DNA being found in the placenta -
> mammals
>> are not the only placental animals - some sharks are also placental!) -
> will
>> explain a lot more about evolutionary biology. That, plus how metabolism
>> can cause changes - often those changes are just "norm of reaction"
>> changes - but they seem like they're genetic unless someone bothers to do
>> tests that take a long time.
>>
>> Norm of reaction is not a genetic change. Take three identical plants,
>> even clones. Plant one in place A one in B and another in C. They grow
> and
>> look like they are completely different species of plants - not even
>> related. They continue to look like that so long as you keep them where
>> they are. The norm of reaction is NOTICED if someone takes plant in
>> place
> C
>> and puts it in place A and noticed "Wow - why, that's the same plant as
>> those other ones in place A - and I thought it was so different." Etc.
>
> Right, genes correspond with environment and permit a wide range of
> variability. Of course, this variability provides the survial of species
> in
> an ever (and sometimes dramatically) changing environment.
> The physical and chemical processes of HOW genes react to environment are
> still not entirely understood, but there is no doubt that they are at
> work.

Well, that norm of reaction thing is not genetic at all. It's how say, 3
genetically identical plants respond and develop in 3 very different
environments. They look like very different plants. But - replant any of
them in the environment of the other, and they revert back. I don't think
that the differences in human appearance are norm of reaction differences at
all. I think they are fixed in the genome. They appear to be.
>
>> Here's the "thing" about the studies in human anthropology. Certain
> things
>> in the genes are (or at least they seem) FIXED - and those things have to
> do
>> with appearance of humans. Therefore, we all notice that these things
>> are
>> inherited and, as humans with visual brains and facial recognition
> inbuilt,
>> we tend to group these into categories. But that's like the plants
>> above,
>> same plant put in place A keeps reproducing the same type in appearance.
>> But it NO LONGER does that if you plant it in place B or C. The only way
> to
>> really know if these human appearance traits are really genetically
>> fixed,
>> or know if they are only norms of reaction - would be to do human
>> experiments. You do realize that NO ONE CAN talk about this, right?
>> (That's why I brought it up....:)
>
> I shudder from the idea of human experiments, because this was already
> done
> by some Germans 50 years ago. :-((

Yah, I know. But it would be the only way to know. From the outward looks
of it, these things seem to be fixed in humans - that is, genetic - not just
norm of reaction.

> On the other hand, nature itself did some experiments, and we can learn a
> lot by studying (on a DELIBERATE basis!!) twins, just to mention the most
> prominent "natural experiment".
> Identical twins who grow up in different places still show a lot of
> concordance, but even more interesting are the DIFFERENCES. That's where
> we
> can find out something about the interaction of genes and environment.

Yes, sometimes there are big differences in identical twins. Lewontin
pointed them out.
>
>> You are trying to argue with a creationist? Gee Syl. Why?
>
> Well, I'm an optimist and willing to learn from EVERYONE if he or she has
> some enlightenment to offer. :-)

Heh. It's like arguing with people who claim that man never went to the
moon. There is no way that I personally can prove man went to the moon.
The only way to prove it would be to GO to the moon and find the remains of
what humans left there. :)
>
>> Here is my form
>> of "creationism" or more like "emanationism" then:
>>
>> In the Beginning there was God, invisible, unknown, eternal, absolute
>> thatness beyond all notions that anyone can have, beyond all concepts of
>> space or time, matter or energy. Out of that, came a ray of "light" (Big
>> Bang). And out of the stuff of that first "light" all things
>> (matter/energy, space/time, sound/light) came into being. And that's
> that.
>> Probably with some notion of a Guiding Hand that pushes all things
>> forward
>> to never remain in stasis and forever change and change, causing new
>> forms
>> of diversity and complexity. The same amount of matter/energy just gets
>> reshuffled around - by the Guiding Hand aka God. God is a force that
>> infuses all things that exist and motivates them to ever greater change.
>>
>> How's that?
>
> That's a proof that belief and science are not necessarily contradictions.

Right. I agree.

> It's similar to my own imagination of how it all began and is still
> working,
> just that my imagination has no room for God. I just admit that (albeit I
> have a model) I don't know and don't understand how the world began, and I
> guess that's exactly what others call God. Maybe it's just about the terms
> we give to "the great unknown". :-)

Well, what I'm talking about is how the universe began, not the world.
Thatness is the term that's normally used - I'm calling it "God." But it
really means "That which is UNknown and can not BE known."
>
>> (I'm not online all that often, so if you reply, it might be
>> days before I see it).
>
> I know, you have other things to do as long as the weather's fine. I hope
> you wasn't affected by Katrina and Rita.

No, Wilma hit us.
>
>
>


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: What does an evolutionist actually believe?
    ... >>> Norm of reaction is not a genetic change. ... >> in an ever changing environment. ... > genetically identical plants respond and develop in 3 very different ...
    (sci.anthropology)
  • Landplantes were not created - says the Bible!
    ... God said: Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together to one ... And God called the dry ground "land", ... later that the dry land emerged out of the global ocean. ... Land Plants: No creative act, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: OT: Gravity explained
    ... then calculate the probability of that particular arrangement. ... Clearly God did it:) ... did you ever read the article about reliability modelling and humans? ... No nuke plants - OK, the economics are dubious, and the messes are astonishingly hard to dispose of. ...
    (sci.electronics.design)
  • Re: In the News: Pope says science too narrow to explain creation
    ... days and nights of creation were solar days and nights. ... come after the plants and trees. ... it might shed some light as to why God let light appear ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: In the News: Pope says science too narrow to explain creation
    ... days and nights of creation were solar days and nights. ... come after the plants and trees. ... it might shed some light as to why God let light appear ...
    (talk.origins)