Evolution is a blind watchmaker

[sigma6]

I used to think Lamarckism made no sense... but sometimes I think it may have something to do with David Wilcock's interpretation, similar to the spontaneous DNA information being transferred through photons... or even spontaneously from the vacuum. Which means it may not have anything to do random mutation, quite the opposite... and I think it is in the DNA itself... at the time I don't think they realized that DNA was, and is, a receiver/transmitter of 'information'... I now believe that is the vehicle of developing 'consciousness' Consciousness (even at the 'animal' level develops DNA, which in turn creates a potential higher level consciousness, or faster running legs perhaps...

Then again, It was odd the example he gave in the link was Cheetahs running ability, because that could clearly be explained by adaptation, or phenotypic expression, the "environmental influence" being faster running cheetahs would prove more successful... so to me that would clearly be adaptation or, if you are a 'Darwinist' I guess you could call that evolution... for example, the Cheetah population as a whole has a range of genes that would express different phenotypes of musculature that exist within that populations genes, the "environment" is going to select for those existing genes which will be most successful and eventually become largest existing percentage within that population, until other environmental variables come along and change that... so I don't see a need for Lamarkism there...

And Pavlov's observation is interesting, but can be fraught with extraneous variables, what influences were they raised under? how were they handled? etc... i.e. the 'energy' or information that can be transferred, it could be done through the inherent transmission/receiver function of DNA... nothing random about it.. what would it do to the next generation to know your parents were beheaded and kept alive artificially using artificial pumps to circulate blood and air? (not sure if that was Pavlov...)

I just have a problem with the word "Evolution" since it can be so vague and nefarious at times, and they just keep changing its definition to fit things that can be explained otherwise and of course never talk about it, briefly admit its failures then hide it, never to talk about or admit it again, or outright hoaxes by supposedly trained scientist...

The idea of "believing" something that was based on a historically exposed hoax for 50 years, which was the backbone of their "proof" seems absurd to me... And shows how desperate they must have been... Just long enough to create enough inertia to maintain a huge industry that sucks up Government money today. A playground where they practice the art of rationalization. (which I think is their real "science")

Yet they never apologized for it, let alone admitted to it (just removed it) nor do they even correct or update their books, they just keep showing the same baseless pictures and "artist's conceptions" of what they still haven't found (because it doesn't exist) and just go on to more sophisticated forms of manipulating the public perception... there is a huge monetary propaganda aspect to it ... i

[RMorgan]

Hey Bill,

Darwin and Lamarck were both geniuses. In fact, their theories were in agreement in the most important aspect.

Both thought that life had changed gradually over time and was still changing, that living things change to better adapt to their environments, and that all organisms are related. Darwin and Lamarck also agreed that life evolved from fewer, simpler organisms to more complex ones.

I'm familiar with both theories but Darwinism had won the race, specially considering that it didn't stop with Darwin. The great majority of evolutionists developed countless papers confirming and adding to the initial Natural Selection theory...Many scientists that were even systematically trying to disprove Darwinism eventually ended up agreeing with it. Darwinism itself is evolving.

Of course, it doesn't mean Darwin had achieved the ultimate evolutionist theory, but he's been proven mostly right, so far.

Anyway, here's where they disagree.

Lamarck, in his "Theory of Inheritance of Acquired Characteristics", said that change is made by what the organisms want or need. For example, Lamarck believed that elephants all used to have short trunks. When there was no food or water that they could reach with their short trunks, they stretched their trunks to reach the water and branches, and their offspring inherited long trunks. Lamarck also said that body parts that are not being used, such as the human appendix and little toes are gradually disappearing. Eventually, people will be born without these parts. Lamarck also believed that evolution happens according to a predetermined plan and that the results have already been decided somehow.

Darwin, in his "On the Origin of Species", noted that the desires of animals have nothing to do with how they evolve, and that changes in an organism during its life do not affect the evolution of the species. He said that organisms, even of the same species, are all different and that those which happen to have variations that help them to survive in their environments survive and have more offspring. The offspring are born with their parents' helpful traits, and as they reproduce, individuals with that trait make up more of the population. Other individuals, that are not so well adapted, die off. Most elephants used to have short trunks, but some had longer trunks. When there was no food or water that they could reach with their short trunks, the ones with short trunks died off, and the ones with long trunks survived and reproduced. Eventually, all of the elephants had long trunks. Darwin also believed that evolution does not happen according to any sort of plan.

Anyway, here's how eventually Lamarck was disproved. Of course, I'll simplify the subject, so everyone can understand it.

We've seen many real examples and observations that changes that occur in an animal during life are not passed on to the animal's offspring. If a dog's ears are cut short, its puppies are born with long ears regardless. You can cut dog ears for generations, but their offspring will still be born with long ears. If someone exercises every day, runs marathons, eats well, and is generally very healthy, the fitness is not passed on and the person's children still have to work just as hard to get that fit and healthy.

Darwin knew that traits are passed on, but he never understood how. Back then, Mendel, who discovered genetics, was just starting his experiments. However, now we know much more about genetics, and we know that the only way for traits to be passed on is through genes, and that genes can not be affected by the outside world. The only thing that can be affected is which gene sets there are in a population, and this is determined by which individuals die and which ones live.

Here's how Epigenetics doesn't prove Lamarck. Epigenetic changes can modify the activation of certain genes, but not the sequence of DNA. It acts on the epigenome, not on the genome itself. Epigenetics passes information but do not alter the genetic code itself.

As an example, a human baby will receive Epigenetic information which will make him prepared to survive on the same environmental conditions as his mother. Something like "Hey baby, its a harsh world, be prepared". The baby will inherit such information, but his genetic code will remain the same. The baby will not be born genetically prone to become a very muscular man because his mother lives in a world where muscular man have a higher chance of survival, but he will be born with the epigenetic information "telling" him that he will have better chances if he becomes muscular.

Anyway, don't expect that we could settle this subject in a forum discussion. This is one of the most complex subjects ever discussed and it will still probably take centuries to achieve an ultimate conclusion. However, since science and knowledge work with the current, I can say that Darwinist evolutionists have been achieving a very high success rate in their studies so far.

Here's a comprehensive table describing the differences between Darwin and Lamarck, for those who are interested.

Cheers,

Raf.

[sigma6]

Posted by RMorgan (here)

Posted by sigma6 (here)

Note, that the "creator" of the programme and the video is not claiming anything regard where the watch parts came from

sums it up... even Dawkins Evolutions greatest "Proponent" (and most impotent .. haha) admits the possibility, no the necessity of a intelligence (talk about stinking hypocrisy... he totally caved like a schoolgirl in his 'debate' with Ben Stein) What a suckhole, I have absolutely no respect for people who do that, yet he preys on the weaker minded Rothschild Freemason publicly educated masses who swallow this crap... who in fact can't see it any other way... so limited and dumbed down is their thinking... disgraceful, disgusting to my mind.

Richard Dawkins admits to Intelligent Design

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=BoncJBrrdQ8

Come on, man. Are you really falling for this?

Someone edits a part of a video, so they can distort it and make it appear to be something else? This is the oldest trick in the book, man...Seriously. You can do better than that.

Dawkins, as a very intelligent man, has always been open to possibilities....He's not "admitting" that intelligent design is the truth. He's only being humble enough to consider the possibility, after all, he's a scientist.

His line of atheism was never radical...He always said that, in his opinion, the chances of the intelligent design being truth, compared to the chances of natural selection being truth, are lower than 50% considering our current knowledge and evidence.

Just read one of his books (I highly recommend The God Delusion, since it's brilliantly written)...He never says that god or an intelligent creator doesn't exist; He just says that considering our current knowledge and evidences, the chances are considerably bigger that it doesn't.

Doing like the mainstream media, showing edited footage to try to prove a point is low, man...Really low.

Raf.

the bottom line is he had to admit he couldn't bluff Stein, he caved, Stein is no idiot either, if you want to call that humble be my guest... lol

[sigma6]

And they always use that technique, masters of deception that they are ...

i.e. Like conjuring up images that are supposed to be metaphors for what they are talking about because it is apparently too "complex" to explain, then never explain it... or keeping changing the explanation until it is so discombobulated...

Given from where they are standing I can't blame them... and the issue of Darwin and Lamark being geniuses, perhaps, they were scientists at the very least, Darwin is quoted as questioning his own work... at least he was honest... he didn't build the institute of Darwinism, which if you see it, it does very much have the psychological impact of being a church... Interesting...

Anyhow back to their strange "metaphors" for example "an infinite number of monkeys typing at an infinite number of typewriters" or a "blind watchmaker"... think about it... they already got you... even if you could create these... hypothetically even (say in a holodeck or something... think about it... go ahead and follow through what they are putting right in front of your face ... yep total nonsense...

The trick is if they can push that right past you in the first move, then you have already compromised your logic, because I wouldn't buy a watch from a blind watch maker and I know Shakespeare would never come from a single typewriter, even an infinite number of them like they created in the Matrix (for example)... it's patently, calculatedly absurd... What you are really missing is the psychological technique being used to constantly suppress your logic...

Most people who agree with "evolution", are listening to the main theme but overlooking the "fine print" of the underlying technical mechanism, and when it is explained it is always something that "evolution" never purported to be in the first place, now it is adaptation, now it is lamarkism? (which I think might be DNA, which is related to consciousness, oh but wait in evolution, that's not allowed... Forced rules, you have to play by... Just like the artificial rules of "legal logic" when you enter a court house...) Why isn't that an odd coincidence?? (then again who controls both of these institutions, and always have???...)

It is always something else, that is already scientifically understood... in a more parsimonious and intelligent fashion. What is the point of having a word that we have to keep borrowing from other concepts to keep redefining it? Just call a spade a spade... but I get a kick out of how 'emotional' this is for some ...

Another fundamental roadblock they can never overcome, in their endless rationalizations is the idea of something from nothing... if you follow their logic to its end it always, always hits this brick wall, (which is exactly where Stein took Dawkins)

at that point, to use a metaphor, you are like the astronaut (or the monkey...lol) in 2001 facing the monolith...

...but, but...wha? wtf (lol) ... how did that get here!!?? '; )

[sigma6]

As an example, a human baby will receive Epigenetic information which will make him prepared to survive on the same environmental conditions as his mother. Something like "Hey baby, its a harsh world, be prepared". The baby will inherit such information, but his genetic code will remain the same. The baby will not be born genetically prone to become a very muscular man because his mother lives in a world where muscular man have a higher chance of survival, but he will be born with the epigenetic information "telling" him that he will have better chances if he becomes muscular.

Again that is simple behaviourism or psychology... once again superimposing a more complex explanation then is necessary...
Occam's razor. Not to say if a more complex explanation is necessary to go for it... but time and again, the point isn't to try and always talk over people's heads, and then cow them into pretending to agree because they don't want to appear stupid (the emperor has no clothes) And we know this goes on far too much...

The University system, because it involves so much "money" is infested with politics and corruption, and it is getting progressively worse from what I have heard and seen (as they get more desperate to control and suppress even more information) in case this is news to anyone... gee, and who controls the university system?....

Look how far they went to "control" the science of biology during the H1N1 scare... I think there is a website dedicated to the number of PhD biologists that were bizarrely murdered during that period... then look at the money grabbing climate change agenda, PhDs were being fired or threatened left and right until the Russians cracked their emails and again exposed their agenda...

This is NOT new this has been the system long, long before the 50 year fraudulent Piltdown man was exposed...(and still no missing link except some monkey bones that couldn't have walked upright without a stroller) But is sure came in handy to help them build out their 'financial empire' into the University system (yummy government money... mmmm!) and then proceeded to rearrange the entire school system curriculum and publish millions of dollars of books (which have never been corrected...) And lo and behold, here we are having this wonderful debate! LOL...

Do people have any idea how evil, how much money is on the line, how much financial control these Secret Society organizations would lose if Darwinism was swept into the waste bin? And so on and on it goes... and guess whose 'blood and sweat' they are sucking up to pay for it... ?

[RMorgan]

Posted by sigma6 (here)
Another fundamental roadblock they can never overcome, in their endless rationalizations is the idea of something from nothing... if you follow their logic to its end it always, always hits this brick wall, (which is exactly where Stein took Dawkins)

Personally, I have no problems with the concept of something coming out of nothing.

I've never seen it happen and never heard of any evidence proving that it can happen as well but, of course, it doesn't mean it's impossible.

There's a point where we have to admit we don't know...The brick wall is a good description indeed.

However, I have a big problem when proponents of intelligent design claim that it's impossible for the universe to have come out of nothing, while they actually believe that god came out of nothing himself. This is a big contradiction, if you ask me.

Either something can come out of nothing or can't.

Violating your own premise to make it fit your belief is intellectual cheating.

Anyway, as you said, Sigma6, this is a brick wall case, for both sides.

Raf.

[sigma6]

Funny that you would mention "God" and try to create a different 'baseball field' or 'court' to play in... But since you brought it up, It may be a little more complex then such a 'self limiting' dialectal argument...

I would just like to point out after everything is said and done you are falling on an age old technique of what is known as the "argument from ignorance"... ie. because I lack understanding about something (definition of ignorance) then thus I choose to believe (fill in the blank) as a possibility... kind of where Dawkins ended up... except he did at least try to fill in the blank and came up with an 'intelligent' answer, (because he must have, in fact understood the 'argument' quite well after all... (?))

Perhaps that is why it says (somewhere) in biblical text that "God" has no beginning and has no end... and similar expressions... hmm... but then that is starting to sound like quantum physics... point is, one doesn't have to leave themselves hanging on ignorance to give themselves the freedom to think of what the possibilities might be...

In response to that I would check out ... the Nassim Haramein presentation... implying but not necessarily coming out and saying... like Max Planck and so many other scientists, there is an abundance of proof of intelligence everywhere...

I still recall the evidence Wilcock presented about National Geographic finding the exact same microscopic creatures originating at the North and South Magentic Poles. The implications of this study according to THEM were so disturbing (since apparently the logic was that this was "definitive" PROOF against Darwinian theory. That they were "forced" to come to the conclusion that it must have been a ship that sailed to the magnetic North Pole, and emptied its ballast in the magnetic South Pole, as the ONLY way they could think of to explain it away...

boy that really sums it up... and then leaving it out of the magazine edition, (an earth changing discovery) just in case others might realize the unequivocal implications... (ie. they knew what they had found... whoever did the study was smart enough to go the magnetic poles and search, so he must have already had a 'theory', (he probably got fired after that...)

You see they were "forbidden" to come to the obvious conclusion (they were probably trained as "Darwinists") so what exactly was it that would make them come up with such a outlandish highly improbable explanation?... that would have been inevitable otherwise if they didn't make up that story?

According to Wilcock... the magnetic energy signatures were creating a vortex from which DNA was spontaneously coming into our world... as crazy as that sounded that was THEIR only alternative to the "ship that sailed to the North and South magnetic Poles and managed to scoop and dump exactly the same sample of over 250 exact duplicates of these creatures!! Of course, there is science (suppressed) that would also explain that... their own observation is one of them...

(are you starting to feel some empathy for these poor souls... how many times do we hear these kinds of stories?... and don't forget who is paying for their lifestyle.... ;I

So if you are arguing that rationalization can prove anything... (unless you maintain a stricter logic, and maybe apply some statistical constraints to rule out astronomical improbabilities, etc) I might be inclined to agree...


Here's a 'simpler' solution... check out Nassim's theory on how "something can come from nothing" Perhaps to be in this universe is to realize that there is no such thing as "nothing"... (never say never) words are abstractions, not the reality itself... We can seek truth with them or we can deny reality with them...


https://projectavalon.net/forum4/show...l=1#post751940


Nassim Haramein - Black Whole

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=lYo94CHG2PE

[RMorgan]

Don't misinterpret me, brother, please.

All I'm saying is that, if things can come out of nothing, the same premise could be applied to either "god" and the "universe".

On the other hand, if things cannot come out of nothing, the the same premise could be applied to either "god" and the "universe" as well.

This strictly refutes the typical logical fallacy promoted by intelligent design, when they try to prove that since the universe couldn't come out of nothing, thus god must have created it, because the same premise could backfire to the question of who created "god" then.

Nothing less, nothing more.

Notice that " coming out of nothing", in this case, is a figure of language to describe something of irreducible complexity.

As for words being abstractions, I agree. However, they are the best way we can use to communicate with each other so far, so, liking or not, we have to deal with that.

Raf.

[sigma6]

Not to worry I'm not, but you are using this word "God" like you have some idea of what you are talking about... We are just coming to realize that we may all be living in a black hole. So you are trying explain something on the supposition of a major premise that you don't seem to understand or have no explanation of...

What I think you are trying to get at... is what is infinity... And before you take a stab at that, it has been known historically that some of the greatest mathematicians have committed suicide trying to unravel that mystery...

The interesting thing about this... is that much like people who used to suffer from psychological illnesses that were observed by Freud, once they were explained to be purely psychological. These illnesses ceased to exist. (of course people now suffer from more complex psychological illness... go figure...)

But I thought the argument for evolution is that random mutations create higher more complex life forms. The was the original idea. It's kind of like Chrysler trying to build a Mercedes by changing the body design. (or again the biblical account to maintain your 'theme') is "making a silk purse from a sows ear" i.e. If you are truly 'concerned' about this (what I consider) self limiting dialectal 'argument' that something can come from nothing, I would suggest that you have in fact jumped into a dialectic and are operating from words (abstractions) that you don't even understand what they mean... which of course leaves lots of room for ambiguity, misinterpretation, imaginary concepts, etc... (kinda like what Darwinist do?)

Reminds me of that commercial "Hey you kids! Get out of that Jell-o Tree! ? ; )


In other words you have created a false dichotomy. What you are positing as "God" might be more clearly stated (sticking to the realm of what we do know and understand, and can practically discuss) might be "reduced" to the concept that "information" that so far as has been proven only comes from a pre-existing "intelligence". For example it has been stated that a computer actually solved a mathematical problem (something to do with an isosceles triangle) and it was pretty impressive by all counts... maybe 'Darwinist' might use that as proof of evolution, just saying... but this didn't come from nowhere the solution was derived from "information" stored into the computer... and of course the computer was created by more "intelligence" and people don't have a problem saying of course these things had to be designed, and couldn't possibly have evolved from say Fisher Price toys for example! Which themselves were 'created', this doesn't have to be a big mystical anomaly.

And yet when we study biology. Because the 'Darwinists' have subliminally trained people to believe that 'metaphors' are vague and "not meant to be taken literally" (which is really a measure of the caliber of the author, once again) People don't realize that when biologist say that single celled organisms are so complex that they are in fact more complex in design then man made machines, the sheeple think back to a 'Darwinian' metaphor and just assume that the author is making a 'vague metaphor' that doesn't really explain EXACTLY what he is talking about...

But the fact is in this case the metaphor is EXACT. Tiny machine like parts have been discovered, It DOES appear that there is INFORMATION in DNA, And where computer code is based on binary. It has been theorized that it could be based on Trinary... 0, 1 and a third character (neutral I think....) DNA of course uses 4 "characters" if that metaphor holds... and so on, If someone could reproduce all the wiring mechanically and all the electrical systems mechanically just to reproduce all the functions exactly as in a living organism. So that every part, every function (ie. combination of hardware and software) There would be the same impression that this involves "intelligence"...

And there is no one that has yet to prove, even remotely, that intelligent information which is the foundation of all biology (reproductive DNA) can 'evolve' from randomness...

So although you have a point we can't "analyze" and completely deconstruct what "God" is we can say that even in an infinite loop (if that is what it is) or an "infinity" (if that is what it is) There has to be a creative intelligence. So the idea of "God" might just be a way of talking about something we are too peabrained to comprehend (although I think there is much we can do)

But just because I can't provide a complete scientific explanation, which only makes sense to me if you think about it logically... anymore then a computer can explain it's creator (to use a poor metaphor... lol) Doesn't give me a free license now to say therefore based on the fact that I don't know what I am talking about I can thus make up any argument I want as long as it sounds sincere, and maybe even intellectual... I would just have to disagree... logic would tell me there is an answer there, and I simply don't have it... but the implications are there... the door is there... you can't deny it just because you don't have the key to the other side... (more generic metaphor)

[RMorgan]

You're misinterpreting me again, brother.

Like I said, on post #28, I was using the word "god" as a synonymous of "intelligent design", since the world "god" has countless definitions.

It's impossible to have a constructive discussion if you're not interpreting what I'm writing, but interpreting what you believe to be some sort of hidden meaning behind my sentences, distorting them as you please.

With all due respect, since I realize you're freely distorting whatever I write, I respectfully refrain from continuing this discussion with you.

Again, I mean no disrespect, honestly.

Sincerely,

Raf.

[sigma6]

You keep "assuming" that I consider what you are saying as disrespectful? Maybe you can quote that... I am just pointing out logical errors. I may have missed your exact quote, but obviously from what I wrote above I must have perceived that... and I would add that it completely bolsters my argument...

Now you also make the point that my detailed explanation is "distorting" what your writing... because I too did exactly what you did... ???
ie. reduced "God" to "Intelligence"???
Is it because I left out the word "design"? ... am I missing something... ?

And here we come back to the same issue, just because you don't have the key doesn't negate the existence of the door... or to put it more succinctly, you say that because we can't prove something that makes no sense (see above) therefore you are free to believe what you want... I just beg to differ, because as I have pointed out that you have created an artificial context using a false dichotomy. (a complex variant of what is otherwise known as "garbage in garbage out" to use a strictly accurate computer metaphor I might add...)

But this is typical when you pin down 'Darwinist' it's always another topic... LOL (and I hope that I am not offending you... chiding maybe, but I don't mean to offend, again since you have brought this up...)

[greybeard]

The late Dr David Hawkins maintained that ---formless energy had unlimited potential and then when it took form the potential was present but limited by the natural rules.

Iv'e put a Gregg Braden video here as he, as a scientist, disproves Darwen’s theories of evolution.

Thinking and understanding evolves too.

Chris

PS if your short on time start at 38 minutes in when Gregg is starting to talk about Darwen’s assumptions.

C

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=Z5Vab_xBV7I

[RMorgan]

Again, you choose to misinterpret me.

I can assure you, with 100% honesty, that I've never "assumed" that you were considering what I am saying as disrespectful. I was just being polite and that's all.

Honestly, I'm not leaving this discussion for any other reason besides achieving the conclusion that the way it's been conducted is not productive.

It's not a matter of if I personally consider your argumentation solid or not. I prefer to abstain from giving my opinion about this...It would be pointless.

It's just that you're distorting everything I say. It's a communication issue. It's nothing more nothing less, ok? It happens.

That's all brother. There's nothing subjective or hidden to be interpreted here. There are no assumptions to make. Just read the words and interpret them literally.

All the best,

Raf.

[sigma6]

Again your response is making reference to some "assumption" this time now that I am questioning your "honesty" ???

Have you considered that by making constant references about my perception of your honesty (?) or whether you're offending without at least asking may in fact not be productive? And then your charge that I am distorting what you are saying without one "quote" Yet when I quote the very quote you referenced as your evidence... you say "intelligent design" and I say "intelligence" ??? This is distorting???

I AM saying you are making assumptions by definition, as I have clearly pointed out. Perhaps consider what I am saying and come back and look at it again... Unless you can show me exactly where I said or posed or suggested or insinuated or disguised or (.. well you get the point...lol) that you were being offensive, or dishonest? In fact right now I honestly believe you believe what you are saying... but what I do question is whether what you believe is accurate... but there may be some psychological component ... such as cognitive dissonance perhaps?... (just something to consider...)

Peace... brother

[sigma6]

Right on, Greybeard, thanks for the thumbs up... Gregg Braden rocks, I wish he would come out with even more research... He wrote an amazing book on Fractal Time, which again was a huge stretch... but now... All these 'quirks' of nature are starting to make more and more sense...

(btw I must be getting old, never used to be able to articulate myself when I was younger like that... oh well, live and learn I guess...lol)

I have vacillated back and forth at the beginning of life reading as much as I can. And I am willing to change everything I believe... if necessary... and so I keep my mind open. But I haven't seen any updates in mathematics or logic in the past couple thousand years. So I like to at least start there. The flip side of that is that we have to be willing to accept that there are unknowns, this is difficult for many people. Yet there has to be a certain degree of uncertainty, what would life be like without it...?

I remember reading somewhere that the "nothingness" referred to in Eastern Philosophy, which I have heard Easterners talk about, in particular this one Indian chap explained that there was in fact a "science" to it. Anyhow, I once read that the word "nothingness" is in fact an English mis-translation. Of course nowadays, I "assume" they did it on purpose. (lol) Since I noticed no one has every bothered to change that either!

[Robin]

I'm trying to follow your logic, Sigma, but am having a bit of a difficulty following your prose. Perhaps you could try condensing your thoughts a bit more?

Evolution is a multi-faceted theory. The main point of the theory is that "species change over time."

I'd argue that the theory itself is a "species that changes over time." After all, it is a theory, which means it is subject to being disproved or changed. Evolution is also a fact in that it has been proven in the lab with bacteria evolving resistance to antibiotics.

But the main layers, or mechanisms, of evolution are:

• Natural selection
• Biased mutation
• Genetic drift
• Genetic hitchhiking
• Gene flow

Each one of these layers has sub-layers, and those sub-layers have other details. So it would make sense that as new science brings forth new data, the theory will have to "evolve" over time. Evolution could work through any one of those layers at a given time, not all of them.

As Raf mentioned, I would also suggest The God Delusion. In the book, Dawkins brings up the concept of a "meme."

"Richard Dawkins initially defined meme as a noun that "conveys the idea of a unit of cultural transmission, or a unit of imitation".[6] John S. Wilkins retained the notion of meme as a kernel of cultural imitation while emphasizing the meme's evolutionary aspect, defining the meme as "the least unit of sociocultural information relative to a selection process that has favourable or unfavourable selection bias that exceeds its endogenous tendency to change."[20] The meme as a unit provides a convenient means of discussing "a piece of thought copied from person to person", regardless of whether that thought contains others inside it, or forms part of a larger meme. A meme could consist of a single word, or a meme could consist of the entire speech in which that word first occurred. This forms an analogy to the idea of a gene as a single unit of self-replicating information found on the self-replicating chromosome."

[sigma6]

Find sounding words, can you define anything on that list before I spend any more time responding to any of it?
Just give a clear definition of what each term actually means, then provide a clear explanation of the mechanism that clearly describes how this actually occurs.
And also provide how this mechanism which is creating these terms itself came into being.
Then I would like to see the actual scientific research, that backs up the specific mechanistic explanation. I would like you to label which is currently theory at this stage and which is backed by irrefutable and repeated scientific evidence. (ie. please do not include artist's conception type drawings! unless specifically labeled lol)

...and I can't promise when I will get back, but my response will be commensurate with the degree of detail and accuracy of what you present. Otherwise I will take you to task and ask for any information that doesn't conform to the criteria above. And if you are only going to quote from the book. I still expect you to strictly meet the criteria above. So you are free to look for this information from any source.

The reason being is because maybe if you think in those terms you might start to see the problems yourself and answer your own questions... after all, this is going on too much, I have put enough information up there, but I don't hear anything that directly addressed one dot of it.

[confused]

I know nothing about Lamarckism. But I know a good amount about epigenetics, and to jump from one to the other at this time is really nothing more than conjecture especially when you get into talking about the "field"...etc. Epigenetics, in short, is all about the context of DNA. For example, identical twins have identical DNA, the same exact genetic sequence, but they can certainly be very different both in behavior and even phenotypic (physical) characteristics. This is the realm of epigenetics. See DNA is not just floating around freely in the cell - it is packaged in a very uniquer way in each person with different "locks" and "keys" associated with it all over the place. So identical twins have the same exact DNA sequence, but very different packaging of it and different parts being expressed or the same parts expressed in different amounts. So when, when a pregnant mother is under some kind of stress (physical, emotional, etc.) this can alter the way that genes are being expressed (!) in the fetus, not the DNA itself. So in this sense, yes certain acquired traits can be passed on, but not because the DNA has changed (which would produce much greater or more obvious changes) but rather because the way it is either being packaged or read has been changed.

Edit note:
To add, as far as I know at least, Darwin only theorized about natural selection. He did not theorize about the particular biological method of inheritance. I think this is first credited to Mendel. I see no reason so assume Darwin was wrong at all, ever, about natural selection. Whether only inherited or acquired traits can be passed on, it still doesn't change anything about those being most fit to survive surviving over competitors and passing on their (either inherited or acquired) traits.

[panopticon]

Posted by RMorgan (here)

Posted by sigma6 (here)

Note, that the "creator" of the programme and the video is not claiming anything regard where the watch parts came from

sums it up... even Dawkins Evolutions greatest "Proponent" (and most impotent .. haha) admits the possibility, no the necessity of a intelligence (talk about stinking hypocrisy... he totally caved like a schoolgirl in his 'debate' with Ben Stein) What a suckhole, I have absolutely no respect for people who do that, yet he preys on the weaker minded Rothschild Freemason publicly educated masses who swallow this crap... who in fact can't see it any other way... so limited and dumbed down is their thinking... disgraceful, disgusting to my mind.

Richard Dawkins admits to Intelligent Design

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=BoncJBrrdQ8

Come on, man. Are you really falling for this?

Someone edits a part of a video, so they can distort it and make it appear to be something else? This is the oldest trick in the book, man...Seriously. You can do better than that.

Dawkins, as a very intelligent man, has always been open to possibilities....He's not "admitting" that intelligent design is the truth. He's only being humble enough to consider the possibility, after all, he's a scientist.

His line of atheism was never radical...He always said that, in his opinion, the chances of the intelligent design being truth, compared to the chances of natural selection being truth, are lower than 50% considering our current knowledge and evidence.

Just read one of his books (I highly recommend The God Delusion, since it's brilliantly written)...He never says that god or an intelligent creator doesn't exist; He just says that considering our current knowledge and evidences, the chances are considerably bigger that it doesn't.

Doing like the mainstream media, showing edited footage to try to prove a point is low, man...Really low.

Raf.

Dawkins is referring to exogenesis/panspermia.
Both reasonable hypothesis that may or may not require intelligent design.
There is no reason to assume that life originated on Earth (indeed it may have originated on Mars and transferred here via meteorite).

The second video shown is Dawkins stating that the premise of the question is based in a particular dogma designed to elicit a particular response. He rightly, in my opinion, re-frames the question and answers clearly what is actually being asked.

[panopticon]

Posted by sigma6 (here)
The interesting thing about this... is that much like people who used to suffer from psychological illnesses that were observed by Freud, once they were explained to be purely psychological. These illnesses ceased to exist.

G'day Sigma6,

This really interested me.
Can you give an example (or two) of a psychological illness that ceased to exist once it was explained to be psychological so I can examine this a bit more.

I haven't come across this assertion before and it intrigues me.

The only thing I can think is that your reference is to the changing perception of what constitutes a mental illness. This is due, in part, to social pressures and improved understandings of the interplay of physiological/psychological conditions (eg homo-sexuality was once thought to be a mental illness, bi-polar disorder [manic depression] is widely understood to be a chemical imbalance, etc).
Cheers,
Pan