RE: Darwin Proven Wrong?
September 11, 2014 at 8:03 pm
(This post was last modified: September 11, 2014 at 8:06 pm by Chas.)
(September 11, 2014 at 3:00 pm)sswhateverlove Wrote:(September 11, 2014 at 2:53 pm)Esquilax Wrote: You need to promise me that when I bring up fruit fly speciation, or what have you, that you won't say anything like "yes, but they're still fruit flies."
You have to promise. Because to do otherwise will put the lie to all your apparent interest in science.
I'm not familiar with what you're referring to. So, you're saying that they have changed one species to another and have controlled the variables in such a way that only gene code modification occurred and there were no differences in epigenetic expression?
There isn't a dichotomy between genetic and epigenetic effects.
Epigenetics is the mechanisms of embryology acting on the genetics.
(September 11, 2014 at 4:00 pm)sswhateverlove Wrote:(September 11, 2014 at 3:56 pm)Pickup_shonuff Wrote: How would a "design of reality" require an outside intelligence which is itself undesigned? If an intelligence capable of producing a "design of reality" requires no designer, why does matter operating by natural laws? If your "'god' intelligence" is designed, you've proposed a reductio ad absurdum.
I guess I don't have any context in which I have ever observed "laws" or "rules" to exist without them being written, created, or imposed by some being with some intelligence.
You don't understand what is meant by a scientific law.
Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
Science is not a subject, but a method.