- Forum Info
- Additional Info
- Signature
- Contact
Forum Info
Joined:
2017-08-13
2017-08-13
Status:
Offline
Last Visit:
2018-11-22, 05:41 PM
Time Spent Online:
2 Days, 7 Hours, 59 Minutes
Additional Info
Total Posts:
173 (0.06 posts per day | 0.31 percent of total posts)
[Find All Posts]
Total Threads:
4 (0 threads per day | 0.09 percent of total threads)
[Find All Threads]
Members Referred:
0
0
| DaveB's Most Liked Post | ||
| Post Subject | Post Date/Time | Numbers of Likes |
| RE: Darwin Unhinged: The Bugs in Evolution | 2017-09-17, 08:52 AM | 10 |
| Thread Subject | Forum Name | |
| Darwin Unhinged: The Bugs in Evolution |
Related Topics
Alternative Views on Science (Evolution, Cosmology, Etc.)
|
|
| Post Message | ||
| I think the truth is that far less is understood than has been claimed. IMHO, this is one huge theme of non-materialism - one that Sci has built up on Skeptiko and here. The exciting thing is that the truth is starting to spill out - in that video and in the conference, and I think this book will be good too (but I am waiting for the Kindle version): https://www.amazon.com/Purpose-Desire-Model-Understanding-Life/dp/0062651560 The sad thing is that although that conference happened some time ago now, I don't think the population at large is aware of the fact that Darwinian theory is tottering. I have been in touch with the author after reading the preface of the book on Amazon. I think discussion of what controls what in a cell is sort of meaningless until you acknowledge that there is something conscious at work. Consciousness can take control, everything else is just going to do its stuff like clockwork. That is why Dawkins talking about the 'selfish' gene is so daft - it makes no more sense than talking about a selfish flywheel in a mechanical clock! That discussion contained some extraordinary claims. For example that the genes for the flagellum has been removed from a bacterial cell, and they had reformed after a period of time. If that is true (and if I understood it correctly), it is staggering. Rupert Sheldrake has a lot to say about what gets deployed where in the body (i.e. how multicellular organisms develop. Clearly epigenetics must be relevant here too - I mean those chemical notes stuck on DNA mean that the DNA in different types of cells behaves differently - the DNA for fingernail proteins remains silent in the eye, for example. However there is still an impossible organisational problem that obviously does need intelligence. For example, Sheldrake reports on some work (not his own) in which the lens of the eye of a tadpole was removed. Over time it regrew. The amazing thing was that the regrowth used a quite different method from the way it is formed originally - which surely implies some intelligence - "Bugger that lens has gone missing, how can I fix it?" David | ||
| DaveB's Received and Given Likes | ||
| Likes Received | Likes Given | |
| Last week | 0 | 0 |
| Last month | 0 | 0 |
| Last 3 months | 0 | 0 |
| Last 6 months | 0 | 0 |
| Last 12 months | 0 | 0 |
| All Time | 177 | 43 |
| Most liked by | ||
| Laird | 23 | 13% |
| Doug | 13 | 7% |
| nbtruthman | 13 | 7% |
| Typoz | 12 | 7% |
| Reece | 12 | 7% |
| Most liked | ||
| Kamarling | 8 | 19% |
| Laird | 4 | 9% |
| Michael Larkin | 4 | 9% |
| E. Flowers | 3 | 7% |
| Jim_Smith | 2 | 5% |