Bertvan:
Ok, Kevin, we are getting into an area about which I have wondered, and have
often wished to discuss with someone. So far I haven't encountered anyone
both knowledgeable tolerant of any skepticism of orthodoxy. Most, like
Chris Coglin , just declare "anything but the currently accepted theory is
too ridiculous to be discussed."
I realize gross; physical, acquired characteristics are not inherited from
one generation to the next. But how can we be certain be some gradual,
cumulative, environmental influence might not affect those "variations"
which mysteriously appear? We know that physical characteristics of wild
animals change when domesticated, and are at least temporarily inherited.
Since we don't know what causes variations in DNA to appear, and we don't
know what causes the changed DNA to result in novel, rational, coherent
morphology, how can you say for certain environment plays no part in any of
those changes? And what about more subtle changes in organisms? Are
instincts and behaviors inherited? Do we have any idea how, or if, DNA
specifies behaviors and instincts. Has it been proven that acquired changes
in instincts and behaviors can not be inherited? I know, you are going to
say no such examples are known. Maybe people satisfied with "unsolicited"
haven't looked very hard. . We still don't know much about the function 95%
of the genome. Darwinists have been content to call it junk. People who
believe in design, suspect every bit of it serves some purpose.
Kevin:
>He explained this by pointing out that the only cells inherited by the
>next generation from the previous generation were the sex cells. As such,
>any changes that occurred in the body cells perished with the body, and so
>they could not bequeath their changes to the next generation. And since
>sex cells are isolated from the rest of the body early in their
>development, they would be unaffected by changes that occur in the body
>cells. As such, Weismann was claiming that inheritance was one-way: that
>sex cells produced body cells, but body cells could not produce or even
>influence sex cells. (This idea would be vindicated by the discovery of
>DNA and the protein transcription/translation system, that effectively
>prevents changes in proteins from being transmitted back into the DNA.)
> Weismann also identified the nucleus as the carrier of inherited
>information, and postulated based on breeding experiments and analysis of
>fertilization that characteristics were inherited as separate particles
>that did not blend or diffuse. This idea would be vindicated by the
>discovery of chromosomes and the rediscovery of Mendel's work.
Bertvan:
How can we be so certain changes in the body can have no affect upon the sex
cells? Medical science acknowledges the environment can have deleterious
effects upon the zygote, male and female. (chemical damage, radiation,
alcoholism, etc.,) How can we be certain positive effects cannot occur?
There can be no more dramatic example of "survival of the fittest" than
fertilization. Obviously all sperm are not born equal, but do we know what
caused those sperm to be different? How do we know for the certain that some
of those differences were not result of the environment or life of the
organism? Meiosis occurs twice, once at birth and once just before
ovulation. A believer in design, I'm skeptical that any event in nature
occurs without purpose. How can we be certain the discarded genetic material
in meiosis is random? (according to my beliefs random is a word used to
describe events or processes which we do not understand.) The fetus is
affected by the environment. Do we know enough to state with certainty the
genome or even the zygotes cannot be effected? As Darwinists continually
proclaim, even effects so slight as to be undetectable, can become large over
time
I have no desire to shake the faith of anyone committed to "unsolicited". I
merely suggest alternative views are legitimate.
Bertvan