As for the personal stuff, it began with things like 'delusional' smarmy, fool and wanky troll. My comments stand.
It was a question.
Remember your post in which that post was replying to? Let me remind you -
Epigenetics turns out to have a lot to do with passing along characteristics, but try not putting words in my mouth - YOU are the believer in Evolution so trying to make out I am saying epigenetics replaces it somehow is just a red herring. You're making shit up to make out you know things you don't.
Maybe I'm just a being sensitive but this part of your post, to me, looks like you having a little dig at me.. no?
So.. Ignorant moron willy head boner stop reading davidickeforums smelly face. My comments still stand.
Your misunderstanding of epigenetics and even Lamarck is shown by the 'I can't practice...' post. Lamarck's theory was of evolution by acquired characteristics and he is less ridiculous if his original words are read instead of those written by people ridiculing him. Nor does epigenetics work by 'practicing' so that highlights either a preference to use misguided argument tactics or a lack of knowledge about what epigenetics actually is.
I understand epigenetics just fine. I didn't mean it literally.. I meant, for example, that if i exercised then parts of my DNA would turn on / off, possibly controlling metabolism and muscle growth, my offspring would likely inherit those genes in an on / off state.. I was listing genetic mutations that we KNOW happen / have happened that epigenetics is incapable of doing.
It is you that is misunderstanding evolution if you think epigenetics has much, if anything, to do with it..
A difference in expression of genes is not different genes.
The invention of inflation was distinctly a 'tweak the universe' thing. Big Bang theory has not changed since they came up with it, but the models failed to reproduce the universe we see. So they decided the universe had to undergo Inflation so the Big Bang theory would survive. Then galaxies didn't work right so they invented Dark matter. Then the RS showed some strange results so they invented Dark Energy. That's not how Science is supposed to work. If the evidence disagrees you are not meant to invent new forces so your theory is kept alive.
No it wasn't tweaking the universe it was tweaking the theory. The big bang theory was tweaked as to account for new information. This is exactly how science works. Are you honestly suggesting that as soon as there's an error in the model the whole thing should be scrapped? Do you know how far weather forecasts would have come if we did that? It's CONSTANTLY being tweaked as we learn more.
Ah you mean like we should have thrown out everything we know about particles when quantum theory arrived? We should never have correctly predicted the Higgs Boson, the neutrino, etc etc.. Einstein should have shoved his black hole up his black hole.. because predictions based on the knowledge we have has no place in science? What about when scientists hypothesized that 2 chromosomes in humans must have been fused together, because we have 23 pairs while our ape friends have 24?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromosome_2_(human)
Come on.
The only evidence for Inflation is that they need it for Big Bang models to make a universe that looks like the one we see. The evidence for Dark Matter is their models didn't give them galaxies like we see and also they needed something to fill in the lack of mass their model gives them. The evidence for Dark Energy is RS.
At no point did they go back and say, 'hm... the real world says no, so maybe we need a new theory. If we discard the Big Bang then maybe we can find a theory that has the current universe fall out of it as a natural thing, rather than using magic so we don't have to alter our model. And there ARE other ideas out there. General Systems theory proposes a steady state universe and even has practical mechanisms we can see to describe how matter and energy happen.
No. There is more to it than that. Like the microwave background, the amounts of each element and the fact that the further away we look, the older the universe is that we're seeing.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Alternative_cosmology
There are loads of other theories of the origins of the universe - It's just, well - The big bang theory has more evidence to back it up.. Nobody is saying that's exactly how it happened, but for now - the evidence suggests that's how it happened.
And no you didn't give me any evidence that RS is not velocity (not entirely sure what you mean by this.. RS is caused by the doppler effect)
EU theory makes use of the vast energies involved in electrical and magnetic energies and has predictions that are proving out. One such was the detection of 'rogue' planets - a big surprise for conventional cosmology but predicted in EU.
Are you talking about this?
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Electric_Universe
lol
In fact the recent history of Cosmology can perhaps be best described as a constant stream of surprises - which in Science, suggests your theory is wrong. Successful theory should predict at least most of the things you later find. Instead there's been any number of times they've had to try to work out ways to get observations to fit into their theory.
Well yeah.. if you ignore the vast amount of predictions that were spot on.
How were rogue planets a surprise for the big bangers? Of course rogue planets and even rogue stars will exist.. Star dies, planet gets knocked out of orbit, etc etc.. What are you talking about? You really do get all of your information from "alternative" sources. What's your davidickeforums username?
Evolution is, according to consensus, random, and it has to be or the door is wide open for ID and Creationism. What ISN'T random is survival which is a separate process to the one making changes. It may be splitting hairs but Evolution's results are not the same thing as the Evolution events. A failed mutation is still Evolution in action. Only once the organism breeds is there 'survival of the fittest' occurring.
Errmmm no.. not quite. You can't just make up your own definitions of words because it better suits your views.
The steady tick of mutation is also problematic as there are periods where fossils tell us there has been an explosion of forms. ELE aftermaths led to the idea of Punctuated Evolution to try to explain exactly this. And mutations can't 'build up' waiting for environment to change; they are either beneficial right now and improve survival chances or they get lost in the mix. And if they are beneficial NOW for the organism, then they are highly unlikely to open new opportuniy for the organism when an ELE drastically changes the environment.
What?
