Skip to comments.Inquiry into evolution yields advances today
Posted on 07/19/2008 1:09:26 PM PDT by Soliton
Many people mistakenly believe evolution concerns only past events. As science unlocks the mysteries of evolutionary processes, it simultaneously unlocks other mysteries, including genetic disorders and birth defects.
One example is the human disorder ectodermal dysplasia, which can lead to fewer teeth, missing hair and the inability to sweat. "Eda" is the name of the gene responsible for this rare condition. It directs the production of a protein that works as a signal to modify the activity of other developmental genes during embryonic growth.
(Excerpt) Read more at blog.mlive.com ...
Missing teeth, missing hair and the inability to sweat...Here on earth, we call it old age.
I have never met an old person with an inability to sweat. :)
Another example of the Darwinists attaching a myth to real science. Evolution has nothing to do with how we learn about genentics. Its isn’t helpfull, its just a myth that gets added on. They could have just as easily given creadit to some other myth like man made global warming and it would have been just as relevant to the actual finings.
Sweating is not a total loss in older people but I can vouch that it is noticeable loss.
Then why do they smell so bad?
You are incorrect.
The theory of evolution helps to explain a lot of facts, both in genetics and in other fields.
This sort of article makes me suspect that some "evolution scientists" are short a quart or two ~ like the ones who now want to argue that any change at all is evolution in action ~ even if it's just sliced bacon frying in a pan.
It’s explanation through the use of the word “evolution” as a patronymic for the latest demigod to come down the line. In short, “word magic”.
True. You often hear evolutionists saying absurd things like "if only Lysenko believed in Darwinism, those people wouldn't have starved." As if Darwinism has anything to do with growing crops. And, in fact, Lysenko did believe in Darwin's erroneous heredity theories.
You could argue that evolutionism is not merely irrelevant, it is detrimental to the understanding of heredity. Darwin, Galton, Pearson, and many others wholly believed in evolutionism and their theories of heredity were completely wrong. An advance in the science of heredity was made by someone aloof from the evolution issue: Mendel. Even today you can see the negative influence in, say, evolutionary psychology. In order to fit human behavior into a Darwinian mold, they are forced to posit that genes are responsible for everything you do and think. This is not much different from Scientologists and their theories about Thetans.
Darwins work predicted genes and genetics. Genetics is confirmation of the theory of evolution.
No it didn't.
"...I for one frankly admit that I was in this respect under the influence of Darwin for a long time, and that only by approaching the subject from an entirely different direction was I led to doubt the transmission of acquired characters." - Weismann, The Supposed Transmission of Mutilations
"The occurrence of progressive adaptation by transmission of the effects of use had seemed so natural to Darwin and his contemporaries that no proof of the physiological reality of the phenomenon was thought necessary. Weismann's challenge revealed the utter inadequacy of the evidence on which these beliefs were based" - W. Bateman, Mendel's Principles of Heredity, pg.5.
"With respect to Jews, I have been assured by three medical men of the Jewish faith that circumcision, which has been practised for so many ages, has produced no inherited effect. Blumenbach, however, asserts that Jews are often born in Germany in a condition rendering circumcision difficult, so that a name is given them signifying "born circumcised,"... Dr. Riedel... in North Celebes writes to me that the boys there go naked until from six to ten years old; and he has observed that many of them, though not all, have their prepuces much reduced in length, and this he attributes to the inherited effects of the operation... Notwithstanding the above several negative cases, we now possess conclusive evidence that the effects of operations are sometimes inherited." - Darwin, Variation, volume 1, page 467
In the same way that molecular genetics has vindicated Darwinism, it has also served to show that some aspects of evolution are more complex than Darwin imagined. Thus, the genomes of many complex organisms have been found to contain huge amounts of repetitive and apparently useless DNA. Some of this is relict material (the slowly decaying hulks of once-useful but now functionless genes); but some of it may be information whose functions have yet to be discovered. Again, studies at the level of the genome show a surprising amount of genetic mobility, sometimes between very remotely related species. This suggests that we have still to discover some of the processes of genomic evolution. As Jones puts it, ‘’the natural history of DNA may need explanations beyond those of ‘The Origin of Species.’ ‘’
Steve Jones’s “Darwin’s Ghost” should be regarded as the most lucid exposition on behalf of the Neo-Darwinian Modern Synthesis theory of evolution. Jones does an admirable job pointing out where advances in genetics and biochemistry have vindicated Darwin’s thoughts on the evolution of new species via Natural Selection.
Darwin considered all variations as heritable. He did not distinguish between somatic variations and germinal variations. In fact, as we learn from a study of his pangenesis theory, he considered all variations as in the first instance somatic, and subsequently transferred by means of gemmules to the germ cells. Every somatic variation, whether induced by use, disuse, in response to environmental stimulus, or through mere spontaneous variability, was supposed to be able to give off gemmules into the blood stream that would carry to the germ cells the physical basis of the varying character. The pangenesis mechanism is now knowm to have no basis in fact. - H.H. Newman, Evolution, Genetics, and Eugenics, 1921, pg.247.