Quote:
Originally Posted by Graybeard 
No .. I don't agree with this. This is Lamarckian theory and has been disproved. (A caveat here is that recent tests not related to our discussion have revealed that Lamarckian theory needs to be re-examined) You have to convince me of this point, as Design Intelligence relies on this as a foundation stone. Or at least that is how I read your description of it.
...........evolutionary changes are driven by mechanical acts. Whether those acts are conscious human decisions or 'rifts' opening in the earth or asteroids striking the earth, or Elephants clearing Acacia Forests to aid grass production, aridity or flooding etc.
Hahaha - nail camouflage
Hahaha - nail camouflage!
cool bananas ... greg  |
I live in the Hunter Valley so if you want to be with me in "spirit' then anything from the Hunter region would be suitable.
OK Re: DNA coding for melanin production v's racial characterists eg indiginous Australian
ALL people have melanin production (coded in human DNA) ready to work when necessary (despite skin colour). But when suddenly Zapped by some lunatic, or increased sudden exposure to sun, melanin does not have time to work - thus sun burn. But gradual exposure without burning leads to bronzed Aussie! (like your good self I'm sure!)
Burning, like most pain, warns us something is wrong => protect skin.
Racial skin colour is heritable through chromosones and maintained when same skin/race couple reproduce. But when two differant skin/race colours reproduce we do actually get what appears as a blended effect. (I am really simplyfying the cause of skin color here). For example my two grandaughters have a dark aboriginal father - their facial features are like his - but their skin is fair - until they go back in sun and then go very dark quickly and easily - which then fades again when less sun stimulation.
(Does get me off the hook re; acquired characteristics not heritable?)
Our actions are far from natural - but that is another issue. The comment I made about "natural selection" meant that the natural world is very much at OUR mercy and we have the power to destroy the world at a whim! We have contributed to extinction and threatened survival of many species. Also we are guilty of not letting nature do what it has to do to survive? Sometimes we should not interfere eg "the crown of thorns starfish eating coral and threating acquatic life - maybe this is necessary - I trust nature - but science knows best and is eliminating the starfish.???
Fittness has nothing to do with their survival ...we call the shots!