tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5104479.post3965213406378787152..comments2023-05-27T23:20:32.194+10:00Comments on Marco's Blog: Delusion XIX - Do I agree with him?Marco Parigihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00702055111711651319noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5104479.post-55908341134274130502007-09-18T13:41:00.000+10:002007-09-18T13:41:00.000+10:00Yes, you are definitely more atheist than Dawkins....Yes, you are definitely more atheist than Dawkins. The opposite of love is not hatred, but indifference, and rabid theophobia is not the opposite of religion.<BR/><BR/>(Hmm, remind me to put the screws on the Groose for some comments on the Origin of Life when next we meet...)Dr Clamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14985493422534275997noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5104479.post-75087668790582895772007-09-16T20:41:00.000+10:002007-09-16T20:41:00.000+10:00P.S. The Pope's mind is not closed.P.S. The Pope's mind is not closed.Dr Clamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14985493422534275997noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5104479.post-27609839703533890672007-09-16T20:38:00.000+10:002007-09-16T20:38:00.000+10:00I think marco is just using a different definition...I think marco is just using a different definition of Lamarckism, anonoymous. The theory advanced by Lamarck, which would see the offspring of the village blacksmith invariably having more developed muscles due to his exeritions, was clearly wrong. Though not at all fraudulent. I do not think that the word means what you think it means. <BR/>However, if we use it as shorthand for "inheritance of acquired characteristics" like Darwinism is commonly short for "natural selection of beneficial characteristics", then I think marco is right and any well-informed person would agree with him. There is plenty of evidence that the environment of a mother long before conception can influence the properties of offspring, that viruses can write themselves into their host's DNA, etc. <BR/>Marco has said in the past that an organism that could evolve the capability to undergo more classically directed Lamarckian adaptation through a conventional Darwinian mechanism would have a strong selective advantage. Is this not, if you squint at a little sideways, exactly what bacteria have done with their exchange of plasmids?Dr Clamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14985493422534275997noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5104479.post-68272766969202585742007-09-14T13:53:00.000+10:002007-09-14T13:53:00.000+10:00Can you please point me to a site with a scientifi...Can you please point me to a site with a scientific disproof of Lamarckism? I define Lamarckism as the "environment" directly generating genetic changes that can be passed down to the next generation. Recent discoveries about <A HREF="http://cueldee.blogspot.com/2007/06/rna-really-new-advances.html" REL="nofollow">RNA</A> suggest a mechanism is not only possible, but likely. Do you refute this new information? I think your mind is as closed as the Pope's if you think this latest research is irrelevant to the argument.Marco Parigihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00702055111711651319noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5104479.post-79366923534321343252007-09-14T12:40:00.000+10:002007-09-14T12:40:00.000+10:00Lamarckism is a buncha bologna. You might say you'...Lamarckism is a buncha bologna. You might say you're more open minded to it but in this instance that's just another way of saying you don't know enough about to see why it's a fraudulent theoryAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com