Jump to content

"Neat" Pictures


Dr. Anomaly

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 19.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Cygnia

    1904

  • Logan D. Hurricanes

    1200

  • Cancer

    1173

  • SteveZilla

    875

Re: "Neat" Pictures

 

Here we go again.

 

The guy who came up with the idea of DNA was a "Creationist".

 

This is why I'm beginning to hate the forums. It's become a place for political and religious bashing and posturing.

 

Um. Which one? Watson? Crick? Rosalind Franklin?

 

I haven't found any information linking any of them to a pro-Creationism group, and Crick actively spoke out against young earth creationism in Edwards v. Aguillard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: "Neat" Pictures

 

Um. Which one? Watson? Crick? Rosalind Franklin?

 

I haven't found any information linking any of them to a pro-Creationism group, and Crick actively spoke out against young earth creationism in Edwards v. Aguillard.

 

Perhaps Friedrich Miescher? But I've never found anything to suggest that he was a "Creationist".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: "Neat" Pictures

 

The guy who came up with the idea of DNA was a "Creationist".

 

Um. Which one? Watson? Crick? Rosalind Franklin?

 

Narf, are you perhaps referring to Gregor Mendel, the Augustinian friar considered the father of modern genetics? If so, to be precise, Mendel came up with the idea of inheritance of traits, not of DNA.

 

And if I'm making an incorrect assumption, my apologies and feel free to ignore this post.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: "Neat" Pictures

 

Narf, are you perhaps referring to Gregor Mendel, the Augustinian friar considered the father of modern genetics? If so, to be precise, Mendel came up with the idea of inheritance of traits, not of DNA.

 

And if I'm making an incorrect assumption, my apologies and feel free to ignore this post.

 

In Mendel's day, evolution was very controversial and not widely accepted, even among non-Christians. Mendel was probably unaware (or unwilling to accept) that he had discovered the fundamental driving process of evolution.

 

Darwin had an idea what was happening from observation, but did not know the mechanism. He knew that creatures changed in response to their environments through adaptation, but not quite how it was done.

 

Mendel, through his own observation, unlocked the mechanism but was slow to accept the full implications of what he had found. What he did in his experiments illustrated the process behind what human farmers had been doing for thousands of years when they selectively bred animals and crops. He might not have realized at the time that nature had been doing the exact same thing for a billion years, and probably would have found the whole idea either alarming or silly. HE would probably have rationalized it as God doing the same sort of selective breeding humans had done -- evolution with a conductor, so to speak.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...