RE: Letters From Darwin - The Evolution Of The Eye
I truly believe that the theory of evolution would actually be more widely accepted if more people had actually read Darwin's first book on the subject
And I believe all good people would discard anything from Darwin out of hand if they actually read his second book.
But really, what evolutionists try to disprove is God. That, all of this could happen without their being a divine creator.
The trouble with this tact is that they miss the very element that would help them prove that macro-evolution can be and is a thing.
So far we have witnessed species disappearing. But, we really haven't been aware of species appearing. Fortunately, scientist will be around to witness them this time.
The thing that "modern darwinists" have thrown out is basically metaphysics. If it is not physical, it is not to be studied. It is superstition. But, superstition came form somewhere, and many modern scientists have found the real, heretofor only in the realm of the spirit, causes of that superstition.
Imagine that scientists are only working with one of 24 layers. So, they are trying to muck around with DNA, thinking that they are seeing the whole thing, when in fact, they are seeing only a minuscule portion of it. They don't even talk about the divine ratios found in the form, like that can't have anything to do with it. They haven't even noticed that humans have 24 pairs of chromosomes. They are poking around blind, and refuse to open their eyes.
For what they will find is that the eye, as it is, is merely a DNA switch. Turn it on, and bam, eye. But then, when they find out how that switch gets set, bam, spirituality.
Erm, why? I've read The Descent Of Man, and apart from being a lot more of a slog than Origins, it is based on the same unchangable facts.
Not really, what we try and disprove is a divine creator making everything at once.
Groan, science is the antithesis of superstition.
Are you basing any of this on anything other than guess work; or the guess work of others?
No, no, and no.
These articles wouldn't be the same without a comment from you :-)
Cg
No, my comments come from ancient Tibetan texts and black-balled scientists who perform incredible feats and experiments. There are ancient codexes that describe the helical properties. Form, angle, vibration (musical notes) That DNA is a perfect magnetic and electrical antenna. Too me, these things are obvious and important. I do not understand why "modern scientists" aren't working with these theories. Studying DNA should start with sacred geometry.
Or, in other words, the term "junk DNA" should never have been uttered.
Probably because the theories are unworkable, you can talk about musical notes and vibrations all you like. But if you can't articulate it, in a way that is useful for another scientist to use, then it falls into the category of bunkum.
Cg