ArchivedDo I scare you?Hi Aineo there was a possibe reason for this (Albeit a little inconsistent). That was to do with the location of the Gene Haymer thought was the gene in question, (Locus Xq 28), lies on the X chromosome. I guess that had some influence on his concentrating on matrilinear models. But looking at it more closeley, yes it is not so simple and does constitue a bit of a flaw. . Truth is Gd does work in mysterious ways. No human being can fully comprehend Gd's way of working Dawking type text book evolution is flawed, but evolution in the context I undertand it is not so questionable. I feel that it is quite sad that the basic premise of evolution has been lost in such a polarised debate. I will go to the forum you suggest. It sounds like an interesting debate. As I say I think the real issue has been the introduction of Dogma and the polarisation of the subject. Evolutionists of the Dawking Variety are just plain out to disprove Gd, Literal Creationalists are (From what I undertstand) Out to disprove Dawking and his ilk. As I say the results are inconclusive. you are right there. Haymer tended to grab the headlines a bit much, as did another geneticist I know called Eric Vilain who grabbed the media over situations like mine. I agree, and confess my lacking a full understanding of the subject. I can only quote the information I have encountered as part of what I do. And yes it is limited. And you are so right, Gd is soveriegn All the best to you Gd Bless Sophie. |
🌈Pride🌈 goeth before Destruction
When 🌈Pride🌈 cometh, then cometh Shame