Signal vs. Noise, Part 2: Hunter Opens the Klassen Study Again

[Chris_Falter]

@Cornelius_Hunter

One “model” was Lamarckian, which made no predictions about DNA sequences because DNA was not discovered until many decades later.

By this logic evolution would also be excluded.

Just to clarify, when I speak of the predictions of the theory of evolution, I am referring to the theory as of 2018, not the theory as of 1859. I thought that my reference to the theory as held today, not as it was held 160 years ago, could be safely left implicit, but I guess I was wrong.

So kindly indulge my redundant repetition: I am referring to the theory of evolution and the hypothesis of Lamarckian adaptation (traits acquired through effort in response to inner need are passed on to subsequent generations) in their most recent forms. As far as I know, the most recent version of Lamarckian adaptation was that espoused by Trofim Lysenko in Stalinist Russia. The most recent version of evolution would be…well, check any of this year’s thousands of peer-reviewed publications.

@Cornelius_Hunter

why do you labor so hard for the theory of spontaneous origins?

Are you suggesting that I have espoused abiogenesis? I have not done so.

Are you suggesting that I have professed belief in a deistic formulation of the relationship between science and faith? I have labored hard against such a formulation.

If you were speaking of something else altogether, kindly clarify.

@Cornelius_Hunter

you and the others here are consistently hard over on the naturalism side.

What is your response to members of your church or academic community, Dr. Hunter, when they talk of weather forecasts? Do you ask them sharp questions about why, in view of the many Scriptures that refer to God’s arranging of meteorological phenomena according to His inscrutable will, they are consistently hard over on the naturalism side?

Please explain to me, Dr. Hunter, how it is that when members of your church listen to the weather forecast and make plans accordingly, they are not rejecting the many Scriptures that speak of God’s constant involvement with the weather?

@Cornelius_Hunter

You have made one bizarre assertion after another.

I am happy to leave the judgment of what is bizarre and what is not to readers of the our conversation.

Grace and peace,
Chris Falter

[T_aquaticus]

@Chris_Falter

As far as I know, the most recent version of Lamarckian adaptation was that espoused by Trofim Lysenko in Stalinist Russia. The most recent version of evolution would be…well, check any of this year’s thousands of peer-reviewed publications.

The latest versions of Lamarckism deal more in epigenetics (e.g. DNA methylation patterns). For the most part, those who peddle in Lamarckism have recognized that the standard theory already explains DNA sequence so they don’t meddle in those areas. Even then, there are major disagreements if epigenetics even qualifies as Lamarckism.