Rafael Lao Wai
Member
- Joined
- Jun 16, 2017
- Messages
- 1,790
In the video below, Chris Masterjohn is talking about the fact that most inuit people have an alteration regarding the CPT1A gene, which is the gene that is involved in the formation of ketones from fatty acids. He explains this fact using the theory of natural selection, which is very dear to the neo-darwinists. He speaks as if evolution is something not inherent to all life forms, but, instead. as almost a God, which is above the organisms and makes all the judgements and decisions for them . But Lamarck and maybe Peat too would say that what really happened wasn't that the maladapted died and the well-adapted lived because they innately and randomly were bestowed with this gift. I think that they would agree that the living matter is adaptive and creative and is always in contact with its invironment, which would mean that as people spent more and more time with a huge influx of ketones from fat, the cells, intelligently, came up with ways to better utilize fat and not have dangerous amount of ketones in the blood all the time. I'm not necessarily saying that natural selection never happens, but to say that a RANDOM mutation happened to the right organisms at the right time for a specific issue just seems extremely unlikely. Natural selection may have a place in the total process of evolution, but, in my view, what STARTS and DRIVES evolution is adaptation, which is passed to the offspring. Or else we would be seeing people with tails or wings here and there before seeing a useful and coherent change, since, according to the neo-darwinists, mutation is random. It just makes a lot more sense to suspect that life is adaptive and is in control of what is the most appropriate change given its specific context. This is similar to the fishes that lived in the dark and after just one generation, the offspring were born blind and also to the rats whose offspring were scared of cat urine, even though only their parents( but not themselves)made the connection between the cat and the urine.
At the end of the video, he proposes a theory for how this could have happened. But it doesn't really explain anything. He included genetic explanations and also natural selection and environment imposition to try and explain the inuit scenario, but it is still a fact that the chance of a specific random mutation happening to the right people in the right place in the right time for a specific issue is extremely small. If mutation really was random, then the inuit would probably be extinct well before the correct random mutation ocurred.
What are your thoughts?
At the end of the video, he proposes a theory for how this could have happened. But it doesn't really explain anything. He included genetic explanations and also natural selection and environment imposition to try and explain the inuit scenario, but it is still a fact that the chance of a specific random mutation happening to the right people in the right place in the right time for a specific issue is extremely small. If mutation really was random, then the inuit would probably be extinct well before the correct random mutation ocurred.
What are your thoughts?