darwinism does not explain

For discussing anything related to physics, biology, chemistry, mathematics, and their practical applications.

Moderator: Flannel Jesus

Re: darwinism does not explain

Postby Arminius » Thu Jan 08, 2015 7:56 pm

Ecmandu wrote:I don't think it's a flaw in the theory ....

There are flaws or at least one flaw in the Darwinian evolution theory: it is just the „natural selection“ which is partly false. And if it is partly false, then it is scientifically falsified. Therefore the Darwinians or Darwinists are eager and eagerer to find new declarations. So now they have not only the so-called „natural selection“ but also the so-called „sexual selection“, the so-called „kin selection“, and other so-called selections, even a so-called „social selection“, but honestly: a social selection which is not under the „control“ of the natural selection is already the prove that the natural selection can't be the only kind of selection, and that means that the natural selection as one of the three priciples of Darwinism is at least partly false. .... And if it is partly false, then it is scientifically falsified. .... (See above) ....

If there is a social selection which is temporarily independend of the natural selection - and there is one -, then the natural selection is temporarily not at work in that case, so it can be tricked. If the natural selection can be tricked - and it can, namely by humans -, then it is not that natural selection that Darwin meant. So in reality the natural selection is merely a part of other selections of the evolution theory, although the natural selection is the main selection because there is a hierarchy among the selections. And, more poetically said, the selectional „chief“ does not always „see“ everything and anything.

Darwin said, the fittest have more children than the others; so the unfittest die out. But that is not always true for humans. Social selection can be positive (eugenics) and negative (dysgenics), so it can select in the way that natural selection does and also in the reverse way: the unfittest have more children than the others; so the fittest die out.
Last edited by Arminius on Thu Jan 08, 2015 8:09 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5732
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: darwinism does not explain

Postby James S Saint » Thu Jan 08, 2015 8:02 pm

statiktech wrote:Try this - How are genes turned off and on?

Try blowing in their ear.
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25976
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: darwinism does not explain

Postby turtle » Thu Jan 08, 2015 8:03 pm

statiktech wrote:Try this - How are genes turned off and on?

I tried that....it isn't what I was asking you...."switched on" by mutation....you have not explained that...it doesn't make sense to me...
turtle
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 8005
Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2010 2:41 pm

Re: darwinism does not explain

Postby turtle » Thu Jan 08, 2015 8:05 pm

James S Saint wrote:
statiktech wrote:Try this - How are genes turned off and on?

Try blowing in their ear.


james who are you talking about...what are you rejecting here....come on off your perch
turtle
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 8005
Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2010 2:41 pm

Re: darwinism does not explain

Postby statiktech » Thu Jan 08, 2015 8:14 pm

Arminius wrote:
Ecmandu wrote:I don't think it's a flaw in the theory ....

There are flaws or at least one flaw in the Darwinian evolution theory: it is just the „natural selection“ which is partly false. And if it is partly false, then it is scientifically falsified. Therefore the Darwinians or Darwinists are eager and eagerer to find new declarations. So now they have not only the so-called „natural selection“ but also the so-called „sexual selection“, the so-called „kin selection“, and other so-called selections, even a so-called „social selection“, but honestly: a social selection which is not under the „control“ of the natural selection is already the prove that the natural selection can't be the only kind of selection, and that means that the natural selection as one of the three priciples of Darwinism is at least partly false. .... And if it is partly false, then it is scientifically falsified. .... (See above) ....

If there is a social selection which is temporarily independend of the natural selection - and there is one -, then the natural selection is temporarily not at work in that case, so it can be tricked. If the natural selection can be tricked - and it can, namely by humans -, then it is not that natural selection that Darwin meant. So in reality the natural selection is merely a part of other selections of the evolution theory, although the natural selection is the main selection because there is a hierarchy among the selections. And, more poetically said, the selectional „chief“ does not always „see“ everything and anything.

Darwin said, the fittest have more children than the others; so the unfittest die out. But that is not always true for humans. Social selection can be positive (eugenics) and negative (dysgenics), so it can select in the way that natural selection does and also in the reverse way: the unfittest have more children than the others; so the fittest die out.


This doesn't make sense. The fact that other types of selection pressures exist doesn't in any way invalidate natural selection.
"Man is the animal that laughs at himself."
—Robert A Heinlein
User avatar
statiktech
SonOfABitchBastard
 
Posts: 5414
Joined: Thu May 17, 2007 8:53 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA

Re: darwinism does not explain

Postby Ecmandu » Thu Jan 08, 2015 8:14 pm

statiktech wrote:
Ecmandu wrote:Yes. Most people are psychopaths. My point is that evolution doesn't explain many factors with respect to human development, either genetically or technologically.


And you think that point is supported by the fact that there are things we don't know about how pyramids were built?


But it's not that simple, and the only reason I bring this up, is that because like the pyramids, we do know quite a lot about genetics... we know that there are factors of selection through natural descent that don't add up math-wise given conventional theories, just as we know for a fact about the pyramids. We know enough to know that much.
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 9530
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: darwinism does not explain

Postby statiktech » Thu Jan 08, 2015 8:22 pm

Ecmandu wrote:
statiktech wrote:
Ecmandu wrote:Yes. Most people are psychopaths. My point is that evolution doesn't explain many factors with respect to human development, either genetically or technologically.


And you think that point is supported by the fact that there are things we don't know about how pyramids were built?


But it's not that simple, and the only reason I bring this up, is that because like the pyramids, we do know quite a lot about genetics... we know that there are factors of selection through natural descent that don't add up math-wise given conventional theories, just as we know for a fact about the pyramids. We know enough to know that much.


So your point is that we don't know everything? I don't see how that is a controversial claim at all.
"Man is the animal that laughs at himself."
—Robert A Heinlein
User avatar
statiktech
SonOfABitchBastard
 
Posts: 5414
Joined: Thu May 17, 2007 8:53 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA

Re: darwinism does not explain

Postby Arminius » Thu Jan 08, 2015 8:25 pm

turtle wrote:I don't think random mutations explain what we are seeing with homo sapiens ....

Yes. What we are seeing with homo sapiens is described in my last post of this thread.
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5732
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: darwinism does not explain

Postby Ecmandu » Thu Jan 08, 2015 8:29 pm

statiktech wrote:
Ecmandu wrote:
statiktech wrote:And you think that point is supported by the fact that there are things we don't know about how pyramids were built?


But it's not that simple, and the only reason I bring this up, is that because like the pyramids, we do know quite a lot about genetics... we know that there are factors of selection through natural descent that don't add up math-wise given conventional theories, just as we know for a fact about the pyramids. We know enough to know that much.


So your point is that we don't know everything? I don't see how that is a controversial claim at all.


It's not that we don't know everything... we know that there has to be other variables besides all of our theories of natural descent that seem to apply to every other species. So the answer is either that there is some theory that we haven't proposed yet, or that we were genetically modified from one of our ape ancestors by a species that actually underwent descent through modification in the natural way. My take is the latter, and I also used the evidence of the pyramids to support it... we know that Core 7 had to be machined, we are advanced enough to know this, we are even advanced enough to know the exact pressure involved in creating it, which exceeds our current technology with hydrolic presses... so we know that technology that was better than ours was used in Egypt, not different in some rudimentary way that we can't understand, actually BETTER than our technology. So I wove these two points in together to make two points... geneticists know enough to know that our DNA doesn't resemble anything like descent through modification relative to all other life on this earth, just like a mechanical engineer and physicist can tell from Core 7 that it was machined.
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 9530
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: darwinism does not explain

Postby statiktech » Thu Jan 08, 2015 8:34 pm

we know that there has to be other variables besides all of our theories of natural descent that seem to apply to every other species.


You've yet to demonstrate that in any substantive way. Your primary support for that claim seems to be your own incredulity.

geneticists know enough to know that our DNA doesn't resemble anything like descent through modification relative to all other life on this earth


Where are you getting that information?
Last edited by statiktech on Thu Jan 08, 2015 8:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"Man is the animal that laughs at himself."
—Robert A Heinlein
User avatar
statiktech
SonOfABitchBastard
 
Posts: 5414
Joined: Thu May 17, 2007 8:53 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA

Re: darwinism does not explain

Postby Ecmandu » Thu Jan 08, 2015 8:43 pm

statiktech wrote:
geneticists know enough to know that our DNA doesn't resemble anything like descent through modification relative to all other life on this earth


Where are you getting that information?


http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/cienc ... ic_Serpent

This site has stuff that I'm not even willing to go out on a limb for, but it is one of the few that discusses the problem that 95% of our DNA is considered junk DNA, which from a fitness POV serves no evolutionary purpose, remember when we were talking about how it doesn't make sense that a fish even made it into fresh water for very long because of predators and decreased surface area that would provide the predators the advantage in the transitional phase? Well.. you made an unrelated comment, or perhaps it was Phon, that we lose the ability to drink salt water because it's no longer adaptive... that means if 95% of our DNA is no longer adaptive, it wouldn't be there, using the same logic.
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 9530
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: darwinism does not explain

Postby statiktech » Thu Jan 08, 2015 9:01 pm

We've come to learn that "junk" DNA is not actually just junk. It contains gene switches and the like which actually control genes throughout our lifetimes. Even if we did assume "junk" DNA was actually junk, I think it's a mistake to compare it to an actual physical system which is no longer adaptive.

This is from the very website you linked me to:
The human genome is packed with at least four million gene switches that reside in bits of DNA that once were dismissed as “junk” but it turns out that so-called junk DNA plays critical roles in controlling how cells, organs and other tissues behave.
"Man is the animal that laughs at himself."
—Robert A Heinlein
User avatar
statiktech
SonOfABitchBastard
 
Posts: 5414
Joined: Thu May 17, 2007 8:53 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA

Re: darwinism does not explain

Postby Ecmandu » Thu Jan 08, 2015 9:10 pm

statiktech wrote:We've come to learn that "junk" DNA is not actually just junk. It contains gene switches and the like which actually control genes throughout our lifetimes. Even if we did assume "junk" DNA was actually junk, I think it's a mistake to compare it to an actual physical system which is no longer adaptive.


It is a physical system. Why shouldn't we compare it to a physical system. If there has been a purpose found for junk DNA than I take it back. My impression is that much of it is a vestige (thanks for pointing out I spelled the word wrong), and that it would simply fade away, just like what you called physical traits would fade away. We might even have less chromosomes etc...
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 9530
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: darwinism does not explain

Postby phoneutria » Thu Jan 08, 2015 9:12 pm

Ecmandu wrote:
statiktech wrote:
geneticists know enough to know that our DNA doesn't resemble anything like descent through modification relative to all other life on this earth


Where are you getting that information?


http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/cienc ... ic_Serpent

This site has stuff that I'm not even willing to go out on a limb for, but it is one of the few that discusses the problem that 95% of our DNA is considered junk DNA, which from a fitness POV serves no evolutionary purpose, remember when we were talking about how it doesn't make sense that a fish even made it into fresh water for very long because of predators and decreased surface area that would provide the predators the advantage in the transitional phase? Well.. you made an unrelated comment, or perhaps it was Phon, that we lose the ability to drink salt water because it's no longer adaptive... that means if 95% of our DNA is no longer adaptive, it wouldn't be there, using the same logic.


1. Your source is not a reliable scientific resource. The_Ashaninkas_and_The_Cosmic_Serpent... are you fucking kidding me? Are those the "geneticists" you're talking about?

2. "Junk DNA" is not junk. Read up.

3. I already explained that your criticism of fish evolution is ridiculous. I noticed you chose to ignore that post and just keep going with your nonsense.
phoneutria
purveyor of enchantment, advocate of pulchritude AND venomously disarming
 
Posts: 3105
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 5:37 am

Re: darwinism does not explain

Postby Ecmandu » Thu Jan 08, 2015 9:16 pm

phoneutria wrote:
Ecmandu wrote:
geneticists know enough to know that our DNA doesn't resemble anything like descent through modification relative to all other life on this earth




http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/cienc ... ic_Serpent

This site has stuff that I'm not even willing to go out on a limb for, but it is one of the few that discusses the problem that 95% of our DNA is considered junk DNA, which from a fitness POV serves no evolutionary purpose, remember when we were talking about how it doesn't make sense that a fish even made it into fresh water for very long because of predators and decreased surface area that would provide the predators the advantage in the transitional phase? Well.. you made an unrelated comment, or perhaps it was Phon, that we lose the ability to drink salt water because it's no longer adaptive... that means if 95% of our DNA is no longer adaptive, it wouldn't be there, using the same logic.


1. Your source is not a reliable scientific resource. The_Ashaninkas_and_The_Cosmic_Serpent... are you fucking kidding me? Are those the "geneticists" you're talking about?

2. "Junk DNA" is not junk. Read up.

3. I already explained that your criticism of fish evolution is ridiculous. I noticed you chose to ignore that post and just keep going with your nonsense.


Your reply just said that they'd go for a food source... it didn't deal with the game theory of less surface area and advantage to predators, which would multiple the predators in that transitional phase and push back the fish that were attempting to become fresh water. You actually didn't address my point. And actually that site is pretty good, so don't shit on me for linking to it. Just scroll to the top of the menu and look at some of the articles.

I supoose I disagreed with them that Junk DNA has a function... but I'm prepared to accept that I am wrong. I considered it vestigual DNA.
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 9530
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: darwinism does not explain

Postby statiktech » Thu Jan 08, 2015 9:23 pm

it didn't deal with the game theory of less surface area and advantage to predators, which would multiple the predators in that transitional phase and push back the fish that were attempting to become fresh water.


This is what I meant when I said I didn't understand why you keep bringing up game theory. I don't think evolution and adaption are matters of strategic decision making for fish. They don't just hop into fresh water and say "this is my home now". Some evolve to live in brackish or fresh water and are able to reproduce in order to create more fresh water fish. In the same sense, I don't think predators see fish adapting to fresh water and decide to adapt in order to chase them back into salt water.
Last edited by statiktech on Thu Jan 08, 2015 9:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"Man is the animal that laughs at himself."
—Robert A Heinlein
User avatar
statiktech
SonOfABitchBastard
 
Posts: 5414
Joined: Thu May 17, 2007 8:53 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA

Re: darwinism does not explain

Postby phoneutria » Thu Jan 08, 2015 9:28 pm

Ecmandu wrote:
Your reply just said that they'd go for a food source... it didn't deal with the game theory of less surface area and advantage to predators, which would multiple the predators in that transitional phase and push back the fish that were attempting to become fresh water. You actually didn't address my point.


No, this one:
phoneutria wrote:Your argument is absurd if you consider the fact that evolution happens over the course of millions of years. A species could have lived in fresh water completely predator free for tens of thousands of years before a mutation in a predator species allowed it to go into fresh water as well.


And actually that site is pretty good, so don't shit on me for linking to it. Just scroll to the top of the menu and look at some of the articles.


It is pretty safe to assume that if you see something in a nonsensical website that is nonsensical and absurd and conflicting with current scientific understanding, that is probably because it is nonsense.
phoneutria
purveyor of enchantment, advocate of pulchritude AND venomously disarming
 
Posts: 3105
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 5:37 am

Re: darwinism does not explain

Postby Ecmandu » Thu Jan 08, 2015 9:37 pm

statiktech wrote:
it didn't deal with the game theory of less surface area and advantage to predators, which would multiple the predators in that transitional phase and push back the fish that were attempting to become fresh water.


This is what I meant when I said I didn't understand why you keep bringing up game theory. I don't think evolution and adaption are matters of strategic decision making for fish. They don't just hop into fresh water and say "this is my home now". Some evolve to live in brackish or fresh water and are able to reproduce in order to create more fresh water fish.


That's fine, but the transitional phase, because freshwater causes a convergence means that they're clustered in a relatively small area compared to the ocean, making them easy prey for predators (they're more predictable) and a predator would exploit this to the fullest. So actually it is a matter of game theory. Is it possible for a fish to move from oceans to fresh water through game theory? Someone suggested that all fresh water came from salinated water that slowly diffused with time from rain and allowed for slow adaptation... perhaps, but what about the dead sea? And what allows a fish to even adapt to something it didn't come from in the first place? Try explaining that through evolution? Supposedly, we're all common ancestors from salt going creatures. This means that the entire biochemistry of the creature had to change from a trait that didn't exist. Unless it was a recessive trait from another world. You can't create something from nothing.

Let's ponder this idea... microorganisms landed on earth from comets from places where they had adapted to both conditions. The recessive trait triggered when they landed in fresh water from some of it's species... and then you're left with fresh water animals. The problem is that even though this should be a recessive trait, the dominant trait should be oceans... which means we'd have much stronger genetics for living around oceans than rivers or lakes... bringing salt inland as we began to colonize and being able to drink ocean water. Why can't we make our own vitamin C anymore? Most animals can. What possible evolutionary occurance could there be, that has us eating vitamin C when we made our own? These are the types of questions evolution cannot answer sufficiently.
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 9530
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: darwinism does not explain

Postby phoneutria » Thu Jan 08, 2015 9:45 pm

Ecmandu wrote:
That's fine, but the transitional phase, because freshwater causes a convergence means that they're clustered in a relatively small area compared to the ocean, making them easy prey for predators (they're more predictable) and a predator would exploit this to the fullest. So actually it is a matter of game theory. Is it possible for a fish to move from oceans to fresh water through game theory? Someone suggested that all fresh water came from salinated water that slowly diffused with time from rain and allowed for slow adaptation... perhaps, but what about the dead sea? And what allows a fish to even adapt to something it didn't come from in the first place? Try explaining that through evolution? Supposedly, we're all common ancestors from salt going creatures. This means that the entire biochemistry of the creature had to change from a trait that didn't exist. Unless it was a recessive trait from another world. You can't create something from nothing.


phoneutria wrote:Your argument is absurd if you consider the fact that evolution happens over the course of millions of years. A species could have lived in fresh water completely predator free for tens of thousands of years before a mutation in a predator species allowed it to go into fresh water as well.


phoneutria wrote:Your argument is absurd if you consider the fact that evolution happens over the course of millions of years. A species could have lived in fresh water completely predator free for tens of thousands of years before a mutation in a predator species allowed it to go into fresh water as well.


phoneutria wrote:Your argument is absurd if you consider the fact that evolution happens over the course of millions of years. A species could have lived in fresh water completely predator free for tens of thousands of years before a mutation in a predator species allowed it to go into fresh water as well.


phoneutria wrote:Your argument is absurd if you consider the fact that evolution happens over the course of millions of years. A species could have lived in fresh water completely predator free for tens of thousands of years before a mutation in a predator species allowed it to go into fresh water as well.


phoneutria wrote:Your argument is absurd if you consider the fact that evolution happens over the course of millions of years. A species could have lived in fresh water completely predator free for tens of thousands of years before a mutation in a predator species allowed it to go into fresh water as well.


phoneutria wrote:Your argument is absurd if you consider the fact that evolution happens over the course of millions of years. A species could have lived in fresh water completely predator free for tens of thousands of years before a mutation in a predator species allowed it to go into fresh water as well.
phoneutria
purveyor of enchantment, advocate of pulchritude AND venomously disarming
 
Posts: 3105
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 5:37 am

Re: darwinism does not explain

Postby statiktech » Thu Jan 08, 2015 9:48 pm

Life actually originated after both salt and fresh water became available from what I've read.

Source.
"Man is the animal that laughs at himself."
—Robert A Heinlein
User avatar
statiktech
SonOfABitchBastard
 
Posts: 5414
Joined: Thu May 17, 2007 8:53 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA

Re: darwinism does not explain

Postby Ecmandu » Thu Jan 08, 2015 10:22 pm

statiktech wrote:Life actually originated after both salt and fresh water became available from what I've read.

Source.


Thanks statiktech. Phon... you are a venomous one aren't you?
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 9530
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: darwinism does not explain

Postby Ecmandu » Thu Jan 08, 2015 10:30 pm

I can't make my argument that we were genetically engineered based on what I've seen here. That doesn't mean we weren't, I just can't make it.
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 9530
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: darwinism does not explain

Postby Ecmandu » Thu Jan 08, 2015 11:24 pm

Of course I brought up the old Darwin paradox here in another form, actually I invented it from a motion paradox that puzzled me for years that i also invented: If a new trait emerges, it must have emerged from nothing at all, or already been in the gene pool as a recessive trait, which means it was never a new trait to begin with.
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 9530
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: darwinism does not explain

Postby statiktech » Thu Jan 08, 2015 11:38 pm

Well if we share similar DNA with other life on Earth, it's likely a matter of genetic recombination, genetic switches, and mutations that largely determine new traits.
Last edited by statiktech on Fri Jan 09, 2015 12:38 am, edited 1 time in total.
"Man is the animal that laughs at himself."
—Robert A Heinlein
User avatar
statiktech
SonOfABitchBastard
 
Posts: 5414
Joined: Thu May 17, 2007 8:53 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA

Re: darwinism does not explain

Postby turtle » Fri Jan 09, 2015 12:07 am

I now know why james is not entering the discussion...this thread is no longer providing any insight to the understanding of evolution...
turtle
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 8005
Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2010 2:41 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Science, Technology, and Math



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users