|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,914 Year: 4,171/9,624 Month: 1,042/974 Week: 1/368 Day: 1/11 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Criticizing neo-Darwinism | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
MartinV  Suspended Member (Idle past 5859 days) Posts: 502 From: Slovakia, Bratislava Joined: |
"Since its first appearance on Earth, life has taken many forms, all of which continue to evolve, in ways which palaeontology and the modern biological and biochemical sciences are describing and independently confirming with increasing precision. Commonalities in the structure of the genetic code of all organisms living today, including humans, clearly indicate their common primordial origin."
I don't see problem with this extract. Might be atheist Nietzsche would agree too if he head been alive. You see - the quotation do not mentioned darwinism as explanation of evolution.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
MartinV  Suspended Member (Idle past 5859 days) Posts: 502 From: Slovakia, Bratislava Joined: |
I quoted Friedrich Nietzsche and Nabokov who dismissed darwinism. Maybe these poets - to be ironic - did not underestand complicated dialectical "science" of neodarwinism with it's theories of sexaul selection, neutral drift or even that of neutral draft etc. But G.B.Shaw opinion of darwinism and especially of Natural selection seems to be of the same sort:
quote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
MartinV  Suspended Member (Idle past 5859 days) Posts: 502 From: Slovakia, Bratislava Joined: |
Darwinists here explained diversification (adaptive radiation) of mammalian orders during Eocene because of empty niches after K/T period and extinction of dinosaurs due Yucatan catastrophe. They argued that when all emptied niches after dinosaurus extinction were re-occupied by suddenly evolved mammals no other mammalian order arose. I interpreted this fact observed first by Broom and Davison as slow down or end of evolutionary process.
Yet according a research published in Nature 30.4.1998 this radiation occured before K/T period when dinosaurus obviously occupied all niches. I would like to know what interpretation of origin of mammalian orders before K/T period darwinists conceive in such a case. How would they explain that almost all mammalian orders arose in very distant past where no emptied niches were available. After that period no mammalian order arose.
quote:
...and that most mammalian orders were involved in a Cretaceous radiation that predated the Cretaceous/Tertiary extinction of the dinosaurs (Fig. 3). The origin of most mammalian orders seems not to be tied to the filling of niches left vacant by dinosaurs, but is more likely to be related to events in Earth history 12.
Amolecular timescale for vertebrate evolutionSudhir Kumar & S. Blair Hedges http://www.kumarlab.net/pdf_new/KumarHedges98.pdf ------------ This post would fit more on "is evolution of mammals finished" but the thread was closed. So I put it here. Edited by MartinV, : No reason given. Edited by MartinV, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
MartinV  Suspended Member (Idle past 5859 days) Posts: 502 From: Slovakia, Bratislava Joined: |
quote: You obviously didn't follow discussion of mammalian evolution. The point is that no mammalian order arose after Eocene - evolution is finished. Darwinists here tried to explain the curious phenomenon by adaptive radiation after K/T extinction of dinosaurus. Considering my previous post such radiation occured before K/T and consequently such explanation is probably only another darwinian fancy. Let me quote some of them:
PaulK writes:
According to the diagram you link to the new Orders have their basis in the aftermath of the K/T mass extinction event. This is a period where we would expect rapid evolution and disversification.
Chiroptera writes:
It seems pretty straightforward about what happened. A mass extinction emptied a lot of different ecological niches, which the surviving species filled during radiative adaption, perhaps allowing pretty innovated "designs". Once the niches began to be filled, natural selection then intensified, preserving the best adapted...
and this one is of interest - obviously reverse happened in reality:
pink sasquatch writes:
Evolution/speciation is predicted to occur more rapidly when there are many unoccupied niches, which was the exactly the situation after the KT mass extinction. In other words, up until the KT extinction, mammalian evolution was likely as slow as it is today (only two lineages as stated by the 2005 chart you posted).
According the research I have given above there were no emptied niches when mammalian orders arouse. Quoting again Robert Broom about mammals:
quote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
MartinV  Suspended Member (Idle past 5859 days) Posts: 502 From: Slovakia, Bratislava Joined: |
Regardless of whether or not there are any new orders appearing in the Eocene (we're talking at the level of Monotremata etc., after all), it is quite clear that there has been a huge increase in the number of mammalian families,...
Probably you are wrong in this point either. In my introducing post I quoted and addressed the point of mammalian familes too (Eutheria btw). The best preserved fossils records John Day formation show this:
quote: http://EvC Forum: Is evolution of mammals finished? -->EvC Forum: Is evolution of mammals finished? I addressed there also number of primate families, perissodactyls etc. - now we are witnessing only shadow of their former glory. Yet the issue is Mammalian Orders not Families. If the research is correct, no mammalin Order arose after long before K/T - strange enough Robert Broom's observation is subsequently more accurate - evolution seems to be over. Emptied niches has nothing to do with adaptive radiation of mammals.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
MartinV  Suspended Member (Idle past 5859 days) Posts: 502 From: Slovakia, Bratislava Joined: |
Emptied niches has nothing to do with adaptive radiation of mammals.
Again this is neither supported by the paper you initially referenced nor in any way suggested by the other research you have brought up.
I don't think so:
quote: http://www.kumarlab.net/pdf_new/KumarHedges98.pdf
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
MartinV  Suspended Member (Idle past 5859 days) Posts: 502 From: Slovakia, Bratislava Joined: |
The fact that they don't attribute it to niches being emptied by dinosaurs becoming extinct doesn't mean that the diversification was not into newly available niches.
And yet it obviously doesn't mean that diversification was into newly available niches. Evolution is guided by some unknown internal forces and so emptied niches play no role in diversification. That no mammalian order arose more than 65 mil years (according the research) means that evolution is dramatically slowing down. It his hardly imaginable (if the reserach is correct) that after mass extinction of dinosaurs after K/T boundary there were no emptied niches. It was btw. the main argument of folks here why adative radiation of mammals occured. If you believe that there were enough emptied niches during dinosars dominion on the earth that mammals evolved into all nowadays known orders its your opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
MartinV  Suspended Member (Idle past 5859 days) Posts: 502 From: Slovakia, Bratislava Joined: |
quote: Anyway you cannot back your views. Is there any research about how "empty niche" caused a speciation? Was it really observed? Some experiments? I dont't think so - it is only claimed. It is only atheistic belief of extraordinary self-structuring properties of matter in "empty niche", nothing more. Never observed. You know mushrooms and butterflies became my favorite anti-darwinian examples of evolution. Maybe you wouldn't like the following example of strength of the Nature and life as out of topic. And yet micelium of fungi do not seek "emty niche" to create mushroom. Is there asphalt above? - doesn't matter. The mushroom break through asphalt. Maybe the same for evolution of mammals: isnt't there empty niche? Who cares - the new mammalian order will be created nevertheless. As prescribed or directed by other forces. Asphalt Penetrating Mushroom! photo - Richard Calmes photos at pbase.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
MartinV  Suspended Member (Idle past 5859 days) Posts: 502 From: Slovakia, Bratislava Joined: |
Vacuum formed by extinction event, the highest rate of speciation in the foram record ... because "empty niches" were being filled. Enjoy.
I am not sure this example elucidates process of origin of new Orders. As far as I can judge forams belong to one Order and what they observed was speciation within the Order. One of the best critic of darwinism on my opinion who summarized antidarwinian thoughts is John Davison and he did so in his Manifesto. He expressed also this interesting view elsewhere:
quote: It struck me many times when reading about new mammalian Orders that they arouse no one know how and why and no one know exactly from what ancestors. Darwinists anyway agree that mammalian Orders arouse "abruptly". They use "adaptive radiation" or Yucatan meteorite catastrophy & empty niches or some tectonic events or other hypothesis to explain the phenomenon. Maybe it would be better to reconsider it again, because maybe "missing link" never existed as John Davison claimed and mammalian Orders aroused de novo, call it miracle. Quotation of John Davison:
quote: Also the following abstract fully support notion that mammalian Orders arouse abruptly and no one know how and why:
quote: Geology, vol. 31, Issue 12, p.1097 Publication Date: 12/2003
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
MartinV  Suspended Member (Idle past 5859 days) Posts: 502 From: Slovakia, Bratislava Joined: |
We accept it because it's the one best supported by the evidence. What evidence is it that causes you to believe that fully formed life can just pop into existence?
Neither you have the evidence that opposite happened. At least I have never heard about an experiment showing how ancient fish transformed by natural selection into homo sapiens.
Unable to develop a rational answer, ancient man looked at lightning and said "God", and in the same way creationists now look at gaps in the paleontological record and puzzling microbiological processes and proclaim "God". This isn't science but surrender of the intellect to the unknown.
Yet that doesn't mean if somebody at those ancient time claimed that lightning arose via chance (random mutation) he had more scientific view, don't you think?
In fact, if you continue pursuing miraculous intervention as a solution, then you should be taking your arguments to the religious forums. The science forums are for discussion of views that have a scientific foundation, except for the Is It Science? forum, where arguments can be advanced challenging ideas like naturalism and so forth.
The name of this forum is Evolution versus creation. So I don't see reason why not to discuss here exactly such issues. Btw. I am not convinced - as well as Karl Popper once - that darwinism is science.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
MartinV  Suspended Member (Idle past 5859 days) Posts: 502 From: Slovakia, Bratislava Joined: |
First, as the fossil record became more and more complete it became clear that more and more gaps in the fossil record were being filled. More and more of what appeared at first to be sudden creation gradually fell into a framework of relatedness to pre-existing life.
But the reality is little different. It was Darwin's idea that evolutionary process is gradual. Fossil records should only prove the idea (like all mimics should have "survival advantage" in case of darwinian idea of mimicry. In darwinism there is always postulated first idea and reality should accomodate aftewards.). It is also not very correct that gaps in the fossil record were being filled. If it was correct than Eldredge and Gould wouldn't conceive "punctuated equilibrium" hypothesis. I take it for granted (from Gould's Pandas thumb book as well) that many new organisms showed up in geological columns abruptly.
Novel fossils are discovered all the time, and never has anything been discovered that doesn't fit into an evolutionary framework.
And never could be. Any hypotheticaly weird organism that would appear would fit into darwinian schema. See platypus. Have darwinists any problem with such curious creature? Not at all. If there are striking similarities between skulls of unrelated sabretooth speciesin South America there is omnipotent explanation - Natural selection shaped it so.
Why would God create an innovation for sharp eyesight for the hawk and not also give it to the lion?
But obviously Natural selection has no problem endow hawk with sharp eyesight and bats with sonars.
Are you poking fun at evolution, or do you really not know that evolution believes fish are immensely distant evolutionary cousins of humans. The split between fish and land life took place some 300-400 million years ago.
But according darwinism the common ancestor of homo sapiens and nowadays carp is an ancient fish, isn't it?
So this site exists to examine the claim that creationism is science. If you simply want to concede that it isn't science and that it is just Christian beliefs from the Bible, that's fine by me.
My point is mainly that (neo)darwinism is wrong. That there is concept claiming that Natural selection is no way evolutionary force and that Natural selection as well as sexual selection only maintain status quo of extant species removing extremities. It is very bald assumption of darwinism that from some observation showing small changes (like change of beaks length in finches) we can extrapolate that homo sapiens evolved from ancient fish via similar changes. Edited by MartinV, : sabretooth added
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
MartinV  Suspended Member (Idle past 5859 days) Posts: 502 From: Slovakia, Bratislava Joined: |
The trick is to find away to disagree with Bertrand Russell while he thinks that Frege showed logically that Kant was wrong about 7+5 =12 *BEING* synthetic but agree with him to a logic of contradiction that Cantor shewed Kant’s “antinomies of infinity” to be disposed of.
I quoted this sentence becuase it reminded me that Bertrand Russel made a cute observation about approach to the animal behavior research by Germans and Americans. I dare say that his observation could be extrapolated to Evolution itself (instincts and mimicry evolved by "random mutation" discussed elsewhere is very good example) considering the fact that German evolutionary thinking after WWII waned and Universities influenced by long German influence adopted neodarwinism (with some prominent exceptions like Portmann, Schindewolf, Neubauer...)
quote: This "inner consciousness" reminds me so to "die Innerlichkeit" or "internal factors" that neodarwinism dismissed complelety. Edited by MartinV, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
MartinV  Suspended Member (Idle past 5859 days) Posts: 502 From: Slovakia, Bratislava Joined: |
The New England Journal of Medicine published an article how Oscar the Cat predicts death. The case is interesting, because if true the science is obviously unable to explain it. It is similar to migration etc. where the science is groping as well. Sheldrake supposes some unknown abilities in animals. According Sheldrake we all know about such things from our neigbourhood - at least we have heard about such cases, but the science doesn't pay attention to them.
http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/357/4/328 ---- I intented to send it at "Instincts - evolution or better answer?" but I put it here by mistake. Edited by MartinV, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
MartinV  Suspended Member (Idle past 5859 days) Posts: 502 From: Slovakia, Bratislava Joined: |
Professor John Davison's Evolutionary manifesto 2002 is one of the best critique of neodarwinian concept of evolution. It's fine that professor Davison has opened a brand new blog now. Because professor Davison has been banned from all forums I hope there is no chance to silence him on internet now. His last blog was destroyed by an adversory who posted there the whole "Origin of species".
Have a look if you like: Free Pages Personnelles: Erreur 500 - Erreur interne du serveur |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
MartinV  Suspended Member (Idle past 5859 days) Posts: 502 From: Slovakia, Bratislava Joined: |
fyi
Paleontologist Vaclav Petr from Uni Prague has just published his Evolutionary dictionary: ERROR 404 - Not Found! There are several references to John Davison’s antidarwinian work and his original semi-meiotic hypothesis of evolution. The author is another scientist form Uni Prague who mentioned professor John Davison in his work. The first one was Jaroslav Flegr in his monography Evolutionary biology where he explained professor's John Davison theory of non-homology of germ cells in mammals. Forbidden! Edited by MartinV, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024