Evolutionary Theory Explains Diversity

ToE states that randomly generated variations in an organism's genetic make-up are past along to it's offspring with a greater likelihood if those variations increase the likelihood of that organism having offspring. That's kind of hard to argue with.Given enough cycles of variation/selection and the biological natural history of the Earth is pretty much explained. This is backed up with giga-pantloads of evidence.Any theory that intends to replace it will have to say something about how modifications are passed along to future generations. Your theory fails to do that. At it's best it says that organisms will react to their environment. Lineage Continuation Mechanism (LCM) states little more then monkey see monkey do. By smacking one monkey a population of monkeys can learn to flinch when they see a stick. Agreed. How do monkeys learn to have red hair?Advantageous Properties Mechanism or APM is a form of selection. However, unlike ToE your monkeys, having derived it from the CIO*, inherently have all the possible variables available to them that are merely sorted out by behavior. This isn't a new idea. I've read it in these very pages quite often. But again, how do monkeys learn to have red hair?

---

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them.

"Things don't die on purpose. You had to study that; hun? I mean, it's your prime mechanism. It really needs to have a bit more lan vital if it's not to just sort of a D'ah statement."ANSWER: Correct. Things or living organism don't die on purpose. They don't live too without purpose. That is what I've found in my experiments and my theory. Therefore, natural selection that has no meaning to live and no meaning to preserve life is false, incorrect, inhumane and unscientific.

ANSWER: Oh that is pretty simple. If we will be using just only the natural selection to explain in TOE, then, maybe you are correct. But in real life, if you will dig further into the real world of organisms, there is another mechanism that limit its change. And in my theory, it is called the maturity sequence mechanism, MSM. In short, eventhough one species have million of years chances to change, this organism will never pass and cannot pass the maturity sequence limit of their change as set by natural process, or they will surely die. Or species A will be species A, sometimes A00001, or A21547 or A369874...but it will be still A eventhough they will have a million years. It simply means, further, that offspring of that species will be the same species with the parents. ANSWER; Yes, we've found all evidences. But as I had told you, that evidences in TOE were just in lined according to natural selection. We had many mechanisms in the real world to be considered as I had told you in the preservation of life. But TOE had ignored them or undiscovered them. Reason? One mechanism is probably easy for them to explain. ANSWER: We see it in nature that modification passed in the offspring BUT it is limited modification. We need to consider many mechanisms that govern those oganisms' life and change process. We cannot simply ignored those other mechanisms and say, "Hey, here is the conclusion. Oh leave the other mechanisms, this is enough!". We cannot do that! If we would like to go to Mars, we need to consider many mechanisms and hurdles to know them or our austronauts will die! ANSWER: First, monkeys don't learn to have red hairs. Since we knew that those red-hairs monkeys are still alive and did not die, then, the APM mechanism states that the CIO had given preset information for the appearance of those red hairs to the monkeys.That if the condition will be like is, then, the DNA or gene will act like this, and the outcome will be like this, is the APM mechanism.I called it in my theory the permissible interrelated change or allowable change just to preserve the life of that species.Edited by interrelation, : No reason given.Edited by interrelation, : No reason given.Edited by interrelation, : No reason given.

Interrelation,Could you please start using the quote boxes? It makes it much easier to distinguish between what you quote and your replies to them.If you type "[qs]some pasted text[/qs]", it will look like this: And if you type "[qs=someone]some pasted text[/qs]", it will look like this: Please do us all a favour and use this way of quoting.
Thank you.

Okay, thanks...

Hi interrelation and welcome to EvC. I predict that you are going to have a hard time getting your *ahem* theory accepted here. Good luck. Really? Prove it. Ooh, experiments! And here I just thought you were making up half-baked nonsense off the top of your head and calling it a theory, but no - you have experiments!Do please share. I would love to see these experiments.By the way, communication here will be much easier if you use the dBCodes to make things like quote boxes, such as those above. You can get instructions for these and other features here;EvC Forum: dBCodesMutate and Survive

---

"The Bible is like a person, and if you torture it long enough, you can get it to say almost anything you'd like it to say." -- Rev. Dr. Francis H. Wade

Well interrelation, you're off to a bad start. This thread is about how evolutionary theory explains diversity, which was the question in your original proposed topic. If you think you have a better theory then you need to show how your theory explains diversity better.So far all we have from you are things that are already explained by evolutionary theory, and a couple of "science fair experiments" dealing with existing organisms reacting to artificial environmental factors.This does not explain diversity.Evolution explains diversity: evolution is the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation, isolate two populations in different ecologies, and evolution predicts that generation after generation they will evolve in different ways, due to the selection to live and reproduce in the different ecologies. Thus diversity occurs. Message 37
This is basic behavioral biology of living things, not how new species arise and thus result in diversity.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

I note that http://www.interrelation-theory.com/ gives a 403 forbidden error. Perhaps this is the modern day forbidden knowledge?

Not actually, since the scientific journal that I've submitted my article for peer review had sent me e-mail that I need to send the complete manuscript. So since I had alreaday sent the manuscript, then, I had to confirm them the e-mail. For the sake of that journal, since I've promised before I submitted my work that my theory is novel, I temporarily deleted all files from my web site.Now, you can see it again.

In effect, your theory predicts your theory. It's kind of cute in a Hello Kitty sort of way. I especially enjoy that animals, if they have to to save their own live, will deal with each other and the environment.By the way, I realize I may be, probably am, unfairly using your shortcoming in the language against you, but it's funny.AbE: Though, I do want to assure you that I will not judge your theory based on anything other then its own merits.Edited by lyx2no, : x

---

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them.

Yeah, I've alreday proved it in my theory. It says that all living organisms protect their life when threatened for termination, that means, it s observable that their life has a meaning to them to live. For if not, they will be very happy to die. Yeah.Here are theyExperiments:
Experiment in plant.Take for example, two grains or seeds of mongo beans (Phaseolus aureus) . Put one seed of bean in a jar/or garden jar filled with soil (and plant the mongo bean on soil) and put it under the shade or have no sunlight. Or put it inside the closet. Let us call this jar, Pinoy 1.And do the same with the other jar. Let us call this other jar, Pinoy 2. Put Pinoy 2 in direct sunlight. Leave it for seven days. Everyday, put a little water on it to grow.While leaving the two jars, put small amount of water to grow. Leave the twe jars in seven days and you will see that Pinoy 1 had a longer stem than Pinoy 2. That means, Pinoy 1, just to preserve its life, is elongating its stem looking for a way to find sunlight. Pinoy 1 is following the biotic presrvation mechanism that I am saying.Experiment in Living Animal
Prepare one house rat or mouse and put it in a small carton box, 30 cm x 50 cm x H= 50 cm will do. Before you put the rat in that box, put 2 sheets of old newspaper as mat for the rat. But don't give it a chance to escape. Then, give the rat food to eat like cheese. Do it everyday in three consecutive days. And give this rat water too. Then, look and observe how it behaves. Do it in three days and observe for three days. The rat will be just fine though it looks scary.
After three days, threat it to kill the rat. Literally, hit it with a stick. Now, look at how this rat responses. This rat is looking for cover to hide. This rat is looking for way to live by changing its body size to smaller size to fit any holes or openings.Results
Experiment in Plant
By this simple experiment, the jar, named as Pinoy 1, had a longer stem than the jar, named as Pinoy 2, which put in direct sunlight.Experiment in Animal
The result in this simple experiment is that this rat is changing its body size to fit any holes or openings for cover, just to save its life.Conclusion
Both results in the animal's and plant's experiment tell me that the reason why those living organisms are changing is that they are following the interrelation process, by the mechanism of biotic preservation mechanism. And it is not evolution process by natural selection.

No, my theory predicts that we can know the common interelated originator CIO (or origin of life) if we will be using my theory. This CIO maybe alien, or nature or God. Probably, God or alien since nature is no use in explaining the preservation of life of organisms.Yeah, English is my 3rd language.

First, diversity of organisms did not come from natural selection since the other mechanism in nature limits this diversification.Second, interrelation theory states that the appearance of different kinds of organisms and the appearance of diversities of organisms were the result of the interrelated action between the CIO and the timing of the earth to nature.I mean, the CIO, the giver of life, had specifically designed and put all living organisms in the designated geological era (that we knew so far) and interrelated those new organisms on the conditions and surroundings best suited for those organisms.

From the age of five I've tried French, German, Dutch, Spanish and Russian. I have no ear: I failed at them all as quickly as is humanly possible. Though, I can say about three words from each. As it is I struggle to achieve idiosyncratic English. About the only slang I use automatically is "cool".By the way; welcome aboard.

---

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them.

Well you shot yourself in the foot in the first sentence;

quote:

---

Yeah, I've alreday proved it in my theory.

---

No. You don't prove a claim with a theory. You provide evidence for a claim with... well, evidence. Using your "theory" to prove your "theory" is circular logic and utterly redundant.

quote:

---

Experiments:
Experiment in plant

---

I'm sorry, but this is laughable. You have proved nothing. All you have demonstrated is that plants grow towards light. We already knew that and any averagely well educated child of ten would know that too. We know why plants grow towards light and it has nothing to do with your "biotic presrvation mechanism".Here is a satircal version of what you are doing.The theory of gravity is wrong. In fact, magic pixies push objects towards other objects. I can prove this by experiment; watch an apple drop from a tree. If it falls toward the ground, then I have proved that pixies are pushing it. Thus, I have proved Newton and Einstein wrong and Pixie Theory correct. QEDDo you see what you are doing? You are taking well known and well understood facts and adding unnecessary non-explanations to them. You already know the outcome of your "experiment", and you have tailored your explanation to suit it. That is not how science is supposed to work my friend.

quote:

---

Experiment in Living Animal
Prepare one house rat or mouse and put it in a small carton box, 30 cm x 50 cm x H= 50 cm will do. Before you put the rat in that box, put 2 sheets of old newspaper as mat for the rat. But don't give it a chance to escape. Then, give the rat food to eat like cheese.

---

Don't give the rat cheese. Rats are not supposed to be eating cheese. It's not good for them. You seem to have gleaned your knowledge of biology from Tom and Jerry cartoons. Unlucky.

quote:

---

After three days, threat it to kill the rat. Literally, hit it with a stick.

---

Can I ask; have you actually performed this experiment? Or is it still just at the mental masturbation stage?Don't hit pet rats with sticks. In most countries, this would be considered criminal. Animal experiments which involve suffering on the part of the animal usually require a license. You don't have a license. Don't hit rats with sticks.

quote:

---

This rat is looking for way to live by changing its body size to smaller size to fit any holes or openings.

---

Wow. You have proved that animals and plants attempt to stay alive. Pardon me if I don't call the Nobel prize committee just yet though.Plants and animals attempt to stay alive. We already knew this. There is simply no need to try and explain this through some hokey "mechanism". Indeed, you have demonstrated no such mechanism. How do we know that your "mechanism" is what's making the organisms respond this way? How do we know it isn't merely that they are acting in accordance with their instincts? How do we know it isn't magic pixies making them act this way? You haven't established cause and effect.Also, what is it about living things displaying a self-preservation instinct that you think runs counter to the Theory of Evolution? From where I'm sitting, it seems to coincide with the ToE quite-nicely-thank-you.

quote:

---

Conclusion
Both results in the animal's and plant's experiment tell me that the reason why those living organisms are changing is that they are following the interrelation process, by the mechanism of biotic preservation mechanism.

---

No, those are just some fancy terms you have invented to describe the effect. You have nothing on the cause, nor have you challenged the ToE in any way.

quote:

---

And it is not evolution process by natural selection.

---

Okay, I'm going to be frank here. It will not come across as particularly friendly, but I consider it to be for your own good.The quoted comment above betrays just how ignorant of biology you are and just how far out of your depth you are. No-one would expect a lone rat in a box to evolve. No-one. Populations evolve, not individuals. You have badly, badly, badly misunderstood what the Theory of Evolution is saying. I'm not trying to be unkind here, but you have misunderstood it to the point where it's just laughable.I strongly suggest that you stop trying to impress people with your silly notions, go to a library and pick up a biology textbook. It's the only way you are going to learn anything. Right now, you are attempting to run before you can walk and you are only making yourself look foolish.No-one here or anywhere else is going to be impressed with your half-baked nonsense. People are just going to assume that you are a crackpot and not without reason. The only value your "theory" has is its comedy value.Sorry.Mutate and Survive.

---

"The Bible is like a person, and if you torture it long enough, you can get it to say almost anything you'd like it to say." -- Rev. Dr. Francis H. Wade