Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evolutionary Theory Explains Diversity
caffeine
Member (Idle past 1024 days)
Posts: 1800
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008


Message 76 of 160 (516074)
07-23-2009 8:51 AM
Reply to: Message 63 by interrelation
07-22-2009 8:26 AM


Re: Did Not
Since I've always done those simple experiments to many animals
that I've encountered to see how they behaved in their life.
And one conclusion had only been around:
organisms change or interrelate by the mechanism of biotic preservaton and
not natural selection. Nailing the TOE on its own coffin.
For an experiment to make us favour one hypothesis or theory over another, it would have to be testing something where the two different ideas predict different results. You’ve claimed several times that your experiments have demonstrated ‘interrelation theory’ to be a better explanation than the theory of evolution. So, for this to be true, the results would have to, in some way, match the predictions of interrelation theory while differing from the predictions of evolutionary theory.
Let’s consider, then, what results we’d expect for these experiments from an evolutionary perspective. The theory of evolution states that heritable traits which increase a lifeform’s ability to produce successful offspring will spread in populations, so we’d expect most lifeforms to exhibit traits that aid in their survival and reproduction (at least in their usual environments).
We know that (most) plants need sunlight in order to survive. Evolutionary theory predicts that plants better able to extract energy from sunlight will be more reproductively successful, and so plant populations will exhibit traits which have made them good at getting access to sufficient sunlight. What we see in your experiment is that the plant with little direct sunlight will react by growing further, possibly enabling it to reach sunlight. This is a plant exhibiting a trait which increases its ability to reach sunlight, and thus survive and reproduce. The results of the experiment are perfectly in line with evolutionary theory.
Animals need to survive long enough to reach reproductive age before they can leave any offspring. Once they have, the longer they survive the more they can usually produce. For species like rats that care for their young, their continued survival also increases the survival chances of their offspring. From all this, evolutionary theory would predict that animals, generally speaking, exhibit traits that cause them to avoid mortal danger (except when necessary for a ‘higher cause’ like mating). Your experiment shows that a rat’s reaction to a physical threat from a big lumbering thing with a stick is to frantically try and escape, preserving its life. This is exactly what evolutionary theory predicts.
Now, I’m not trying to claim that these experiments demonstrate evolutionary theory to be accurate, just that they cannot be used to debunk it. Maybe the results of these experiments accurately match the predictions of your interrelation theory. But then they also fit the predictions of the theory of evolution. As a result, these experiments are useless when it comes to testing which theory has the better explanatory and predictive power.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by interrelation, posted 07-22-2009 8:26 AM interrelation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by interrelation, posted 07-24-2009 11:20 AM caffeine has replied

  
caffeine
Member (Idle past 1024 days)
Posts: 1800
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008


Message 93 of 160 (516573)
07-26-2009 8:56 AM
Reply to: Message 84 by interrelation
07-24-2009 11:20 AM


Re: Did Not
Of course, you can call the result evolution by natural selection. But as Interrelation
Theory states that the reason why the plant and all plants are struggling to live
and struggling to change (interrelate) in nature is that because of
biotic preservation mechanism, BPM and not the natural selection.
And the reason why we cannot rely now in TOE is just because TOE had an
incomplete mechanisms. Incomplete mechanisms will result in incomplete explanation,
that will result in incomplete and therefore, erroneous theory in science.
So, to review the answer you wrote three times verbatim in the same post:
"Yes, the results did match the predictions of evolutionary theory but my theory has a different explanation. Evolution is incomplete!"
This is all well and good, but doesn't really answer what I was saying. If the results of your experiments match the predictions of evolutionary theory just as well as the predictions of interrelation theory, then they give us no reason to choose one over the other.
Your stated reason for rejecting evolution by natural selection is the repeated assertion that it's 'incomplete'. Nothing in your experiments that establishes this; please explain what I'm missing.
Incidentally, I've read all your posts in this thread, and still have no idea what you mean by 'time mechanism', or where it is absent in evolutionary theory.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by interrelation, posted 07-24-2009 11:20 AM interrelation has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by RAZD, posted 07-26-2009 10:05 AM caffeine has not replied

  
caffeine
Member (Idle past 1024 days)
Posts: 1800
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008


Message 140 of 160 (518124)
08-04-2009 6:02 AM
Reply to: Message 135 by subbie
08-01-2009 4:25 PM


Mitochondrial Eve
Mitochondrial Eve isn't the first man. It isn't even the first woman. It's the most recent person believed to be an ancestor of everyone living today. In other words, if we had perfect ancestry information about all people who ever lived, everyone alive today would be able to trace their ancestry back to Mitochondrial Eve.
Sorry for the off-topic post, but I wanted to provide a quick correction. Mitochondrial Eve is not the most recent common ancestor, she was the most recent common matrilineal ancestor - the last ancestor we share in common counting only our mother's mother's mother's....etc. She would have predated the last common ancestor by many tens of thousands of years.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by subbie, posted 08-01-2009 4:25 PM subbie has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 141 by greentwiga, posted 08-04-2009 6:39 PM caffeine has replied

  
caffeine
Member (Idle past 1024 days)
Posts: 1800
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008


Message 146 of 160 (518678)
08-07-2009 8:33 AM
Reply to: Message 141 by greentwiga
08-04-2009 6:39 PM


Re: Mitochondrial Eve
I'm sorry, but in all honesty I really don't understand what you're trying to say. I might try and start a thread on common ancestors, mitochondrial Eve and Y-chromosone Adam this weekend, and then we can try and discuss it there without dragging this thread further off course.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by greentwiga, posted 08-04-2009 6:39 PM greentwiga has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 147 by greentwiga, posted 08-07-2009 10:31 PM caffeine has replied

  
caffeine
Member (Idle past 1024 days)
Posts: 1800
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008


Message 152 of 160 (518969)
08-10-2009 6:59 AM
Reply to: Message 147 by greentwiga
08-07-2009 10:31 PM


Re: Mitochondrial Eve
You have 2 parents, 4 grandparents, and 16 great grandparents. If you are male, you have a y chromosome from one great grandparent and mitochondrial DNA from another great grandparent. The other 14 have donated various parts of your other chromosomes, but we can't prove who donated what. If there were 500 women alive at the time of Mitochondrial Eve, just like your great grandparents, they donated a variety of genes, though only one woman donated all the mitochondrial DNA.
Yes. So where is the source of your disagreement?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 147 by greentwiga, posted 08-07-2009 10:31 PM greentwiga has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 153 by greentwiga, posted 08-10-2009 12:39 PM caffeine has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024