|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Summations Only | Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: New theory about evolution between creationism and evolution. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2106 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
Many times theories lead to searchig, uncovering of hidden facts and understanding them. You are correct in that, but what you have is an hypothesis, not a theory. Theories are based on facts and they explain those facts. When you have no facts you have an hypothesis. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zi ko Member (Idle past 3620 days) Posts: 578 Joined: |
I don't thing that there many who will deny that organisms, even very simple ones,feel in their way, pain, lack of food etc. I believe this is core couse of evolution, which leads to overcoming these situations.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 285 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Which seems a very sensible admission.
So what's your point?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zi ko Member (Idle past 3620 days) Posts: 578 Joined: |
Facts on which my theory is based are:
The apparent need for Darwin's theory to be improved. Many scientists have expressed this need. Findings by paleontologist Stephen Gould and Eldredged (punctuated equilibrium and stasis). Carl Joung's collective subconscous and archetypes.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zi ko Member (Idle past 3620 days) Posts: 578 Joined: |
Facts on which my theory is based are:
The apparent need for Darwin's theory to be improved. Many scientists have expressed this need. Findings by paleontologist Stephen Gould and Eldredged (punctuated equilibrium and stasis). Carl Joung's collective subconscous and archetypes.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zi ko Member (Idle past 3620 days) Posts: 578 Joined: |
I believe that scientists on learning biology have much work to do on neural's system hormonal action upon DNA.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Parasomnium Member Posts: 2224 Joined: |
zi ko writes: Maybe organisms don't have to know, in your opinion, but in fact they DO KNOW. I don't think this is a fact at all, but, for the sake of argument, let's assume it is. Let's assume that organisms know which changes in their environment constitute a compelling need for them to evolve. The question then becomes: how can they know this? How does a baby antelope know it's not fast enough to outrun the exceptionally fast cheetah lurking behind a bush nearby? By being caught, that's how. In its dying moments, it realizes its offspring needs to be faster to deal with this recently improved generation of cheetahs. Sadly however, there will be no offspring. The operative words of the previous scene are "In its dying moments". The baby antelope is dead, and with it, any mechanism that supposedly could have improved the DNA in its gonads. That's what natural selection is usually like: you only find out you're not up to scratch when you actually fail before you have had the chance to procreate. By the way, the central role you reserve for the nervous system betrays a very simplistic outlook on living nature as a whole. Only animals have nervous systems, and as you can see in the phylogenetic tree, animals are just a tiny twig in it. So, how does your neurogenic theory explain the evolution of the rest of life, i.e. almost all of it? "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2106 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
Facts on which my theory is based are: The apparent need for Darwin's theory to be improved. Many scientists have expressed this need. That is not a "fact." And "need" is certainly not something on which to build a solid theory. Need might drive hypotheses, and hypothesis testing, but it is only through explanation of large bodies of facts, successful predictions, and contradiction by no significant facts, that one can truly develop a theory. Your admission that you have no facts seems to argue against considering what you are working on as a theory. If you are doing serious testing, you may be working with an hypothesis. Otherwise you just have a bunch of nice ideas. Those are a dime a dozen.
Findings by paleontologist Stephen Gould and Eldredged (punctuated equilibrium and stasis). Their work simply modified some details in our understanding of the way in which evolution operates. No big deal. That kind of thing happens all the time in science.
Carl Joung's collective subconscous and archetypes. I think you may have a hard time demonstrating the connection of those ideas to biology. Philosophy is largely a joke to working scientists, as philosophers have been naval-gazing for 2,500 years with little result. Science has passed them by in just a few hundred years and they are left whimpering, "But we were here first! Pay at least some attention to us! Please???" Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zi ko Member (Idle past 3620 days) Posts: 578 Joined: |
Parasomnium writes:
Plants have their own system of communication. it is plant hormones and pollen.
zi ko writes: Maybe organisms don't have to know, in your opinion, but in fact they DO KNOW. I don't think this is a fact at all, but, for the sake of argument, let's assume it is. Let's assume that organisms know which changes in their environment constitute a compelling need for them to evolve. The question then becomes: how can they know this? How does a baby antelope know it's not fast enough to outrun the exceptionally fast cheetah lurking behind a bush nearby? By being caught, that's how. In its dying moments, it realizes its offspring needs to be faster to deal with this recently improved generation of cheetahs. Empathy! it is the key word to this remark. Mother antilopewill feel this need. Next offspring will have to be faster. Sadly however, there will be no offspring. The operative words of the previous scene are "In its dying moments". The baby antelope is dead, and with it, any mechanism that supposedly could have improved the DNA in its gonads. That's what natural selection is usually like: you only find out you're not up to scratch when you actually fail before you have had the chance to procreate. By the way, the central role you reserve for the nervous system betrays a very simplistic outlook on living nature as a whole. Only animals have nervous systems, and as you can see in the phylogenetic tree, animals are just a tiny twig in it. So, how does your neurogenic theory explain the evolution of the rest of life, i.e. almost all of it?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zi ko Member (Idle past 3620 days) Posts: 578 Joined:
|
Parasomnium writes: zi ko writes: Maybe organisms don't have to know, in your opinion, but in fact they DO KNOW. I don't think this is a fact at all, but, for the sake of argument, let's assume it is. Let's assume that organisms know which changes in their environment constitute a compelling need for them to evolve. The question then becomes: how can they know this? How does a baby antelope know it's not fast enough to outrun the exceptionally fast cheetah lurking behind a bush nearby? By being caught, that's how. In its dying moments, it realizes its offspring needs to be faster to deal with this recently improved generation of cheetahs. Sadly however, there will be no offspring. The operative words of the previous scene are "In its dying moments". The baby antelope is dead, and with it, any mechanism that supposedly could have improved the DNA in its gonads. That's what natural selection is usually like: you only find out you're not up to scratch when you actually fail before you have had the chance to procreate. By the way, the central role you reserve for the nervous system betrays a very simplistic outlook on living nature as a whole. Only animals have nervous systems, and as you can see in the phylogenetic tree, animals are just a tiny twig in it. So, how does your neurogenic theory explain the evolution of the rest of life, i.e. almost all of it? {Content hidden because it duplicates previous message - Adminnemooseus} Edited by Adminnemooseus, : See above.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zi ko Member (Idle past 3620 days) Posts: 578 Joined: |
Coyote writes: Facts on which my theory is based are: The apparent need for Darwin's theory to be improved. Many scientists have expressed this need. That is not a "fact." And "need" is certainly not something on which to build a solid theory. Need might drive hypotheses, and hypothesis testing, but it is only through explanation of large bodies of facts, successful predictions, and contradiction by no significant facts, that onecan truly develop a theory. Surely i need facts . That would be if biologists could find a link between neural hormones and DNA. I think they are working on it or maybe they should. As you see my "hypothetical theory" could be linked with facts. It is early yet. Your admission that you have no facts seems to argue against considering what you are working on as a theory. If you are doing serious testing, you may be working with an hypothesis. Otherwise you just have a bunch of nice ideas. Those are a dime a dozen. I think everything rests on ideas. We must keep perspectives.
Findings by paleontologist Stephen Gould and Eldredged (punctuated equilibrium and stasis). Their work simply modified some details in our understanding of the way in which evolution operates. No big deal. That kind of thing happens all the time in science. These details make science to procceed.
Carl Joung's collective subconscous and archetypes. I think you may have a hard time demonstrating the connection of those ideas to biology. Philosophy is largely a joke to working scientists, as philosophers have been naval-gazing for 2,500 years with little result. Science has passed them by in just a few hundred years and they are left whimpering, "But we were here first! Pay at least some attention to us! Please???" Biologists are much needed. They have a lot of work to do, as to search for facts about EMPATHY. I don't think can denay its existance. We should'nt avoid to face truth, on the name of science. Science will profit from this.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Parasomnium Member Posts: 2224 Joined: |
First, two things about citing people.
If you cite someone, you must be careful to make a distinction between the citation and your own interjections. The way you cited me suggests the remark about empathy is my own, which it isn't. Although I don't think people reading this thread will have any trouble understanding the conversation, it's still a sloppy way of presenting things. Secondly, you do not need to cite whole messages if you are only going to reply to one or two aspects of them. Just pick out the relevant bits and respond directly to those. It makes for a much nicer read. Now, for some substantial comment. You bring up empathy between the mother and her offspring:
zi ko writes: Empathy! it is the key word to this remark. Mother antilopewill feel this need. Next offspring will have to be faster. Again, this is a very simplistic way of looking at things. What about creatures that grow up in the absence of their parents? For example, baby sea turtles that crawl out of the egg and must make their way to the water fairly quickly, lest they be gobbled up by hungry predators. Their mother has laid her eggs some time before and has gone back to sea, so she isn't there to watch what happens to her offspring.
Plants have their own system of communication. it is plant hormones and pollen. You haven't actually looked at the link I gave you, have you? If you had, you'd have seen that, like animals, plants are also just a twig on the phylogenetic tree*. Before you embark on your quixotic quest to launch a new revolutionary theory of biology, please make sure you understand biology proper. Living nature is not just plants and animals. Ad hoc adding plant hormones and pollen to your now inaccurately named "neurogenic" theory doesn't cut the mustard.
* For your convenience, I've provided the link again. Please take a look at it. Edited by Parasomnium, : Typo "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member (Idle past 164 days) Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
Biology of learning may give some clues on the matter. You mean the psychology of learning: which is pretty well researched and (off the op of my head) I can't see how 'knowing' helps evolution. In fact 'knowing' would do the exact opposite. If you can out think the problem you don't have as big a selective force for physical evolution.
Carl Joung's collective subconscous and archetypes. If you can provide any evidence that the collective unconscious is not simply a construct I will eat one of my many hats.
as to search for facts about EMPATHY. I don't think can denay its existance. You seem to be missing out the science of psychology. Empathy? What do you know about mirror cells or the theory of mind? During my training I received versy specific training in, guess what? Empathy. No one would deny it because it is a well known and researched area within psychology. Edited by Larni, : eating hats. Edited by Larni, : empathy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Bolder-dash Member (Idle past 3630 days) Posts: 983 From: China Joined: |
His theory IS attempting to explain facts. The facts of how organisms have evolved.
Maybe what you meant to say was "doesn't it worry you that you have no facts to back up your theory"? , but you were just overly sloppy in your use of the English language? If that is what you ACTUALLY meant to say, I would respond, Doesn't it bother you that you have no facts to back up your own favorite theory? Not only that, but doesn't it bother you that your favorite theory is not even particularly logical, given that science continues to see more and more evidence of epigentic changes happening rapidly- with virtually NO evidence for these so- called slow progressions of random biological roads which just so happen to lead to the promised land? Edited by Bolder-dash, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3292 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
zi ko writes:
But organisms really really don't know. Surely yoy don't expect me to answer right now all the questions we are faced by my theory.Maybe organisms don't have to know, in your opinion, but in fact they DO KNOW.If you can't swim you of course drown, but this is how natural selection works. Here is a no brainer example. The octopus is color blind. Yet, it can change its skin pigment to camouflage itself against the background. It's all done by instinct.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024