Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,820 Year: 3,077/9,624 Month: 922/1,588 Week: 105/223 Day: 3/13 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   New theory about evolution between creationism and evolution.
zi ko
Member (Idle past 3620 days)
Posts: 578
Joined: 01-18-2011


Message 61 of 433 (602291)
01-27-2011 10:45 AM
Reply to: Message 57 by Blue Jay
01-27-2011 10:14 AM


Re: Mechanism?
Idon't exclude mutation or natural selection as evolutionary factors.Simply i add another one,which fits with some known facts (punctuated equilibrium and stasis by St GOULD and ELDREDGED, and collective unconscious by C YOUNG). Couldn't they work together?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Blue Jay, posted 01-27-2011 10:14 AM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by Blue Jay, posted 01-27-2011 10:56 AM zi ko has seen this message but not replied
 Message 68 by Taq, posted 01-27-2011 11:29 AM zi ko has seen this message but not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 62 of 433 (602292)
01-27-2011 10:56 AM
Reply to: Message 56 by zi ko
01-27-2011 10:09 AM


It isn't amatter of believing or not to evolution.Evolution is accepted by me as a fact.It is about on which rules does it runs.My theory tries to expand natural explanation to the logical point, after which my stand will be a matter of belief.
Oh, okay. That makes more sense.
Your problem is that the point you're expanding to does not follow logically. It turns out that you're just plain wrong.
Knowledge is not passed on through generations via DNA. Its impossible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by zi ko, posted 01-27-2011 10:09 AM zi ko has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by Bolder-dash, posted 01-28-2011 11:32 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2698 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 63 of 433 (602293)
01-27-2011 10:56 AM
Reply to: Message 61 by zi ko
01-27-2011 10:45 AM


Re: Mechanism?
Hi, Zi Ko.
zi ko writes:
...some known facts (punctuated equilibrium and stasis by St GOULD and ELDREDGED, and collective unconscious by C YOUNG).
I don't think either of these is a fact, so neither of them currently needs to be explained.
And I'm not sure how your hypothesis explains punctuated equilibrium, anyway.
-----
zi ko writes:
Couldn't they work together?
Yes, they could.
But, I still don't see a reason why we need a new causative factor in evolution when the current causative factors seem to work just fine.

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by zi ko, posted 01-27-2011 10:45 AM zi ko has seen this message but not replied

  
zi ko
Member (Idle past 3620 days)
Posts: 578
Joined: 01-18-2011


Message 64 of 433 (602295)
01-27-2011 11:09 AM
Reply to: Message 59 by Coyote
01-27-2011 10:35 AM


Re: Mechanism?
Coyote writes:
Evolution is result of interaction between organisms and enviroment.
Correct so far.
This means communication and knowing. Reaction presupposes knowing.
Absolutely false.
Evolution relies on selection pressure acting on populations.
In any given population some individuals reproduce more successfully, and some less so. This, looked at over long spans of time or many generations, adequately accounts for all the effects you are trying to explain.
It is false according to known theory. But with Neurogenic evolution it is true, without saying that i exclude natural selection and mutations. They can co exist and give better explanations to known facts.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Coyote, posted 01-27-2011 10:35 AM Coyote has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by Taq, posted 01-27-2011 11:27 AM zi ko has seen this message but not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9974
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 65 of 433 (602297)
01-27-2011 11:23 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by zi ko
01-27-2011 12:20 AM


Re: Check your premise
Offsprings to be fitter.Through neurons.To DNA.
So how do the neurons know which mutations to cause, and how does the central nervous system know to target these changes to the sperm and eggs?
Even more, how do you explain offspring that are less fit than their parents? How do you explain children born with dwarfism and hemophilia?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by zi ko, posted 01-27-2011 12:20 AM zi ko has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by zi ko, posted 02-02-2011 6:14 AM Taq has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9974
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 66 of 433 (602298)
01-27-2011 11:25 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by zi ko
01-27-2011 1:22 AM


Re: Mechanism?
Evolution is result of interaction between organisms and enviroment.This means communication and knowing. Reaction presupposes knowing.
Gravel does not need to know the size of the sieve in order to be sorted.
Lottery players do not need to know the winning number in order to win.
Adaptation does not require communication or knowing what the best adaptation for a given environment is.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by zi ko, posted 01-27-2011 1:22 AM zi ko has seen this message but not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9974
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 67 of 433 (602299)
01-27-2011 11:27 AM
Reply to: Message 64 by zi ko
01-27-2011 11:09 AM


Re: Mechanism?
It is false according to known theory. But with Neurogenic evolution it is true,
Reality does not conform to theory. Theories conform to reality. You need to start with reality and work back towards theory.
The first thing you need to explain is how offspring can be born with mutations which put them at a disadvantage. We know that this is a fact, so your theory needs to explain it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by zi ko, posted 01-27-2011 11:09 AM zi ko has seen this message but not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9974
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 68 of 433 (602300)
01-27-2011 11:29 AM
Reply to: Message 61 by zi ko
01-27-2011 10:45 AM


Re: Mechanism?
Simply i add another one,which fits with some known facts (punctuated equilibrium and stasis by St GOULD and ELDREDGED, and collective unconscious by C YOUNG).
There is no known facts which link the production of mutations in gametes with the central nervous system.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by zi ko, posted 01-27-2011 10:45 AM zi ko has seen this message but not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9974
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 69 of 433 (602301)
01-27-2011 11:30 AM
Reply to: Message 58 by zi ko
01-27-2011 10:23 AM


Re: Check your premise
I can't answer about my mechanism. It is amatter of neuronal biology.
If you have no testable mechanism then you have no theory.
Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by zi ko, posted 01-27-2011 10:23 AM zi ko has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by zi ko, posted 01-27-2011 10:34 PM Taq has replied

  
Larni
Member (Idle past 164 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


(1)
Message 70 of 433 (602304)
01-27-2011 11:41 AM
Reply to: Message 53 by zi ko
01-27-2011 9:21 AM


Re: Mechanism?
zi ko writes:
You ask me me to explain the self evident.It couldn't be done otherwise.
I coluld name it hypothetical theory.
It is obviously not self evident, however. If it was you would be able to bring some positive evidence to the table.
As it stands you have made a claim (put forwards a hypothesis) and then done nothing.
Essentially you are saying "for unknown reasons I assert that x.y and z is true. I have not examined whether x, y and z is in fact true; I merely assert it. You must believe I'm right"
That won't wash with anyone with a high school knowledge of scientific research.
It is a hypothesis that you have made no effort to test.
A hypothetical theory is just that; hypothetical as opposed to actual.
Simply i add another one,which fits with some known facts (punctuated equilibrium and stasis by St GOULD and ELDREDGED, and collective unconscious by C YOUNG). Couldn't they work together?
No they could not work together. You are on very shaky ground if you bring in any analytical psychological perspectives into a scientific discussion because of the simple fact that Jung was very much talking out of his arse.
Edited by Larni, : Jungian diatriabe

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by zi ko, posted 01-27-2011 9:21 AM zi ko has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by zi ko, posted 01-27-2011 10:58 PM Larni has replied

  
zi ko
Member (Idle past 3620 days)
Posts: 578
Joined: 01-18-2011


Message 71 of 433 (602382)
01-27-2011 10:34 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by Taq
01-27-2011 11:30 AM


Re: Check your premise
I had made itclear from the beggining.Neuronal biology would be able to really test my hypothetical theory.
You can't predict whether some theory is needed or not.
There is a lot of graduation amongst theories, as depends to actual factors that are based on, from many factors to zero ones.
There is no need to explain how defective offsprings are born. It is done by currently known mechanims. I didn' delete them.You could only accuse my theory why Neorogenig evolution had not prevented those defects.Maybe it did it in away. Maybe it prevented whole life on earth to be destroyed by chance mutations and natural selection only.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Taq, posted 01-27-2011 11:30 AM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by Coyote, posted 01-27-2011 11:12 PM zi ko has seen this message but not replied
 Message 83 by Taq, posted 01-28-2011 3:38 PM zi ko has replied

  
zi ko
Member (Idle past 3620 days)
Posts: 578
Joined: 01-18-2011


Message 72 of 433 (602383)
01-27-2011 10:58 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by Larni
01-27-2011 11:41 AM


Re: Mechanism?
As i answered Tag neuronal biology could test my theory. I don't say "believe me , i am right". But only" think, maybe there is another truth than this you unquestionably now believe". It does not need, any new proposition, that doesn't fit to our established beliefs, to hurt us.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by Larni, posted 01-27-2011 11:41 AM Larni has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by Larni, posted 01-28-2011 6:09 AM zi ko has seen this message but not replied
 Message 75 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-28-2011 10:44 AM zi ko has seen this message but not replied
 Message 85 by Taq, posted 01-28-2011 3:59 PM zi ko has seen this message but not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2107 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 73 of 433 (602384)
01-27-2011 11:12 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by zi ko
01-27-2011 10:34 PM


Theories in science
You can't predict whether some theory is needed or not.
The value of a theory in science is that it explains the relevant data better than any other theory, and that it allows successful predictions to be made, leading to additional data.
By definition a scientific theory is the current best explanation for a given dataset.
Your "theory" does none of these things. It is an idea, or at best an hypothesis.
It does not explain relevant data better than the theory of evolution. It seems, in fact, to be contradicted by much of the data.
In order for your ideas to be taken seriously you need to show where they offer better explanatory power than existing theories, and that they are not contradicted by any significant data. And you also need to have a series of successful predictions.
Finally, you need to present your "theory" to peer-reviewed journals in the relevant fields. The internet is not a good substitute.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by zi ko, posted 01-27-2011 10:34 PM zi ko has seen this message but not replied

  
Larni
Member (Idle past 164 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 74 of 433 (602408)
01-28-2011 6:09 AM
Reply to: Message 72 by zi ko
01-27-2011 10:58 PM


Re: Mechanism?
As i answered Tag neuronal biology could test my theory
How could it test your hypothesis? What is your experiment?
I don't say "believe me , i am right". But only" think, maybe there is another truth than this you unquestionably now believe"
What you are saying is "I think this is true, go test it". But you have given no reason for people to follow your logic of why you think it is true.
If you think that science is about unquestioningly believing things then you know as much about the scientific method as you do about the existance of Psychology.
It does not need, any new proposition, that doesn't fit to our established beliefs, to hurt us.
I have no idea what this means.
Edited by Larni, : spellink and clarity.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by zi ko, posted 01-27-2011 10:58 PM zi ko has seen this message but not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 75 of 433 (602417)
01-28-2011 10:44 AM
Reply to: Message 72 by zi ko
01-27-2011 10:58 PM


Pah-lease
I don't say "believe me , i am right". But only" think, maybe there is another truth than this you unquestionably now believe".
Well that's awefully presumptuous and pretentious of you
I don't think anyone who's discussed with you in this thread unquestionably believes anything.
And your "idea" is so bad that the people here have already invested more time in trying to help you than its worth.
This whole "maybe I am right" stuff is bullshit. I mean, maybe the Flying Spagetti Monster is controlling evolution.
But since we've recognized your idea as crap, you're sticking with it maybe being right but us just not wanting to consider it because we don't want to question current theory. Pah-lease

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by zi ko, posted 01-27-2011 10:58 PM zi ko has seen this message but 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