|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 66 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,461 Year: 3,718/9,624 Month: 589/974 Week: 202/276 Day: 42/34 Hour: 5/2 |
Summations Only | Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: New theory about evolution between creationism and evolution. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zi ko Member (Idle past 3641 days) Posts: 578 Joined: |
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Blue Jay Member (Idle past 2719 days) Posts: 2843 From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zi ko Member (Idle past 3641 days) Posts: 578 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10044 Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10044 Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10044 Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10044 Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10044 Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined:
|
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zi ko Member (Idle past 3641 days) Posts: 578 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zi ko Member (Idle past 3641 days) Posts: 578 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2128 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
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
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024