|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Summations Only | Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: New theory about evolution between creationism and evolution. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zi ko Member (Idle past 3648 days) Posts: 578 Joined: |
You've already stated that you are only speculating in the other thread. Time to end things, I think. Evidence is not a condition of a theory. A theory must becoherent and can be just challenged in terms of logic and arguments. Evidence for or against is highly desired but not a reason not to be discussed in a forum. So my question (which i think is crucial) remains: Do epigenetics accept the idea of information flow from environment to genome though neural system? Edited by zi ko, : No reason given. Information: It is time its undeservedly neglectet powerful role to evolution to be restored.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Evidence is not a condition of a theory. Umm, yes it is.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
Do epigenetics accept the idea of information flow from environment to genome though neural system? That is great example of a 'research question': it is not a theory. What is the definition of theory, you are using?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8563 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 4.7 |
Evidence is not a condition of a theory. Oh, zi ko, this is so very very wrong! Evidence is not necessary, but desirable, for a speculation. But for an hypothesis, and even more so for a real full blown theory, evidence is not just a condition it is a hard fast requirement. Do not confuse the scientific definition of "theory" with the pop-culture misuse of the term. This is a science issue. I think you need to get your definitions in order before you continue here.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zi ko Member (Idle past 3648 days) Posts: 578 Joined: |
AZPaul,
I have shown that scientists on epigenetics uniquivocally accept information flow from environment to genome (Baldwin effect, epigenetics in wikipedia, Cooney et all. 2002) . Cooney hasn'd said it straightly but he implied it quite clearly. You haven't comment on it yet. I think this matter has to be settled for before any further discussion. Information: knowledge communicated or received concerning a particular fact or circumstance. Edited by zi ko, : No reason given. Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Touch up subtitle to get rid of smilie.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zi ko Member (Idle past 3648 days) Posts: 578 Joined: |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
They prove also that the authors believe that life style (obviously by neural system- how else it coulld be done?) can affect epigenome areas. It is simple as that. Sorry Zi Ko, I've already pointed out to you why this is wrong, either you really can't understand plain english or you are just lying at this point. The papers they referred to were not looking at the epigenome, they were looking at health and longevity. The quotes you gave were from the introduction talking about the work of others, not the epigeentic factors studied in that paper. TTFN, Cooney et all clearly are implying environment genome communication. MY english are not so good as yours, but on this matter i have to insist. Edited by zi ko, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zi ko Member (Idle past 3648 days) Posts: 578 Joined: |
Not only. Tthey prove also that the authors believe that life style (obviously by neural system- how else it coulld be done?) can affect epigenome areas. It is simple as that. Once again, epigenetics does not explain the difference between species. The theory you are trying to replace DOES Not only. Tthey prove also that the authors believe that life style (obviously by neural system- how else it coulld be done?) can affect epigenome areas. It is simple as that. Once again, epigenetics does not explain the difference between species. The theory you are trying to replace DOES explain the differences between species. You seem to have a problem here. You seem to have a problem here. My theory (http://www.sleepgadgetabs.com), or as you like to call it, does explain the differences between species, as it encorporates all mechanisms your theory is using, plus the information concept. Your concept of strictly random mutations restricts Current theory's ability to explain new scientific findings, and so its validity. Information: It is time its undeservedly neglectet powerful role to evolution to be restored.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zi ko Member (Idle past 3648 days) Posts: 578 Joined: |
Using my analogy above, we are not doubting the existence of cars or rainbows just as we do not doubt mutations or empathy. What we doubt is the claim that cars CAUSE rainbows just as we doubt that empathy guides mutations. Your analogy is unfortunate. Information impact on genome has been almost proved. Empathy is a type of information. so? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Information: It is time its undeservedly neglectet powerful role to evolution to be restored.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zi ko Member (Idle past 3648 days) Posts: 578 Joined: |
Theory definition: see wikipedia
Edited by zi ko, : No reason given. Information: It is time its undeservedly neglectet powerful role to evolution to be restored.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
A theory needs evidence. It must have evidence: do you not agree?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8563 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 4.7 |
National Academies of Science
quote: Evidence is paramount to having a "theory". And a "theory" must be a "comprehensive" explanation of a phenomenon based upon observable, demonstrable and repeatable evidence for all aspects of the theory. You are missing cogent definitions of "information" and "empathy" and you are missing a defined comprehensive testable mechanism for this effect on a genome. You do not have a theory, zi ko.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Wounded King Member Posts: 4149 From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA Joined: |
Cooney et all clearly are implying environment genome communication. MY english are not so good as yours, but on this matter i have to insist. Well duh! But that isn't what you said that I was objecting to. I've said over and over again that the environment interacts with the genome. What I was objecting to was your assumption that this is via the neural system when I have already shown you papers which detailed the routine biochemical pathways which can mediate the environmental interaction through diet and which do not require the nervous systems involvement. And 'Life style' covers so many variables that to say that 'life style' affects the genome/epigenome is to essentially say nothing. Smoking could be part of a life style, regular and prolonged sunbathing, drinking ethyl methanesulfonate or ethidium bromide could be part of a 'life style'. all of these things would affect the genome, some would even affect the germ cells producing heritable mutations. What this certainly doesn't show is that these environmental factors in any way direct the changes to the genome/epigenome that they produce. Once again you are too vague about what you want to discuss. TTFN, WK
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8563 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 4.7 |
You haven't comment on it yet. Wounded King is our resident expert on these things. His answers to you are more than adequate for my purposes. I refer you to his Message 207 above.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zi ko Member (Idle past 3648 days) Posts: 578 Joined: |
A theory needs evidence. It must have evidence: do you not agree?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Absolutely. But remember there are many theories in science today that started as speculations. My theory (?) (http://www.sleepgadgetabs.com) being so comprehensive, it doesn't need to bring evidence from the scratch. I have the right i think to use any relative evidence that is available, at least in matters that it coinsides with existing scientific findings. So as it refers information flow from environment to genome, i use the evidences brought by J. Shapiro, Cooney and B. Wright. I think they are more than enough. Obviously i need evidence relating my idea of empathy and neural system intervention on the evolution process. Presently i can only speculate. Edited by zi ko, : No reason given. Information: It is time its undeservedly neglectet powerful role to evolution to be restored.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zi ko Member (Idle past 3648 days) Posts: 578 Joined: |
You do not have a theory, zi ko. I don't mind if i have a "theory" AZPauL3. This moment what i care is to make clear to others what i am saying.---------------------------------------------------- Edited by zi ko, : No reason given. Edited by zi ko, : No reason given. Information: It is time its undeservedly neglectet powerful role to evolution to be restored.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024