|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Summations Only | Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: New theory about evolution between creationism and evolution. | |||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
Neural system being the intermediator, passes information between sperm/ova and somatic cells . But, but, but, you have no evidence that that actually happens! This is not very removed form the idea that there is unconsious transmission of information from mother to feotus. Again, a pretty idead but there is no evidence to support it so it has to be rejected based on there being no evidence. How is uncounsious transmission different from your idea of information exchange between neurones and sperm and ova?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
It is true. There is not any evidence at the moment .It might be in the future, or it might never be.It is exactly where falsfiability of a theory or idea is applied. Presently i can only see that ALL findings ln genetic biology dp not contradict with my theory. Falsifiability is such an interesting concept: for a hypothesis to get off the ground it needs to be falsifiable. This means we need a null hypothesis. What is your null hypothesis? If you don't know how a null hypothesis relates to a hypothesis you have no business using the word falsify. I don't think you know what it means: prove me wrong.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
I can cut n paste stuff off the net with no idea what it means, too.
Please restate what H0 is in your own words.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
Falsifiability for a theory is to be able to be tested in order to be found wrong or wright. The fact that yours cannot tells you what, exactly?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
You've already stated that you are only speculating in the other thread.
Time to end things, I think. Edited by Larni, : Spellink
|
|||||||||||||||||||
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
A theory needs evidence. It must have evidence: do you not agree?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
it doesn't need to bring evidence from the scratch. Bullshit. No evidence, no theory. All else is wishful thinking.
Obviously i need evidence relating my idea of empathy and neural system intervention on the evolution process. Presently i can only speculate. [/thread]
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
I have already agreed that the environment affects evolution: by natural selection and anything that increases mutation rates.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
I think the problem you are having is that you are talking to people who are or have been working scientist who have had specific (and often tedious) training in research methods.
You seem to be coming from the position of an arm chair philosopher. The scientists who you believe will find that your idea has merit have had exactly the same training the science types on this site have had. They will tell you what we have: you have an unsupported idea that does not have a convincing rational. If I saw this as a research proposal for and MSc (for example) I would reject it and so would an accademic supervisor. One of the fundemental points of conducting any research is having a decent rational. You have admitted that you don't: why are we still having this conversation? As an aside (and feel free to ignore this question) do you have any higher accademic qualifications?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
[sigh]This is just going around and around, now. Zi has been told about evidence and is not talking it on board and I don't think she ever will.[/sigh]
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
Untill that time comes you will be known as somebody without the slightest scientific acumen.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
I would also suggest that the word speculative is appropriate at this stage. You are essentially speculating about one aspect of evolution.
With all due respect this is a world away from a comprehensive theory, as you described it as, up thread.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
At this point, until zi ko describes an experiment that can answer the question it will remain a question. Not a hypothesis. Not a theory. A question. As far as I can see there is no rational, either.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
i agree with your suggestion. In any case the most part of my "theory" , as i discovered in this and other relative threads, after i had formed it, had been adequally dealt long ago by Shapiro Wright, pigliucci, Yablonca. As in not supported.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024