|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Summations Only | Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: New theory about evolution between creationism and evolution. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8513 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
This moment what i care is to make clear to others what i am saying. I think you have accomplished this. The problem you now face is presenting adequate evidence to show your speculations have merit. As I said in Message 206 your speculation that neural systems can channel environmental "information" via "empathy" into directed alteration of a genome needs to be evidenced with precise definitions and a complete mechanism. It is not that we do not understand, zi ko. You have given us nothing but your ideas and we do not agree.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zi ko Member (Idle past 3620 days) Posts: 578 Joined: |
[qs]I've said over and over again that the environment interacts with the genome.[\qs]
But you need to clarify, what do you mean by this. This interaction is done by natural selection or otherwise. Be specific please.
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. You are right. This is an assumption of mine. There is no evidence about it .It can or cannot be provet correct. So here is the theory's falsifiability. As for the papers you have cited , i understand that environmental interaction thrugh diet does not require nervous system intervention. But speculating about i inferred that some types of life style require this intervention ,as i suppose you had said as well.
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. It depends what meaning do you give to the word 'direct'.If you imply any teleology, this is not my intention. Information: It is time its undeservedly neglectet powerful role to evolution to be restored.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member (Idle past 164 days) 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]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zi ko Member (Idle past 3620 days) Posts: 578 Joined: |
This moment what i care is to make clear to others what i am saying. I think you have accomplished this. The problem you now face is presenting adequate evidence to show your speculations have merit. As I said in Message 206 your speculation that neural systems can channel environmental "information" via "empathy" into directed alteration of a genome needs to be evidenced with precise definitions and a complete mechanism. It is not that we do not understand, zi ko. You have given us nothing but your ideas and we do not agree. My comprehensive theory has two parts.The first one is based on old knowledge and contemporary scientific findings and asserts by adequate, i think, evidence that environmental information flow ( not by natural selection)"directs" evolution. The second comprises my non evidenced assumptions of neural system involvement in the process of evolution, and empathy's role in this process. For the second part i can not insist i am wright and you can agree or not.But for the first part i think you have to be specific and bring arguments if you dont agree -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Information: It is time its undeservedly neglectet powerful role to evolution to be restored.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zi ko Member (Idle past 3620 days) Posts: 578 Joined: |
I expected arguments against the first part of my theory (environmental information flow to genome) where there is plenty of evidence., or you don't disagree. You could more specific.
Edited by zi ko, : No reason given. Information: It is time its undeservedly neglectet powerful role to evolution to be restored.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member (Idle past 164 days) Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
I have already agreed that the environment affects evolution: by natural selection and anything that increases mutation rates.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8513 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
My comprehensive theory ... Please, zi ko, stop using this terminology. You cannot present a "comprehensive theory" when you have no "theory" and what you do present is not in the least bit "comprehensive".
The first one is based on old knowledge and contemporary scientific findings and asserts by adequate, i think, evidence that environmental information flow ( not by natural selection)"directs" evolution. Overview of Natural Selection A more detailed treatment of Natural Selection Your first part, with some evidential support, posits that the effects of environment can directly affect the phenotype, and in a few very limited cases, the genotype. This is well known and is the modification part of the equation. But ... The resulting phenotype must survive and procreate within the environment or die out. This is the process of Natural Selection. Ultimately, Natural Selection determines what variations, no matter their source, are effective, survive, propagate, continue and which variations die and do not continue. Even the statistical results of allelic drift in static populations must pass through the greater environment. You cannot escape the sieve of Natural Selection in evolution. Natural Selection is the big hammer in evolution and cannot be avoided. Modification and Natural Selection direct evolution.
The second comprises my non evidenced assumptions of neural system ... Until you can evidence this vector of genotypic modification this has no efficacy. Edited by AZPaul3, : spelins korekshons Edited by AZPaul3, : some change
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Wounded King Member Posts: 4149 From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA Joined: |
This interaction is done by natural selection or otherwise. It is both. The environment interacts with the genome by testing it and providing the matrix within which variants experience differential reproductive success so as to give rise to the patterns of natural selection. Certain elements of the environment also interact with DNA either directly or indirectly, such as the examples I gave of mutagens and the methyl supplements. The vast majority of such genetic/epigenetic modifiying interactions occur in the somatic cells, but a small proportion occur in the germ cells. In these cases there are well understood biochemical pathways for the modifications that arise both in somatic cells, germ cells and the cells of developing embryos.
Be specific please. you mean like when I then went on to give several examples of environmental factors which could affect genomes? How was that not being specific?
But speculating about i inferred that some types of life style require this intervention ,as i suppose you had said as well. There is some pretty convincing evidence that many aspects of the nervous system are affected by epigenetics, including elements of memory. What there isn't is any reason to believe that this in any way means that the nervous system modifies the genome/epigenome of the germ cells as would be required for heritability.
It depends what meaning do you give to the word 'direct'. Well what meaning do you give to the word 'direct' or indeed to the term 'non-random'? If you simply mean that not all mutations are equiprobable then it is trivially obvious but has nothing to do with what you have been talking about. A definition of what you mean by information would also be very useful, and possibly what you mean by epigenetics. So why don't you do the clarification for a change since this is supposed to be your theory after all? TTFN, WK
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zi ko Member (Idle past 3620 days) Posts: 578 Joined: |
National Academies of Science quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The formal scientific definition of theory is quite different from the everyday meaning of the word. It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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. In wikipedia' s definition of SCIENTIFIC THEORY not once you find the word evidence
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Wounded King Member Posts: 4149 From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA Joined: |
Well the first paragraph refers to both 'observable phenomena' and 'empirical data' . If you look further down in the article you will see that it lists 'It is supported by many strands of evidence' as one of the key criteria of a scientific theory.
TTFN, WK
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member (Idle past 164 days) 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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9975 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7 |
In wikipedia' s definition of SCIENTIFIC THEORY not once you find the word evidence You should learn to use Ctrl+F. A simple search for the word "evidence" would have lead you to this section:
quote: It is sloppy work like this which makes us doubt that your speculations hold merit. I will agree that many speculations have become solid scientific theories. However, it took evidence and testing for those speculations to become theories. You have not even proposed a testable hypothesis yet, so you have failed to provide testable predictions and evidence which Wikipedia definition states that a scientific theory requires.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9975 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7 |
As for the papers you have cited , i understand that environmental interaction thrugh diet does not require nervous system intervention. But speculating about i inferred that some types of life style require this intervention ,as i suppose you had said as well. How do differences in lifestyle specifically guide the process of mutagenesis in germ cells so that specific beneficial mutations are produced? You keep forgetting what your speculation actually is.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8513 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
In wikipedia' s definition of SCIENTIFIC THEORY not once you find the word evidence Wounded King answered this above. So, yes, zi ko, in wikipedia' s definition of SCIENTIFIC THEORY is the requirement for lots of evidence. Besides, if there were to be any conflict in definitions it is the National Academies' definition that would prevail in this forum. If you have a body similar in scope to the National Academies in your country you might want to check there. Science is science the world over and I would be surprised if they did not also recognize the primary requirement of evidence in the formalism of "theory".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zi ko Member (Idle past 3620 days) Posts: 578 Joined: |
I
It is both. The environment interacts with the genome by testing it and providing the matrix within which variants experience differential reproductive success so as to give rise to the patterns of natural selection. Certain elements of the environment also interact with DNA either directly or indirectly, such as the examples I gave of mutagens and the methyl supplements. The vast majority of such genetic/epigenetic modifiying interactions occur in the somatic cells, but a small proportion occur in the germ cells. In these cases there are well understood biochemical pathways for the modifications that arise both in somatic cells, germ cells and the cells of developing embryos. IN any case even if neuronic information transfer to genome happens, there are always biochemiical pathways, though many not understanably being identified yet. I agree in general with all you say. except in the participational proportion of the above mechanisms in nature. We should not forget there wasn't any research specifically on neural system intervention, propably because of the difficulties the matter is presenting.The important thing is that ,being at the begginings, it is accepted at least in some cases, there is a type of information transfer from environment to genome.This, of course , means there are mechanisms grown up for it. This what i was sayng all the time. There is some pretty convincing evidence that many aspects of the nervous system are affected by epigenetics, including elements of memory. What there isn't is any reason to believe that this in any way means that the nervous system modifies the genome/epigenome of the germ cells as would be required for heritability. I believe that soon there would be such reason. It is unavoidable ( this is my theory's prediction andfalsifiability point)
Well what meaning do you give to the word 'direct' or indeed to the term 'non-random'? If you simply mean that not all mutations are equiprobable then it is trivially obvious but has nothing to do with what you have been talking about. A definition of what you mean by information would also be very useful, and possibly what you mean by epigenetics.
It is nice to allow me to use the word theory. So why don't you do the clarification for a change since this is supposed to be your theory after all?Direct- random: Environmental Information , by altogether biochemical pathways always, direct evolution. Natural selection is always present. Random mutations are not excluded, but most of them are in away directet by information. 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