|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Summations Only | Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: New theory about evolution between creationism and evolution. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10067 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
Surely a very "bad" luck for some "believers" of dogmatic and suspicious science. Projection at it's finest. You have started a thread with nearly 250 replies in which you put forth ideas with zero evidence, zero predictive power, and zero knowledge of biology. Even when this is pointed out you continue to push it, almost like it was . . . oh, I don't know . . . a dogmatic belief. When asked for evidence for the randomness and unguided nature of mutations we cite several peer reviewed scientific papers that support our claims. Your response? You accuse us of being believers in a dogmatic and suspicious science. Perhaps you need to rethink your approach to these forums?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8546 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 5.0 |
In case that one or more researchers proved that nerous system does intervenes in evolution process and empathy has effect on genome, how would you call my"speculations" then?
Proved? Science can never "prove". Only religion does that, and badly. But, I won't pick. I understand what you mean. I hope I understand the question correctly. It depends on the strength of the evidence and whether the experiments have been successfully reproduced. You are proposing an extraordinary vector of genetic change and it will take extraordinary sets of evidence to show its validity. Let us assume the best for you and say that sometime later this year a study is published succinctly defining both "information" and "empathy" and identifying a possible mechanism through the neural net by which this "information" can alter the genome. If the study was duplicated with the same results in peer review then I would say your speculations would take on the mantel of "hypothesis". If additional studies by groups around the world continued to show the same results with the same conclusions then your hypothesis would enter the realm of "theory" and would be incorporated into the Theory of Evolution along side the other known vectors of genomic change. If this near impossible state of affairs were to actually arise the one thing to keep in mind is that since you did not do the work you will not receive any of the credit. Speculations, even when they are shown to be correct, usually do not garner honor for the speculator. The first one to do the intellectual grunt work and publish a logical and viable proposed mechanism usually is granted the credit.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zi ko Member (Idle past 3645 days) Posts: 578 Joined: |
I agree with your logic.I am trying to find a working and short expression of my "theory" (again this damned word. It is difficult to avoid it) for communication reasons: "Speculations about a possibly right or wrong new theory (again!) about evolution?" or "speculations about a new hypothesis about evolution"?.I think there is a void here in English language.It would be so easy, if we accept a loose meaning of the word.
Information: It is time its undeservedly neglectet powerful role to evolution to be restored.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2131 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
I am trying to find a working and short expression of my "theory" (again this damned word. It is difficult to avoid it) for communication reasons: "Speculations about a possibly right or wrong new theory (again!) about evolution?" or "speculations about a new hypothesis about evolution"?.I think there is a void here in English language.It would be so easy, if we accept a loose meaning of the word. In science a theory is the end result, the highest level of attainment, while what you have come up with is but the beginning. Your problem reflects the differing meanings of the word "theory" in science vs. general usage. This is not a void in the language, but the result of sloppy usage on the part of the general public. Perhaps "speculation" would be a more apt term for your ideas? Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DrJones* Member Posts: 2290 From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 8.7 |
It would be so easy, if we accept a loose meaning of the word.
If we're talking about science why should we accept the loose meaning of any word?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10067 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
I agree with your logic.I am trying to find a working and short expression of my "theory" (again this damned word. It is difficult to avoid it) for communication reasons: "Speculations about a possibly right or wrong new theory (again!) about evolution?" or "speculations about a new hypothesis about evolution"?.I think there is a void here in English language.It would be so easy, if we accept a loose meaning of the word. Speculations are one step below hypotheses. A hypothesis is testable. You have yet to describe a testable hypothesis. Therefore, you are still way below the hypothesis stage of science.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8546 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 5.0 |
It would be so easy, if we accept a loose meaning of the word. It would be easy, yes, but if you want to be taken seriously in a science discipline I would advise against using the word "theory" at this point. If you are looking for a title for a formal paper on your ideas I would suggest something like: "Information, Empathy and Neural Networks: A Speculation on Genomic Change" or something to that affect.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10067 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
If you are looking for a title for a formal paper on your ideas I would suggest something like: "Information, Empathy and Neural Networks: A Speculation on Genomic Change" or something to that affect.
I would suggest the title, "Is Mutation Guided by Information, Empathy, and Neural Networks?". At this point, it is simply a question. There are many papers out there with titles that are questions. They are usually written to communicate highly speculative ideas such as the one zi ko is pushing. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8546 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 5.0 |
"Is Mutation Guided by Information, Empathy, and Neural Networks?". That's a good one. I like it. But then I imagine the page with the title and credits written at the top then being blank until about mid-way down where a small "No." appears. But that's just me. Edited by AZPaul3, : fix oops Edited by AZPaul3, : clarity
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zi ko Member (Idle past 3645 days) Posts: 578 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.
Information: It is time its undeservedly neglectet powerful role to evolution to be restored.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zi ko Member (Idle past 3645 days) Posts: 578 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. What do you mean? Do i have to support the relation of my ideas with the theory of Shapiro ect?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
What do you mean? Do i have to support the relation of my ideas with the theory of Shapiro ect? Of course you have to! Otherwise you could link to a YouTube clip of the magic fucking roundabout and proudly proclaim to have evidence for your idea.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024