|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Summations Only | Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: New theory about evolution between creationism and evolution. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member (Idle past 164 days) Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined:
|
Who ever said that animals can't feel empathy?
Empathy exist, any psychologist or therapist knows that (I could not do my job without it): but the ability of empathy to affect the genome is unsupported by the evidence. As you well know. You keep telling me about empathy but it is clear you don't actually understand what you are quoting. There used to be a theory called 'unconscious transmission'. When I was an undergrad in mid 90's one of my professors still believed in it. The idea was that the mother and foetus would communicate on an unconscious level. But (and here is where we find congruence with your story) no matter how heartfelt my professor was in his belief in 'unconscious transmission' the theory has been abandoned by academia because there never was any evidence to support the idea. It was an idea that a lot of people held to because they liked the sound of it. That is what is happening here: you like the sound of empathy being involved in evolution. But you idea is no different from 'unconscious transmission'.
If this is the case and empathy, among others, but mainly transfers stress related information, There no valence attached to empathy. This is what makes me question whether you really know what you are talking about. Edited by Larni, : Last quote
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zi ko Member (Idle past 3619 days) Posts: 578 Joined: |
If this is the case and empathy, among others, but mainly transfers stress related information, is it impropable to infer the importance of it to evolution? God forgive me but I can see where you are coming from. What you seem to be saying is that when an organism in under a selective pressure there is a 'change' in the 'rate' of evolution and another organism can acquire a like 'change' through some information channel that you are calling empathy. Am i right? About so. You have to consider as well, that this same senario is repeated maybe millions of times over generrations, to have this effect. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------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: |
There is no evidence of any 'effect', though is there?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zi ko Member (Idle past 3619 days) Posts: 578 Joined: |
That is what is happening here: you like the sound of empathy being involved in evolution. But you idea is no different from 'unconscious transmission'.
I don't talk about subconcious transmission. But babies communicate with mother from one year of age (wikipedia)
There no valence attached to empathy. My idea is that as empathy is a transgenerational phenomenon with the SAME SENARIO, it can succesfully affect genome. So it is an important and very useful means for organism to evolute and survive, for nature in its economy law not to take advantage of.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zi ko Member (Idle past 3619 days) Posts: 578 Joined: |
As there no for many concepts in science (f.e about randoness in mutations).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member (Idle past 164 days) Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined:
|
I don't talk about subconcious transmission. But babies communicate with mother from one year of age (wikipedia) I was using UT as an example of an idea someone had that had no evidence to support it and was thus not accepted by science.
it can succesfully affect genome. But it does not effect the genome. The environment does (via NS) but empathy does not.
As there no for many concepts in science (f.e about randoness in mutations). I'm not clear on what you are saying. Please try to spell words correctly and to put them in the right order. Edited by Larni, : No reason given. Edited by Larni, : clarity
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zi ko Member (Idle past 3619 days) Posts: 578 Joined: |
I'm not clear on what you are saying. Sorry. As there (are) not(evidences) for many concepts in science (f.e about randoness in mutations).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member (Idle past 164 days) Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
But there is evidence for randomness in mutations.
Please show any directed mutions you have evidence of. And a little tip: you keep writing (f.e.) and then stating an example. You should write (e.g). Hope that helps. Edited by Larni, : E.g.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Wounded King Member Posts: 4149 From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA Joined:
|
If this is the case and empathy, among others, but mainly transfers stress related information, is it impropable to infer the importance of it to evolution? OK so we need to add 'Stress' to the list of words you just use willy nilly. The article is talking about specific cellular stresses, this is in no way the same thing as emotional stress. The article also seems to be from the Intelligent Design site Evolution News & Views and the language is heavily skewed to a subjective interpretation from that perspective, which explains why their argument about a specified system being unable to evolve through random evolution makes no sense. As far as I can see it has no possible relevance to your claims, if you feel it does you will have to rely on something more substantial than mere semantics to demonstrate it. TTFN, WK
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zi ko Member (Idle past 3619 days) Posts: 578 Joined: |
The article is talking about specific cellular stresses, this is in no way the same thing as emotional stress. Obviously there is an analogy between these states.
The article also seems to be from the Intelligent Design site Evolution News & Views and the language is heavily skewed to a subjective interpretation from that perspective, which explains why their argument about a specified system being unable to evolve through random evolution makes no sense. Idon't bother about their interpretations, but the article treats the matter seriously and is in accord with other scientists (Shapiro, Wright ect)Information: It is time its undeservedly neglectet powerful role to evolution to be restored.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Wounded King Member Posts: 4149 From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA Joined:
|
Obviously there is an analogy between these states.
OK, so apparently you don't understand the concept of analogy either or if you do then you should realise that the fact you can draw an analogy between 2 things doesn't mean that their similarities extend any further than the actual analogous features that can be identified. If you had a really compelling analogy then you might even go as far as to predict the existence of a previously unrecognised feature of one of the systems, but in the absence of evidence it would only be speculation. Sadly for your argument you are nowhere near that depth of analogy, indeed you don't actually put forward any reason why emotional stress and environmental stress on a cell are actually analogous. You merely claim this is obvious, but the basis for this seems to be nothing more than the commonality of the term 'stress', as I said semantics.
Idon't bother about their interpretations
Well everything you quoted was nothing more than that, it presented nothing substantive. The idea that cells react to certain particular environmental stimuli in specific ways, and to certain types of genetic damage, is wholly uncontroversial. The only thing that article does is rehash widely accepted science with an ID spin.
Shapiro, Wright
Really, by now you should have realised that all your insistent and endless appeals to authority do is make it look like you have absolutely nothing to say. If you want to discuss the research of those authors then do that, but don't just throw them out there like some magical talisman against actually having to provide evidence and an argument. If you think that the article you cited actually has anything relevant to your claims then maybe you could highlight what it was, what you quoted so far just suggests that you can't do better to support your position than picking up ID propaganda that happens to have a particular keyword you are fixated on associated with it. TTFN, WK Edited by Wounded King, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member (Idle past 164 days) Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
WK writes: If you think that the article you cited actually has anything relevant to your claims then maybe you could highlight what it was, This is exactly what I asked zi ko, up tread. The response?
zi ko writes: What do you mean? Do i have to support the relation of my ideas with the theory of Shapiro ect? Can you believe it?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zi ko Member (Idle past 3619 days) Posts: 578 Joined: |
If you had a really compelling analogy then you might even go as far as to predict the existence of a previously unrecognised feature of one of the systems, but in the absence of evidence it would only be speculation.
I have never said I have any evidence. In any case i am not qualified for this. and i don't believe it could ever be found.
You also make the mistake of assuming that because some environmental influences, which for the sake of argument we might call 'information', can affect the genome through mutation then all forms of information can, but there is no evidence to suggest that this is the case. Untill there will be any evidence that it doesn't happen ,any body can believe it could. Edited by zi ko, : No reason given. Edited by zi ko, : No reason given. Edited by zi ko, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9972 Joined: Member Rating: 5.5 |
Untill there will be any evidence that it doesn't happen ,any body can believe it could. That is the exact opposite of how things work. We usually need evidence before we believe something. However, I do have some fantastic snake oil and a bridge I would love to sell you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zi ko Member (Idle past 3619 days) Posts: 578 Joined: |
There is a strong analogy between the two states. As there is no evidence against my ideas i can keep them , can't I?
As i keep saying all the time, I wholly accept shapiro's findings, relating to one cell organisms.. So what is the reason to relate them with my ideas? My empathy and neural system conceptions are applied to multicellular organisms, where Shapiro work stops.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024