Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   New theory about evolution between creationism and evolution.
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 140 of 433 (620722)
06-20-2011 11:50 AM
Reply to: Message 139 by zi ko
06-20-2011 11:21 AM


Re: Check your premise
zi ko writes:
But what about according to the following?
A Biochemical Mechanism for Nonrandom Mutations and Evolution
Barbara E. Wright
We've discussed this paper extensively in this thread. If you have some particular point that you think others are missing, I suggest that you make that point more explicitly rather than simply quote the article. We've seen and discussed the paragraph you quoted.
Barbara Wright hypothesizes that organisms have mechanisms that allow a Lamarckian-like adaptation to the environment, and that such mechanisms are likely the product of random mutation/natural selection. Her hypothesis seems more evolutionary than revolutionary, and I'm not all that certain that Shapiro advocates anything different.
What seems goofy to me in all that is the non standard characterization of such mechanisms as sentient. You are sentient, and your digestive system reacts non-randomly to the types of food you eat. But we don't say that your digestion is under sentient control. I don't see that the non-random change mechanisms that Shapiro and Wright discuss are any different.
On the other hand, I do agree that evolution as taught to 9th grade biology students, probably is oversimplified. Modern evolutionary theory likely wasn't being taught when most of the people participating here were in high school. I have no idea what they are teaching now.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by zi ko, posted 06-20-2011 11:21 AM zi ko has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 141 by Larni, posted 06-20-2011 3:46 PM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied
 Message 142 by zi ko, posted 06-21-2011 9:58 AM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 169 of 433 (622951)
07-07-2011 1:57 PM
Reply to: Message 163 by zi ko
07-07-2011 2:36 AM


Re: No evidence!
zi ko writes:
My theory (http://www.sleepgadgedabs.com) lacks any evidence. But it is strongly logical, comprehensive, broadly coherent , basically Lamarckian.
Your link does not seem to go anywhere. Can you provide another pointer?
Scientists generally don't call concepts or explanations without any evidence theories.
Edited by NoNukes, : ask about link.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 163 by zi ko, posted 07-07-2011 2:36 AM zi ko has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 171 by zi ko, posted 07-07-2011 3:23 PM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 354 of 433 (647290)
01-09-2012 1:36 AM
Reply to: Message 342 by foreveryoung
12-27-2011 11:56 AM


Course work
I have attempted 14 credit hours and my GPA for those hours is 3.91. Nothing I have learned so far in geology and biology and the philosophy of science has shown me that either YEC or the biblical flood is a myth.
I'll go out on a limb here. Saw away if you can.
You've attempted 14 credit hours (less than one semester's worth, or about 5 courses) towards a curriculum that includes philosophy of science. There is simply no way that you have completed any technically rigorous science/engineering college coursework. "Science for Poets" certainly doesn't meet that description.
Your seemingly hubris laden statement is likely to be completely accurate, but only because you have learned doodly-squat so far.
Even a high school physical science course includes geological information which contradicts the idea that the earth is < 10,000 years old. You are of course free to disbelieve such information or to refuse to learn it, but that doesn't mean that the evidence was not presented.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. The proper place to-day, the only place which Massachusetts has provided for her freer and less desponding spirits, is in her prisons, to be put out and locked out of the State by her own act, as they have already put themselves out by their principles. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 342 by foreveryoung, posted 12-27-2011 11:56 AM foreveryoung has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 386 of 433 (656994)
03-24-2012 1:12 PM
Reply to: Message 384 by zi ko
03-24-2012 8:33 AM


Re: Do random mutations have predictive value?
Buying lottery by a man is not equivalent of "buying lottery" by nature, becouse nature has a great purpose to fulfill , e.g preserve life . Also it can choose between different possibilities, or as it happens usually, it can combine all them.
Nature is an abstract concept that roughly speaking refers to the entire world outside of things that result from man's own purpose. Nature is literally incapable of having any purpose, because it possess no sentience. Similarly, it is only by colloquial thinking that we can even say that Nature is indifferent to life, because non-entities cannot even be said to have feelings.
Perhaps your anthropomorphism of Nature has some rationale and logic behind it. But so far, it is a rationale and logic that I do not see and that you do not explain. What I do see is muddled, and non-linear thinking, that I would label irrational. Of course, I could be wrong.
Perhaps if you explain what entity it is that you actually believe has such a purpose, or how a non-entity might at least euphemistically be said to have purpose, others could more easily understand what you mean.
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison

This message is a reply to:
 Message 384 by zi ko, posted 03-24-2012 8:33 AM zi ko has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 387 by zi ko, posted 03-25-2012 10:07 AM NoNukes has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 388 of 433 (657064)
03-25-2012 1:33 PM
Reply to: Message 387 by zi ko
03-25-2012 10:07 AM


Re: Do random mutations have predictive value?
Nature's purpose could be imposed by:
1.The existing universal laws.
Not directly, because existing "universal laws" is just another abstract concept that cannot possess sentience or purpose. In fact, what we call laws are simply our observations of how the universe seems to work.
2.By a supernatural entity.
I think you are really limited to only this possibility. The first possibility is just patent nonsense, and is what allows you to say that when an apple falls to the ground, it is being directed by sentience.
I think that either of them is logically preferable to me as a cause of life, than randomness. Of course somebody could prefer the last one; But in any case it is a matter of belief, and not a scientific conclusion, as many here tent irrationally to to think.
Yes, and I suspect that if you were to simply call your "theory" a belief rather than trying to pretend it was science, this thread would not be approaching 400 messages in length.
Edited by NoNukes, : remove extraneous quoted material.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison

This message is a reply to:
 Message 387 by zi ko, posted 03-25-2012 10:07 AM zi ko has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 389 by Panda, posted 03-25-2012 2:37 PM NoNukes has replied
 Message 390 by zi ko, posted 03-25-2012 2:44 PM NoNukes has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 391 of 433 (657074)
03-25-2012 2:50 PM
Reply to: Message 389 by Panda
03-25-2012 2:37 PM


Re: Do random mutations have predictive value?
Isn't this example tautological?
'existing universal laws' is a reasonably accurate simile for 'nature'.
Perhaps it is. Your definition of nature is as good as any. I'm just trying to come up with an expression that shows the problems with assigning a purpose to something is not a being, and that cannot plan. If I have recited a tautology, then I don't see that recital to be a problem.
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison

This message is a reply to:
 Message 389 by Panda, posted 03-25-2012 2:37 PM Panda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 393 by Panda, posted 03-25-2012 5:25 PM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 392 of 433 (657075)
03-25-2012 3:08 PM
Reply to: Message 390 by zi ko
03-25-2012 2:44 PM


Re: Do random mutations have predictive value?
Nobody said universal laws possess sentience or purpose. But they could lead to creatures that have them.
Statements like the above are the reasons why I generally avoid your threads.
You said:
Nature's purpose could be imposed by:
1.The existing universal laws.
You did not say that Nature could produce purposeful creature's but that Nature itself had purpose and you compared Nature holding a purpose to a supernatural being having a purpose in the same message. But the fact is that Nature cannot be distinguished from universal laws.
Your statement that nature can produce creatures that have purpose is not a point of dispute. The question is instead whether random variation with a process that selects for surviving long enough to reproduce can result beings with sentience and purpose. You don't believe that, but you have not expressed evidence based reason for your belief.
I see your denial that there is evidence to believe that random mutation with natural selection can result in purposeful sentient beings, but I only see your own incredulity in support of that denial.
I consider this post to be my summary, since I have not played a significant role in this thread.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison

This message is a reply to:
 Message 390 by zi ko, posted 03-25-2012 2:44 PM zi ko has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 394 by zi ko, posted 03-26-2012 10:25 AM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024