Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   New theory about evolution between creationism and evolution.
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 241 of 433 (623935)
07-14-2011 3:16 PM
Reply to: Message 234 by zi ko
07-14-2011 12:34 PM


Re: DOUPTING IS THE BEAUTY OF SCIENCE
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 234 by zi ko, posted 07-14-2011 12:34 PM zi ko has not replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 242 of 433 (623947)
07-14-2011 5:49 PM
Reply to: Message 229 by zi ko
07-14-2011 11:27 AM


Re: "Theory" in Science
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 229 by zi ko, posted 07-14-2011 11:27 AM zi ko has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 243 by zi ko, posted 07-14-2011 10:37 PM AZPaul3 has replied

  
zi ko
Member (Idle past 3619 days)
Posts: 578
Joined: 01-18-2011


Message 243 of 433 (623956)
07-14-2011 10:37 PM
Reply to: Message 242 by AZPaul3
07-14-2011 5:49 PM


Re: "Theory" in Science
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 242 by AZPaul3, posted 07-14-2011 5:49 PM AZPaul3 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 244 by Coyote, posted 07-14-2011 11:29 PM zi ko has not replied
 Message 245 by DrJones*, posted 07-14-2011 11:30 PM zi ko has not replied
 Message 246 by Taq, posted 07-15-2011 12:39 AM zi ko has not replied
 Message 247 by Larni, posted 07-15-2011 4:58 AM zi ko has not replied
 Message 248 by AZPaul3, posted 07-15-2011 8:47 AM zi ko has replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 244 of 433 (623958)
07-14-2011 11:29 PM
Reply to: Message 243 by zi ko
07-14-2011 10:37 PM


Re: "Theory" in Science
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 243 by zi ko, posted 07-14-2011 10:37 PM zi ko has not replied

  
DrJones*
Member
Posts: 2284
From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 08-19-2004
Member Rating: 6.8


Message 245 of 433 (623959)
07-14-2011 11:30 PM
Reply to: Message 243 by zi ko
07-14-2011 10:37 PM


Re: "Theory" in Science
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 243 by zi ko, posted 07-14-2011 10:37 PM zi ko has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 246 of 433 (623965)
07-15-2011 12:39 AM
Reply to: Message 243 by zi ko
07-14-2011 10:37 PM


Re: "Theory" in Science
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 243 by zi ko, posted 07-14-2011 10:37 PM zi ko has not replied

  
Larni
Member (Idle past 164 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 247 of 433 (623985)
07-15-2011 4:58 AM
Reply to: Message 243 by zi ko
07-14-2011 10:37 PM


Re: "Theory" in Science
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 243 by zi ko, posted 07-14-2011 10:37 PM zi ko has not replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 248 of 433 (623999)
07-15-2011 8:47 AM
Reply to: Message 243 by zi ko
07-14-2011 10:37 PM


Re: "Theory" in Science
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 243 by zi ko, posted 07-14-2011 10:37 PM zi ko has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 249 by Taq, posted 07-15-2011 11:45 AM AZPaul3 has replied
 Message 252 by zi ko, posted 07-22-2011 1:07 AM AZPaul3 has seen this message but not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 249 of 433 (624012)
07-15-2011 11:45 AM
Reply to: Message 248 by AZPaul3
07-15-2011 8:47 AM


Re: "Theory" in Science
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 248 by AZPaul3, posted 07-15-2011 8:47 AM AZPaul3 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 250 by Larni, posted 07-15-2011 1:18 PM Taq has not replied
 Message 251 by AZPaul3, posted 07-15-2011 3:36 PM Taq has not replied

  
Larni
Member (Idle past 164 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 250 of 433 (624029)
07-15-2011 1:18 PM
Reply to: Message 249 by Taq
07-15-2011 11:45 AM


Re: "Theory" in Science
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 249 by Taq, posted 07-15-2011 11:45 AM Taq has not replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 251 of 433 (624055)
07-15-2011 3:36 PM
Reply to: Message 249 by Taq
07-15-2011 11:45 AM


Re: "Theory" in Science
"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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 249 by Taq, posted 07-15-2011 11:45 AM Taq has not replied

  
zi ko
Member (Idle past 3619 days)
Posts: 578
Joined: 01-18-2011


Message 252 of 433 (625265)
07-22-2011 1:07 AM
Reply to: Message 248 by AZPaul3
07-15-2011 8:47 AM


Re: "Theory" in Science
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 248 by AZPaul3, posted 07-15-2011 8:47 AM AZPaul3 has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 253 by Larni, posted 07-22-2011 4:19 AM zi ko has replied

  
Larni
Member (Idle past 164 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 253 of 433 (625292)
07-22-2011 4:19 AM
Reply to: Message 252 by zi ko
07-22-2011 1:07 AM


Re: "Theory" in Science
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 252 by zi ko, posted 07-22-2011 1:07 AM zi ko has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 254 by zi ko, posted 07-28-2011 11:38 AM Larni has replied

  
zi ko
Member (Idle past 3619 days)
Posts: 578
Joined: 01-18-2011


Message 254 of 433 (626310)
07-28-2011 11:38 AM
Reply to: Message 253 by Larni
07-22-2011 4:19 AM


Re: "Theory" in Science
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 253 by Larni, posted 07-22-2011 4:19 AM Larni has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 255 by Larni, posted 07-28-2011 1:41 PM zi ko has replied

  
Larni
Member (Idle past 164 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 255 of 433 (626330)
07-28-2011 1:41 PM
Reply to: Message 254 by zi ko
07-28-2011 11:38 AM


Re: "Theory" in Science
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 254 by zi ko, posted 07-28-2011 11:38 AM zi ko has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 256 by Panda, posted 07-29-2011 6:21 AM Larni has not replied
 Message 257 by zi ko, posted 07-29-2011 11:52 AM Larni has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024