|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member Posts: 20325 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: Member Rating: 3.6 |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Evolutionary Theory Explains Diversity | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
caffeine Member Posts: 1728 From: Prague, Czech Republic Joined: Member Rating: 5.7 |
For an experiment to make us favour one hypothesis or theory over another, it would have to be testing something where the two different ideas predict different results. You’ve claimed several times that your experiments have demonstrated ‘interrelation theory’ to be a better explanation than the theory of evolution. So, for this to be true, the results would have to, in some way, match the predictions of interrelation theory while differing from the predictions of evolutionary theory. Let’s consider, then, what results we’d expect for these experiments from an evolutionary perspective. The theory of evolution states that heritable traits which increase a lifeform’s ability to produce successful offspring will spread in populations, so we’d expect most lifeforms to exhibit traits that aid in their survival and reproduction (at least in their usual environments). We know that (most) plants need sunlight in order to survive. Evolutionary theory predicts that plants better able to extract energy from sunlight will be more reproductively successful, and so plant populations will exhibit traits which have made them good at getting access to sufficient sunlight. What we see in your experiment is that the plant with little direct sunlight will react by growing further, possibly enabling it to reach sunlight. This is a plant exhibiting a trait which increases its ability to reach sunlight, and thus survive and reproduce. The results of the experiment are perfectly in line with evolutionary theory. Animals need to survive long enough to reach reproductive age before they can leave any offspring. Once they have, the longer they survive the more they can usually produce. For species like rats that care for their young, their continued survival also increases the survival chances of their offspring. From all this, evolutionary theory would predict that animals, generally speaking, exhibit traits that cause them to avoid mortal danger (except when necessary for a ‘higher cause’ like mating). Your experiment shows that a rat’s reaction to a physical threat from a big lumbering thing with a stick is to frantically try and escape, preserving its life. This is exactly what evolutionary theory predicts. Now, I’m not trying to claim that these experiments demonstrate evolutionary theory to be accurate, just that they cannot be used to debunk it. Maybe the results of these experiments accurately match the predictions of your interrelation theory. But then they also fit the predictions of the theory of evolution. As a result, these experiments are useless when it comes to testing which theory has the better explanatory and predictive power.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
interrelation Member (Idle past 3698 days) Posts: 31 From: Japan Joined: |
Here is my working definition of theory. This is where I follow.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 6879 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.3 |
I am not going to watch some Youtube video.
I can only assume that you do not know what a scientific theory is. You seem to be unable to define it. Until you can show you have a basic understanding of something like Scientific Theory, then there is no sense in having any discussion with you on this topic. You have a hypothesis( actually I don't think it even qualifies as that). It is not a scientific theory. If you think it is, you are sadly delusional. TOE is a Scientific theory. Something very different from your theory. No matter what you think they are not on the same ground. Here is a basic primer on laws, hypothesis and theory. As understood in the scientific world. quote: Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
interrelation Member (Idle past 3698 days) Posts: 31 From: Japan Joined: |
Every things you said had impact on me. But I am also thinking for a better explanation. But anyway, thank you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 15629 Joined: Member Rating: 2.8 |
Let me ask a simple question. Where are the actual mechanisms ? You talk about your various mechanisms but only about their alleged effects. Not about the mechanisms themselves.
Why should we assume your "Biotic Preservation Mechanism" when the evidence supporting it can be explained (at least) as well as an outcome of natural selection ? Surely we need direct evidnece for your proposed mechanism - not simply effects which you attribute to it. The same goes for your "Lineage Continuation Mechanism". What is the mechanism and where is the evidence for it ? And exaclty the same goes for your "Advantageous Properties Mechanism". No actual mechanism, nor evidence for any actual mechanism. It is not even clear what your "Maturity Sequence Mechanism" is, since it seems to mainly refer to ageing and death (maybe extinction) yet the example you offer is the immune system fighting infection (surely that is an example of your "APM" - adaption to meet environmental conditions ?). And again you offer no explanation of evidence for any actual mechanism. Rather it seems to be a whole bunch of mechanisms bundled up together.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
interrelation Member (Idle past 3698 days) Posts: 31 From: Japan Joined: |
Hi RAZD, sorry that I'm late in my reply. I was very busy on this days. In plants? Yes, some vegetables garden. I've just watched them the way I've watched Plants don't avoid stick since plants can't move. You knew it already, The result is the same...Interrelation. Not yet in bacteria, but the nylon-eating bacteria did interrelate as seen in lab.
You are correct that "the ability of
I've proven that all living things made life as "first" priority.
Of course, but there is a sequence..a pattern. That is They need life, they want food. Which is first? Life first, then food. This is a pattern...a time mechanism.
Eventhough you have population, eventhough you have generation, eventhough you have
Ok, it is very easy. In TOE, the above explanation maybe correct. But in Interrelation Theory, the graph that had been presented is the graph What Interrelation Theory said in the time mechanism is that the lemur will never Those lemurs were still lemurs. Their change was very limited.
If you could see Interelation Theory web site, it talks about To make it short, nature has her own pattern of any stages, For example, let us look at the human embryo... The fetus has a pattern, a change, a time sequence and stages. From the time of sexual intercourse (release of gamete), The pattern is the same to all human embryo, but the changes The fetus has a fixed or limited stages with respect to time This is one explanation in time mechanism in Interrelation Theory. (I had here in my mind clearly but I could hardly put it So in the above picture, the ignored part is time: that the change of lemur This is the ignored part.
What causes of the limitations? The natural processes or patterns or stages What the TOE had been seeing is the only the "allowable or limited change with respect to time" "Evolution is the allowable or limited change in any process/stage in ansystem with Therefore if TOE will forget the time mechanism, TOE will become the whole system, Now, "whole" and "part" is different. Like square and cube is different. Did you get me?
I knew it. I've been going back to my drawing board and found out always
Yeah, the above explanaton fits the TOE. But, Interrelation Theory has an explanation for that. In Interrelation Theory, the I mean, all living organisms to survive had a defense mechanism as stated in my Advantageous That means, the two species had no common descent! The viral infections were telling it so!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
interrelation Member (Idle past 3698 days) Posts: 31 From: Japan Joined: |
Thanks for the question. Yes, TOE's natural selection is really unnatural. I don't know if you had read this: Biotic Preservation Mechanism (BPM) is a mechanism in where all individual organism Influence in some ways? Yes, possible. Basis in molecular biology? No, Behavioral biology, I think is OK. Not molecular. Organelles in cells? maybe not, but in other mechanism, I think it is OK.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
interrelation Member (Idle past 3698 days) Posts: 31 From: Japan Joined: |
Yes, a theory can be considered wrong by contradictory evidence. And the cause of this contradictory evidence is that TOE is incomplete in the light of new evidence. TOE ignores time...just like flat-earthers ignore the pictures of earth from space, from moon!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
interrelation Member (Idle past 3698 days) Posts: 31 From: Japan Joined: |
It is correct that in living organisms they have heritable trait but You can read my response to RAZD, for further explanation.
Of course, you can call the result evolution by natural selection. But as Interrelation And the reason why we cannot rely now in TOE is just because TOE had an [qs]Animals need to survive long enough to reach reproductive age before Well, what should I say. In TOE perspective maybe you are correct. Of course, you can call the result evolution by natural selection. But as Interrelation And the reason why we cannot rely now in TOE is just because TOE had an
I think it is time mechanism that separates TOE from Interrelation Theory. Of course, you can call the result evolution by natural selection. But as Interrelation And the reason why we cannot rely now in TOE is just because TOE had an
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
interrelation Member (Idle past 3698 days) Posts: 31 From: Japan Joined: |
Well, since it is life that the rat was protecting, then, it must be
What you are asking me are some details. I understand it. But the main job for me is to So, to clear those details out are very simple. First, let's build the house. After that, the furnishing and finishings.
Yeah, there will be some similarity in TOE. But in Interrelation Theory, "life" is the It is the opposite, right? The starting point is totally opposite.
Thanks. You made me laugh. Have you never notice that we don't now believe that the earth is flat and the sun revolves The more we have mechanisms in the complex living organisms, the more Planetary motions, angular momentum, orbital deflection,.etc...they are different from
I knew that. But four mechanisms is not too much in the living organisms. Here's why: evolution is the change in time. Since TOE does not have time mechanism eventhough its definition requiree it
I can say that too to TOE. But I think you need to study more on time mechanism, Well, eventhough you cannot accept this theory, I don't care. Even so, Interrelation Theory is still there, observable and yestable. Pleae, read my reply to RAZD. I think you will know this theory a little bit.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
interrelation Member (Idle past 3698 days) Posts: 31 From: Japan Joined: |
How come you pre-judge me without seeing the video??? If that is the way you treat an event and problem in nature, judging without seeing the facts, I think the reason why you will defend to death the TOE, not beacsue TOE is correct, Your definition of theory is still incorrect. You need to watch the video,
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Perdition Member (Idle past 1575 days) Posts: 1593 From: Wisconsin Joined: |
So, by biotic preservation mechanism, you mean instinct that has evolved to keep an organism alive long enough to produce offspring? Why didn't you just say so?
The mechanism of change is mutation with selection. Rats don't change by will, they don't decide how to change or what to change into. If they could do that, they'd never starve or drown because they could change themselves into a bird to escape or a fish to swim. But in TOE, life is still the main purpose of all organisms, so far that living is a prerequisite for passing on genes. What you're proffering is something that does not predict anything different form evolution, does a worse job of explaining how populations change and why, and offers nothing that can be called evidence in favor of your idea because everything you've offered is also evidence for evolution. So, I want you to make a very short, one or two sentence response to this message. Take your time, I've got years. I want you to answer this one question, and nothing else: "What does your idea predict that is in conflict with evolution, and can you show that the prediction you make is actually the way things work? If you can't answer this question, then your idea has no scientific worth and will be relegated to the trash heap of all failed ideas and hypotheses. Edited by Perdition, : Changed the header already
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
interrelation Member (Idle past 3698 days) Posts: 31 From: Japan Joined: |
Time. Time kills TOE. Can you please, read some of my answers to RAZD. If not, you will never know Interrelation Theory. Edited by interrelation, : No reason given. Edited by interrelation, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Perdition Member (Idle past 1575 days) Posts: 1593 From: Wisconsin Joined: |
Time is an integral part of TOE. BZZZZT!! Try again. "What does your idea predict that is in conflict with evolution, and can you show that the prediction you make is actually the way things work?" If you can't answer this question, then your idea has no scientific worth and will be relegated to the trash heap of all failed ideas and hypotheses.
Your posts, to RAZD and everyone else, contain mumbo-jumbo and unsupported assertions disguised as facts. I understand you're not a native English speaker, but I often find it very difficult to understand what you're trying to say, and laboring through a novella length post is not something I'm prepared to do, even if the post is the most elegantly written ever. I just want you to post something that contradicts TOE, and show how that what you claim is actually true.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
lyx2no Member (Idle past 3053 days) Posts: 1277 From: A vast, undifferentiated plane. Joined: |
BPM is an effect, not a cause. It is a one of the methods of increasingly efficient replication that genomes have blindly stumbled upon while replicating themselves. A genome is stupid. It replicates itself because that's what genomes do. They don't know. They don't care. They can't. Chemistry is the driving force, not life. Life is what we call that chemistry which successfully reproduces itself. BPM is an attempt give that chemistry (life) deeper meaning. If genome replication has no meaning to genomes there's no need to consider one in the ToE. LCM is also an effect of genomes falling into increasingly efficient methods of replicating themselves. They don't have the capacity to foresee, understand, or plan these methods. Genomes that stumble upon a more efficient method of replication increase their numbers at the expense of those that do not. The stumbling is called mutation, the replication at the expense of others is called selection. APM is a hodgepodge of nonsense. Part of it is a reiteration of LCM. Part of it is MSM. There might be a kernel of independent idea in there but a gnat just few up my nose so I'll be sorting that out leaving you to sort out an independent APM. Your MSM does not deal with time. It is artifice forced upon you to satisfy your insistence that organisms don't evolve beyond their "type". That organisms do evolve beyond their "type" removes the need for it.
You can say the ToE is imaginary. But you can pull your boat up it, disembark and build a house on it. Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019