Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8896 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-22-2019 4:21 AM
38 online now:
caffeine (1 member, 37 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,541 Year: 3,578/19,786 Month: 573/1,087 Week: 163/212 Day: 5/25 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
45
6
78
...
11Next
Author Topic:   Evolutionary Theory Explains Diversity
caffeine
Member
Posts: 1600
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 76 of 160 (516074)
07-23-2009 8:51 AM
Reply to: Message 63 by interrelation
07-22-2009 8:26 AM


Re: Did Not
Since I've always done those simple experiments to many animals
that I've encountered to see how they behaved in their life.
And one conclusion had only been around:
organisms change or interrelate by the mechanism of biotic preservaton and
not natural selection. Nailing the TOE on its own coffin.

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. Youíve claimed several times that your experiments have demonstrated Ďinterrelation theoryí 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.

Letís consider, then, what results weíd expect for these experiments from an evolutionary perspective. The theory of evolution states that heritable traits which increase a lifeformís ability to produce successful offspring will spread in populations, so weíd 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 Ďhigher causeí like mating). Your experiment shows that a ratís 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, Iím 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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by interrelation, posted 07-22-2009 8:26 AM interrelation has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by interrelation, posted 07-24-2009 11:20 AM caffeine has responded

  
interrelation
Member (Idle past 3437 days)
Posts: 31
From: Japan
Joined: 07-20-2009


Message 77 of 160 (516163)
07-23-2009 5:40 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by Theodoric
07-22-2009 1:59 PM


Re: OK lets get down to basics
Here is my working definition of theory. This is where I follow.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nL5GotAVN58


This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Theodoric, posted 07-22-2009 1:59 PM Theodoric has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by Theodoric, posted 07-23-2009 5:51 PM interrelation has responded

    
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 5954
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 78 of 160 (516165)
07-23-2009 5:51 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by interrelation
07-23-2009 5:40 PM


Re: OK lets get down to basics
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:
Scientific Law: This is a statement of fact meant to describe, in concise terms, an action or set of actions. It is generally accepted to be true and universal, and can sometimes be expressed in terms of a single mathematical equation. Scientific laws are similar to mathematical postulates. They donít really need any complex external proofs; they are accepted at face value based upon the fact that they have always been observed to be true.

Specifically, scientific laws must be simple, true, universal, and absolute. They represent the cornerstone of scientific discovery, because if a law ever did not apply, then all science
based upon that law would collapse.

Some scientific laws, or laws of nature, include the law of gravity, Newton's laws of motion, the laws of thermodynamics, Boyle's law of gases, the law of conservation of mass and energy, and Hookís law of elasticity.

Hypothesis: This is an educated guess based upon observation. It is a rational explanation of a single event or phenomenon based upon what is observed, but which has not been proved. Most hypotheses can be supported or refuted by experimentation or continued observation.

Theory: A theory is more like a scientific law than a hypothesis. A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers. One scientist cannot create a theory; he can only create a hypothesis.



Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by interrelation, posted 07-23-2009 5:40 PM interrelation has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by interrelation, posted 07-24-2009 11:58 AM Theodoric has not yet responded

    
interrelation
Member (Idle past 3437 days)
Posts: 31
From: Japan
Joined: 07-20-2009


Message 79 of 160 (516227)
07-24-2009 7:13 AM
Reply to: Message 70 by Granny Magda
07-22-2009 1:57 PM


Re: Did Not
Since nothing in your post is even close to coherent and since you seem unable or unwilling to address what is being said to you, I will leave you to your delusions of grandeur. Clearly nothing I say will make the slightest impact on you and any further effort on my part to help you see through these delusions will be wasted effort. You appear to be beyond help. I can only reiterate my suggestion that you abandon your silly ideas and go and get an education and, perhaps, a psychiatric examination.

Every things you said had impact on me. But I am also thinking for a better explanation.

But anyway, thank you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by Granny Magda, posted 07-22-2009 1:57 PM Granny Magda has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by PaulK, posted 07-24-2009 7:46 AM interrelation has not yet responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 14749
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 80 of 160 (516230)
07-24-2009 7:46 AM
Reply to: Message 79 by interrelation
07-24-2009 7:13 AM


Re: Did Not
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by interrelation, posted 07-24-2009 7:13 AM interrelation has not yet responded

    
interrelation
Member (Idle past 3437 days)
Posts: 31
From: Japan
Joined: 07-20-2009


Message 81 of 160 (516253)
07-24-2009 10:47 AM
Reply to: Message 74 by RAZD
07-22-2009 10:15 PM


Re: Silly experiments and reality
Hi again interrelation, I'm still wondering when you will ever deal with the
facts of evolution.

But the question is -- did you do the same experiment with plants - see if
they avoided the stick?

If they don't, and the mechanism is really a process to avoid death,
then should not plants exhibit the same behavior?

Did you do it with bacteria? With sponges? Starfish? Coral? Opossums? Turtles?

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
the mongo beans. They had the same results.

Plants don't avoid stick since plants can't move. You knew it already,
it is very obvious. But there are some plants that I've experimented that
when you touched their leaves, they folded down.
I hope I can give the name to you, but
I will try to search it here in my place.
I knew the name in my local name but I forgot the name in English.
Next time , I can give it you.

The result is the same...Interrelation.

Not yet in bacteria, but the nylon-eating bacteria did interrelate as seen in lab.
With sponges? Not yet. Starfish? Not yet. Coral? Not yet.
Opossums? Not yet. Turtles? Yes. It tried to hide its head when threaten.

Except that you did not test Darwin's concepts nor TOE in any way.
If you don't know that then you know squat about evolution.
What you have done is test individual organisms to see if
they react to their environment -- curiously the ability of
life to react to it's environment is one of the defining
elements of living things.

You are correct that "the ability of
life to react to it's environment is one of the defining
elements of living things" and that is the reason why I had
usd the biotic preservation mechanism as the main
mechanism of Interelation Theory beacsue that it should be.

We know it by test and experiment. In this, I've proved that I'm right.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
You have proven that living organisms exhibit one of the defining elements
of living things. WOW.

I've proven that all living things made life as "first" priority.

You have also shown, yet have not seemed to have observed, is that the
methods used by different organisms to react to their environment are different,
due to their different evolution.

Of course, but there is a sequence..a pattern. That is
the reason why time mechanism is very important.
Even the living organisms too knew the difference
between the "needs" and the "wants" for them.

They need life, they want food.

Which is first? Life first, then food.
Look at the rats again. Let's use a mousetrap.
If the rats sense danger, eventhough the food is
too delicious for them, they fled leaving food.
(Wow, I did it many times in
our house since we had many pests (rats).

This is a pattern...a time mechanism.
This is a simple of pattern in time mechanism.

Except for the minor detail that your experiments have zilch, zero, nada,
zip, rien, nothing to do with natural selection. Why?
Because it doesn't test for the differential preservation of different
inherited traits from one generation to the next within a population.
You don't have a population.
You don't have a generation.
All you have is sadistically tormenting small animals for no apparent purpose.

Eventhough you have population, eventhough you have generation, eventhough you have
million years, TOE will never make it. Why? Since TOE had forgotten time mechanism.
Time mechanism kills TOE.

Now lets look at some more of you silly concepts:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Time mechanism actually limits or kills diversification. That means, time kills TOE.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And again, when we look at the evidence this is not what we see.
The previous example of pelycodus starts with a population with
a variety of sizes, and after time has passed ends up with a wider variety of
sizes split into two distinct populations. This diagram actively shows evolution
occurring:.........

.......Looks to me like the organisms thrived over time,
increasing in diversity, and with no apparent limit.

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
of Interrelation Theory. The graph was telling us that in the process of
their interrelation to the environmenet and surroundings with
respect to time, those lemurs were changing. But very limited. And gradually changing
since the earth geological phase was very slow.

What Interrelation Theory said in the time mechanism is that the lemur will never
cross on its base species. Base species is the species that were designed by CIO
to live and interrelate with the respect to time (era) and surroundings.

Those lemurs were still lemurs. Their change was very limited.
And they changed by the process of BPM.
So, we are still talking Interrelation Theory here.


Can you show where on the side scale (the one that shows time)
where time is being ignored?

If you could see Interelation Theory web site, it talks about
Time Mechanism, the MSM there.

To make it short, nature has her own pattern of any stages,
that if that pattern breaks, the whole system fails.

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),
this fetus with respect to time is following a pattern/stages but fetus
follows a certain fixed and pre-set pattern with time.
But if you could see, this fetus will never break its
pattern in all child-bearing mother's embryo.
If it breaks, the child will die.

The pattern is the same to all human embryo, but the changes
will only/limited to the sizes, weight, exact duration of stages and maybe
position of fetuses with respect to all fetuses in all human embryos.

The fetus has a fixed or limited stages with respect to time
and the change is permissible change of fetus to every embryo to survive.

This is one explanation in time mechanism in Interrelation Theory.

(I had here in my mind clearly but I could hardly put it
in words in English. Maybe I need to rephrase the above explanation
so that all could understand) (Or somebody here could rephrase it for us,
if you understand the concept of time mechanism, please).

So in the above picture, the ignored part is time: that the change of lemur
(like the change of fetus) is inevitable, but this change had a limit.

This is the ignored part.

What causes the limitation? Once you have speciation you have two populations
that increase variations over time, and different natural selection
(the real kind) operating on the two different populations with necessarily
different results -- necessarily different because
(a) the mutations that provide opportunity for increased survival and reproduction will
necessarily be different and
(b) because the ecology that is imposing a selective filter on what
organisms survive and reproduce better than other is also necessarily different.

Diversity by TOE is inevitable. It is specifically predicted by the theory,
And it is observed in reality.

What causes of the limitations? The natural processes or patterns or stages
of cells in all living forms are the limitations. I say cells because I suspect that cells
was the one which is doing it. My observation tells me that nature, to preserve
life, has pre-set and has fixed process but it has also allowable and permissible
factor of change. The CIO is very intelligent since
while the process or pattern in nature is fixed and irreversible,
the process can accumulate limited (allowable) change as factor of safety of that
pattern or process,
and when this process breaks or when the changes exceeds, the system will fail.
Thus, no preservation of life.

What the TOE had been seeing is the only the "allowable or limited change with respect to time"
of the pre-set pattern or stages. That means,
in reality, the actual definition of evolution would be

"Evolution is the allowable or limited change in any process/stage in ansystem with
respect to time"
but since evolution is only a limited change in the system, evolution is not the
purpose of the system nor not the system at all.

Therefore if TOE will forget the time mechanism, TOE will become the whole system,
an not the limited part in the system.

Now, "whole" and "part" is different. Like square and cube is different.

Did you get me?

A true scientist would go back to the drawing board. Actually a true scientist
would never get to your drawing board - they would learn the facts first,
and study evolution rather than beat up the neighbors cats and dogs.

I knew it. I've been going back to my drawing board and found out always
that TOE is wrong since it ignored the time mechanism.

Sadly for you genetics shows that your concept is codswallop. Preserved in DNA
are small inserts caused by viral infections that have been deactivated by
the surviving cells, these insertions are passed on to following generations because
(a) they are there and (b) they do not affect survival, reproduction or development
of the organisms. There is also absolutely no rational reason for exactly the same
insertion of exactly the same kind of virus in exactly the same sequence from one
individual to another, let alone from one species to another.

When these inserts are compared between the genomes of different species they show a
tree of hereditary relationship that logically only comes via common descent from
the individual with the original infection.

Fascinatingly this tree of relationship matches that previously derived from the
homologies in the fossil record. Amazingly they even extend back to the original
life forms, with the three major domains of life, archea, bacteria and eucharyota.

Yeah, the above explanaton fits the TOE.

But, Interrelation Theory has an explanation for that. In Interrelation Theory, the
APM mechanism is responsible for that. In short, the inserts were the results of the
fights between virus and the cells, and the inserts were actually the "scars" left in fight.

I mean, all living organisms to survive had a defense mechanism as stated in my Advantageous
Properties Mechanism. And if we could find it in two different species, in the same place,
then, this virus, on the history of these two species, attacked the two species,
on the same time/era!

That means, the two species had no common descent! The viral infections were telling it so!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by RAZD, posted 07-22-2009 10:15 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by RAZD, posted 07-24-2009 9:58 PM interrelation has not yet responded

    
interrelation
Member (Idle past 3437 days)
Posts: 31
From: Japan
Joined: 07-20-2009


Message 82 of 160 (516256)
07-24-2009 10:57 AM
Reply to: Message 72 by Parasomnium
07-22-2009 2:51 PM


Re: Did Not
So basically, what you're saying is that natural selection is unnatural?
Interesting choice of words, I must say. No wonder it doesn't make sense.

Anyway, I would like to see you describe your BPM in a little more detail.
If it's a mechanism, there must be details you can describe. How exactly does it work?
Can it be influenced in some way, with chemicals, drugs, or whatever?
Does it have a basis in molecular biology? Are there certain organelles
in the cells that regulate its expression? Please, tell us.

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
in a given population interrelates due to the fact that their "life" or "existence"
is very important to them. In short, there is the need for all individual organisms
to preserve and protect their life, as an individual and as an entity. There is also
that force, the biotic preservation force that triggers all individual organisms to
interrelate just to survive. This is the reason why in our observable nature,
all living things interrelates . This is a behavioral mechanism.

Influence in some ways? Yes, possible.

Basis in molecular biology? No, Behavioral biology, I think is OK. Not molecular.
The other mechanism of Interrelation Theory will.

Organelles in cells? maybe not, but in other mechanism, I think it is OK.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by Parasomnium, posted 07-22-2009 2:51 PM Parasomnium has not yet responded

    
interrelation
Member (Idle past 3437 days)
Posts: 31
From: Japan
Joined: 07-20-2009


Message 83 of 160 (516259)
07-24-2009 11:01 AM
Reply to: Message 75 by RAZD
07-22-2009 10:25 PM


Re: Logic Lessons
No, what makes a theory wrong is contradictory evidence, like the evidence of pelycodus and foraminifera (just for starters) that totally invalidate your concept.

Now you have shown that you don't understand natural selection, evolution, life, biology, science, the scientific process and logic.

What's next?

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!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by RAZD, posted 07-22-2009 10:25 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

    
interrelation
Member (Idle past 3437 days)
Posts: 31
From: Japan
Joined: 07-20-2009


Message 84 of 160 (516263)
07-24-2009 11:20 AM
Reply to: Message 76 by caffeine
07-23-2009 8:51 AM


Re: Did Not
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 theoryĀEto 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 expect for these experiments from an evolutionary
perspective. The theory of evolution states that heritable traits which increase a
lifeform ability to produce successful offspring will spread in populations,
so wed expect most lifeforms to exhibit traits that aid in their survival and
reproduction (at least in their usual environments).

It is correct that in living organisms they have heritable trait but
it doesn't mean that this trait will be the factor in the origin of new organisms
or species. It is wrong to conclude that.

You can read my response to RAZD, for further explanation.

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.

Of course, you can call the result evolution by natural selection. But as Interrelation
Theory states that the reason why the plant and all plants are struggling to live
and struggling to change (interrelate) in nature is that because of
biotic preservation mechanism, BPM and not the natural selection.

And the reason why we cannot rely now in TOE is just because TOE had an
incomplete mechanisms. Incomplete mechanisms will result in incomplete explanation,
that will result in incomplete and therefore, erroneous theory in science.

[qs]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 Ďhigher causeĀElike mating).
Your experiment shows that a ratís 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.{/qs

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
Theory states that the reason why the plant and all plants are struggling to live
and struggling to change (interrelate) in nature is that because of
biotic preservation mechanism, BPM and not the natural selection.

And the reason why we cannot rely now in TOE is just because TOE had an
incomplete mechanisms. Incomplete mechanisms will result in incomplete explanation,
that will result in incomplete and therefore, erroneous theory in science.

Now, Iím 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.

I think it is time mechanism that separates TOE from Interrelation Theory.
Of course, Interrelation Theory had still three mechanisms to offer.

Of course, you can call the result evolution by natural selection. But as Interrelation
Theory states that the reason why the plant and all plants are struggling to live
and struggling to change (interrelate) in nature is that because of
biotic preservation mechanism, BPM and not the natural selection.

And the reason why we cannot rely now in TOE is just because TOE had an
incomplete mechanisms. Incomplete mechanisms will result in incomplete explanation,
that will result in incomplete and therefore, erroneous theory in science.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by caffeine, posted 07-23-2009 8:51 AM caffeine has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by caffeine, posted 07-26-2009 8:56 AM interrelation has not yet responded

    
interrelation
Member (Idle past 3437 days)
Posts: 31
From: Japan
Joined: 07-20-2009


Message 85 of 160 (516267)
07-24-2009 11:49 AM
Reply to: Message 73 by lyx2no
07-22-2009 7:01 PM


Re: Change the Header Already
You mistake a motive for a mechanism. Your rat has a motive for squeezing through
an impossibly tiny hole, but that doesn't supply a "how" unless rat wishes come true.
Now, the rat's stress may cause it to suffer an increased, nervous metabolism,
loss of appetite, and weight reduction. There you have a mechanism: anxiety.

Well, since it is life that the rat was protecting, then, it must be
biotic preservation mechanism. Nothing else, nothing more.

Nonetheless, this is not the point at which one reaches a grand conclusion; aka,
THEORY. One says to themselves, "Self, Is there a possible connection with this
rat's predicable behavior to cellulose impactor events (CIE)'s
(Just trying to make my post all sciency like yours) and the long term variation in
rat populations? What might that connection be and how could that connection
be made observable?" If one manages to concoct a mechanism, one makes
predictions of unique, observable, sufficient and necessary outcomes
to which one can tailor experiments that can make plain the connection.
Not wishing to die is a wee bit too ubiquitous to be considered unique,
sufficient or necessary. Congrat's, professional dude, you achieved observable.

What you are asking me are some details. I understand it. But the main job for me is to
make a right mechanisms and theory for the observed facts in nature.
The rests will be details. Of course there are connections since in Interelation Theory,
there are all in all four mechanisms that go hand in hand with each others.

So, to clear those details out are very simple.

First, let's build the house. After that, the furnishing and finishings.


You also keep making the strange argument that proponents of the ToE don't know,
don't care, or don't concur about rat responses to (CIE)'s I think it's safe to
say we all respond negatively to (CIE)'s and therein recognize the impetus for
the rat to seek lodgings elsewhere.

Yeah, there will be some similarity in TOE. But in Interrelation Theory, "life" is the
purpose of all living organisms that is why the main mechanism is biotic preservation
mechanisms BPM. But in TOE, it is the opposite. TOE believes that natural selection is the
main mechanism for rats to change, while in Interrelation Theory, it is the will to survive
or BPM cause those rats to change.

It is the opposite, right? The starting point is totally opposite.

You also have to rid yourself of the silly notion of the more mechanisms the better.
Newton reduced planetary motions to a single mechanism. Anyone want to add a Revolution
Preservation Mechanism (RPM). {I can hear the conservation of angular momentum crowd
even now. Well, shut-up.}{ And before any of you don't shut-up, I know that orbital
deflection is not a conserved property but continually induced by gravity.
So my little joke doesn't really work if given any consideration, So I'll not make it
in stand-up; well, boo-hoo.}

Thanks. You made me laugh.

Have you never notice that we don't now believe that the earth is flat and the sun revolves
around the earth? Why? Because we are looking for new mechanisms that fit the facts.

The more we have mechanisms in the complex living organisms, the more
we can see the actual happening and the actual observable facts in nature.

Planetary motions, angular momentum, orbital deflection,.etc...they are different from
living organisms. So we need to deal them separately. Three dimesions is better than
two dimensions.

Ever hear of the Law of Parsimony: Occam's razor. My own corollary states one event
has one mechanism. ToE has two parts; thus, two mechanisms. Part one: Variation.
Part two: Selection. Mechanism one: Imperfect Replication.
Mechanism two: Limited Resources. Sufficient and necessary.

I knew that. But four mechanisms is not too much in the living organisms.
Why?

Here's why:

evolution is the change in time.

Since TOE does not have time mechanism eventhough its definition requiree it
in its definition, TOE is incorrect. So time actually kills TOE.

You have no new ideas at your website. You've named a few ideas that have been
floating around. Your CIO, or whatever, is the same as the Noah's ark boy's
"kinds" claim. Your "time" thingy is merely a claim to having "discovered"
a mechanism to limit the evolution you're forced to admit. Watch this:

"Hey look guys, an 8th continent."

Okay, who believed me? 'cause I didn't really discover an 8th continent.
I was only pretending. Try it for yourself ĀEOh yeah! That's right. You already did.

I can say that too to TOE. But I think you need to study more on time mechanism,
yeah, just for your own new learning. Once you've seen what I've seen, you will
surely know that I am correct.

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by lyx2no, posted 07-22-2009 7:01 PM lyx2no has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by Perdition, posted 07-24-2009 12:11 PM interrelation has responded
 Message 90 by lyx2no, posted 07-24-2009 2:11 PM interrelation has not yet responded

    
interrelation
Member (Idle past 3437 days)
Posts: 31
From: Japan
Joined: 07-20-2009


Message 86 of 160 (516269)
07-24-2009 11:58 AM
Reply to: Message 78 by Theodoric
07-23-2009 5:51 PM


Re: OK lets get down to basics
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.

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,
then
it is predictable that you cannot make a good conclusion of the facts of nature.

I think the reason why you will defend to death the TOE, not beacsue TOE is correct,
but maybe because of your pre-assumptioned belief, right?

Your definition of theory is still incorrect. You need to watch the video,
it will help you a lot.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by Theodoric, posted 07-23-2009 5:51 PM Theodoric has not yet responded

    
Perdition
Member (Idle past 1314 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


Message 87 of 160 (516270)
07-24-2009 12:11 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by interrelation
07-24-2009 11:49 AM


Interrelation = Evolution, as far as I can tell
Well, since it is life that the rat was protecting, then, it must be
biotic preservation mechanism. Nothing else, nothing more.

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?

Yeah, there will be some similarity in TOE. But in Interrelation Theory, "life" is the
purpose of all living organisms that is why the main mechanism is biotic preservation
mechanisms BPM. But in TOE, it is the opposite. TOE believes that natural selection is the
main mechanism for rats to change, while in Interrelation Theory, it is the will to survive
or BPM cause those rats to change.

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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by interrelation, posted 07-24-2009 11:49 AM interrelation has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by interrelation, posted 07-24-2009 12:19 PM Perdition has responded

    
interrelation
Member (Idle past 3437 days)
Posts: 31
From: Japan
Joined: 07-20-2009


Message 88 of 160 (516273)
07-24-2009 12:19 PM
Reply to: Message 87 by Perdition
07-24-2009 12:11 PM


Re: Interrelation = Evolution, as far as I can tell
"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.

Time. Time kills TOE.

Can you please, read some of my answers to RAZD.
Read some of my answers/posts here.

If not, you will never know Interrelation Theory.
Know your enemy first b4 u fight.

www.interrelation-theory.com

Edited by interrelation, : No reason given.

Edited by interrelation, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by Perdition, posted 07-24-2009 12:11 PM Perdition has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by Perdition, posted 07-24-2009 12:27 PM interrelation has not yet responded

    
Perdition
Member (Idle past 1314 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


Message 89 of 160 (516275)
07-24-2009 12:27 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by interrelation
07-24-2009 12:19 PM


Re: Interrelation = Evolution, as far as I can tell
Time. Time kills TOE.

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.

Can you please, read some of my answers to RAZD.
Read some of my answers/posts here.

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by interrelation, posted 07-24-2009 12:19 PM interrelation has not yet responded

    
lyx2no
Member (Idle past 2792 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 90 of 160 (516300)
07-24-2009 2:11 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by interrelation
07-24-2009 11:49 AM


Selection ≠ Change
TOE believes that natural selection is the main mechanism for rats to changeÖ
Depending on how you mean this it is either close enough, misleading or wrong. But it nowhere is correct. Selection sorts out mutations between advantageous and disadvantageous. It does not cause them. Changes are random events that happen every time a genome replicates itself.

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.

I can say [it is an imaginary continent] too to TOE.

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.
ó Thomas Jefferson

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by interrelation, posted 07-24-2009 11:49 AM interrelation has not yet responded

  
Prev1
...
45
6
78
...
11Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019