Discussion in 'Biology & Genetics' started by davewhite04, Jan 5, 2015.
Like what? What are the viable alternative theories? Can you name one?
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
Just because we don't yet have a scientific alternative to evolution doesn't mean that there isn't an alternative scientific theory. It just means that we haven't discovered it yet.
But for what it's worth, please see this link (10 alternatives to evolution):
I did ask for viable alternative theories... Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
No, almost every day, more facts supporting ToE are found. = Not dying, but growing stronger.
Some natural changes have time scales much greater than recorded history, so it would certainly would be silly to expect observations of them in the "day to day life." For example, Solar out put is increasing about 0.01% every million years. Do you say the theory than Hans Beta worked out for solar nuclear dynamics and the predictions his theory made wrt neutrino fluxes, now confirmed) is wrong because it is not "matching experiences from our day to day life." That is at best an 11 year sun spot cycle, etc. not included in Beta's theory of how the sun's energy is produced.
Or how 'bout the idea the earth is round - not at all in accord with your "experiences from our day to day life" so you believe it "cries out" for some alternate theory explaining why no one has yet found the edge of the flat, but slightly wrinkled by mountains, earth.
Because evolution is similar to natural history theory, supported by science, many cannot seem to grasp the idea that although the data collected can be valid (good science support) and this data does show changes within life over time, this solid foundation does not mean that the logic used to explain the history layer is as solid.
I don't accept the history layer completely, but I do accept the support data. For some reason too many people are conditioned to assume if you don't accept the theory (history lesson) you also don't support any of the support science data. This is two different things. The data is separate from the theory.
An analogy is revisionist history, where education presents solid data and facts that can be proven to be true and use this to support an alternate theory of periods in America History. The supporters will argue if you can't accept the theory, then you are being irrational because the facts presented are true. The magic trick has to do with cherry picking some of the data, and forming a theory from only the select data. The best curve for this partial data is different from a curve that uses all the data in proper proportions.
The current theory of evolution, unknowingly cherry picks in that it ignores the equilibrium impact data connected to water, that has been there since day one. It is cherry picking only some of the data. It draws the best curve through its selected data, but I content it leaves out some important data; wrong curve
I have been showing some of the impacts of water, that is not on that curve. The lack of awareness of data is not a deliberate magic trick. But it can make is harder for others to see through the misguided sincerity of its proponents.
Relative to Creationism, the way I resolve this POV is it too is cherry picking data to provide an alternate history theory. It does not take into account older data than 6000 years, like fossils. It is actually drawing a curve for something other than biology. It is drawing a curve for the history of modern human consciousness. Science can show the time scale of the bible data correlates to the time scale of early civilization and the invention of written language. Language is assumed, by many, to be necessary for consciousness, with written language setting a collective conscious standard in terms of cultural uniformity and integration of thought; civilization. This theory fits the data base selected by the bible and is symbolically consistent with the time scales defined by science.
Evolution goes back much further in time. The confusion between their connection, is connected to biology calling humans, human, based on common biology and DNA, and not a modern version of human consciousness discussed in the bible; creation uses behavior instead of biology; spirit.
If a species of birds changes song, compared to a close relative bird nearby, this will be considered a separate species. One will not call both the same species, since behavior changes that become consistent this is often used as proof of evolution. There is inconsistency in cataloging in terms of a more far reaching change within human language/song, yet this is not considered a new species of human. There is a dual standard designed to undermine common sense for political purposes.
If humans, changing behavior into all the needs of civilization and language is not a new species; Adam and Eve, than one can't use the dual standard for animal behavior changes between related critters and call that new species.
I would conclude that a new human species evolved, about 6000 years ago, based on very profound and wide spread behavior changes due to changes in neuron water potential, which can impact both the brain and/or the genetics. The equilibrium changes many things at the same time so there is integration.
Of which, what 8 of 10 are religious in nature? So, creationism. I'm going to go out on a limb here and can 'morphic resonance'.
'Better matches experience from our day to day lives' - what, the day to day existence over which the central argument of theists is that evolution cannot be observed?
Do you find enjoyment out of making up these fantasies? This type of 'stuff' should be in the fringe section.
With fossil evidence, because the data is spread out over time and space it is discontinuous. This allows us to see large changes in morphology that we can attribute to evolution. But in real time, we don't see a fish become a bird or the same level of change we see with the fossils. The changes that occur are very subtle and not always seen by the untrained eye.
If we reverse this and assume that subtle changes occur in real time, then the fossil data becomes misleading to the untrained eye, in that it implies large quantum changes; fish to bird, even though real time data shows the process to be far more continuous and subtle. These are opposites in terms of how change occurs.
If evolution is more continuous, as evident by real time change that we are told is there, then you will need something that can explain constant and continuous change, and not just random fish to bird fossils. This is where water comes it. It allows global equilibrium so change allows all the ducks in a row; helps integrate any change.
I never like the genetic mutation model, as applied to evolution, even if this can explain fossil data well and it can be done in the lab. If we assume random changes in the DNA, this will lead to more real time defects than it will lead to useful changes. The genetic change in not random if the dice are loaded by the water.
If we use a car and all its components as an analogy to simulate the DNA, if randomly change components, such as 56 chevy alternator for the existing alternator, the odds of creating problems is higher than the odds of making the car better. How about truck tires in exchange for car tire. You need a plan not dice rolling oracles to allow for real time change that seems to smell mostly like roses and not skunk.
Well, you answer your own argument in the second paragraph: the impression of the untrained eye is misleading. Hence, no more 'agreeable' explanation is required - and water does not occupy a special place in this, wellwisher. It is a medium in which biological solutes occur. The special role it has is just the result of its own chemistry.
Oh, not again. Yes, most mutations are likely to be deleterious. Some are not. If you "don't like" the genetic mutation model, there is nothing left to explain the inheritance of de novo phenotype or phenotypic means. It is not "loaded by the water" any more than by sodium, potassium, calcium, albumin, pH or anything else - DNA is chaperoned along in transition and expression by a number of aspects including transcriptases, histones, polymerases and the like. God almighty. It's like James was saying above about air - the water is everywhere. It is a solvent, a solute carrier. That's it. You can't pick self-organising principles out of the air and claim that water is responsible - particularly not as you have backslid and now eschew organic evolution again. Enough, wellwisher. This is woo.
Evolution explains our development from single cell organisms to current organisms quite well. We see it in use every day; indeed, principles from evolution are used in everything from crop hybridization to computer programming. We can see organisms evolve in the lab, and we can even see very basic synthetic life evolve. It is growing quite quickly.
Bill, you warned me earlier about this discussion and I ignored it. I'm sorry. You were right.
sorry, i can't retract something that someone else said james.
when ayala said"we would not have predicted stasis, but i believe what the paleontologists say, that small changes do not accumulate".
that is pretty well saying "i don't accept" natural selection, in my opinion anyway.
if i am wrong, then explain to me how.
i have a question, how did lewin get this quote from ayala?
he either heard his words or he read them in a paper, one or the other.
lots of people read this article and quite a few knew ayala, none has EVER made a plea to science regarding this ayala matter.
why do you suppose that is james?
you seem almost desperate to squash this discussion for some reason.
giving me 60 infraction points for a post, threatening to ban me left and right.
creating the thread and naming it a denial thread and including as a first post one from a known creationist.
are you afraid of something james?
am i getting too close?
are you afraid of getting caught with your hand in the cookie jar?
i recently found corroborating evidence for why ayala said what he did.
the science article refers to these gaps as "typical".
this implies that there could be transitional fossils.
the attached file goes one step further than that james
pay close attention to what niles eldridge has to say about the record.
but wait, he retracted, he was on drugs, he was a creationist.
i ran down a couple more sources too, i need to find them first though.
Having trouble with your comprehension of that command leopold?
More of the same.
So are you going to apologize for your lie, which was a condition of your return?
HEIL HEETLA ! !
ALL HEIL DER FEWER ! ! !
i don't respond well to threats james.
i will respond to you post, but not under threat of ban.
Here's your kiss leopold...
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
The guy who said it said he didn't say it. So you can keep saying it, but we all know it's not valid and just makes you look like an asshole.
ah, but it is relevant geoff.
i'm not saying evolution is dead, i AM saying we have some serious shit going on with this retraction stuff.
well, it seems to me that we have 3 factions vying for power.
1. the gradualists
2. the "new" darwinists, PE, lamarkism, etc.
3. the creationists, ID'ers.
it appears to me that it is the gradualists that raise the most stink.
RAV has come right out and said it, if you deny gradualism you deny evolution.
that simply isn't the case.
if you deny gradualism then you MUST accept some type of spandrel creation, either structural or biomolecular.
10 to 1 says NAIG is gradualist in nature.
why aren't you a moderator geoff?
i believe what i have presented is supported geoff.
somebody isn't liking this for some reason.
i have my ideas but can't quite pin it.
i've given two different views of the conference and there are at least 2 more to be found.
BTW, this conference was by invite only.
what about MY frustration geoff?
well let's see what james has to say about the file i uploaded.
yes, and how do you resolve them in the face of the science article and the file i uploaded?
the complete absence of transitional fossils is a non issue?
this isn't a "single evolutionary biologist" geoff, it's the record itself.
oh but it is geoff, the uploaded file is proof of the sorry state of the record.
like i said, most of the bucking and kicking is coming from the graudalists.
sorry, it wasn't a quote mine, the words was printed verbatum in an issue of science.
i copy/pasted them myself.
the uploaded file is further evidence.
there are at least 2 more i need to find.
the major problem with revising evolutionary theory is the creationists.
every single time an anomaly is pointed out, you have some creationist out there loudly proclaiming "SEE ! ! SEE ! ! I TOLD YOU SO ! !
gradualists are almost as bad, the are so scared that their beloved theory might be wrong, and i'm not sure why that is.
they might be assuming that if gradualism is wrong then creationism is right.
and it would be an invalid assumption.
the only thing dead here is creationism, there is simply no way a god came down here spitting all over the place and life starts popping up.
Leopold, there is not a 'complete absence of intermediary forms'. Every form in a group is an intermediary of something and the differences are not so vast. Ayala was misinterpreted. As largely a gradualist on basis of that same evidence, I'm not at all in doubt of the theory: patterns in genetic variance strongly support such gradualism since most of the individual variants are responsible for small proportions of overall variance.
Separate names with a comma.