Anyone interested in this new theory? (because as any decent intelligent man knows, darwinian evolution is seriously flawed)

just go here

Towards a Grand Unified Evolution theory (http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Rampart/4871/alt-evolu.html)

any interesting comments?

take care,

c'est moi ;)

I was willing to give the dude that you referenced some slack until he stated:


For example Princeton’s PEAR lab has demonstrated beyond all reasonable scientific doubt,[viii] that a conscious mind can influence the outcome of random event generators.

In fact, that never has been the conclusion of that study, which I previously linked to, and cited here (http://www.sciforums.com/f27/scb950b482076f9a1d695ca8caf74497e/showthread.php?threadid=3998&pagenumber=5).

The guy's piece is one large hypothesis with nothing but anecdote to support it. It looks scientific, and it quacks scientific, but it isn't really scientific, is it?

"In fact, that never has been the conclusion of that study, which I previously linked to, and cited."

Oh no??????
SO you are fighting the conclusions of the two professors carrying out the experiments for many years.

I think you have to catch up your understanding of what consciousness is and how it interacts with its environment.

May I suggest Michael talbot's "The Holographic Universe" to expand your consciousness.

It's true, the effect in their experiment was small, but it was there.

"The guy's piece is one large hypothesis with nothing but anecdote to support it. It looks scientific, and it quacks scientific, but it isn't really scientific, is it?"

I'm sorry, but it's still so hypothetical because we lack knowledge of what conscious energy is and what it is able to do.
The theory makes prediction consistent we everything we know today and it doesn't contradict the fossil record, in fact, it predicts that kind of fossil record: new life, fully formed appearing out of nowhere.
Tell me, why do we have only 30,000 genes? Where has your charachter etc. been 'encoded'? Not in your genes, that's for sure.

Tell me, if you don't believe we affect our environment, how is it possible that quantum physicians have prooved that just by Looking at the particles in an experiment, we already affect the outcome of it.
How do you explain that quantum physicians have prooved that the only time an electron behaves like a particle is when we look at it (for the rest it always behaves as a wave).

How is it possible to respoond like that to PK, how is it possible :confused: :confused:

Originally posted by c'est moi
I'm sorry, but it's still so hypothetical because we lack knowledge of what conscious energy is and what it is able to do. You seem pretty sure about what it's able to do; specifically, manipulate a random number generator.

Let's assume for a nanosecond that that's possible. What are you doing? You're modifying the output of a computer programmed to generate pseudo-random numbers. This means that you're affecting the output of a program with your mind. Most people don't even know what their PC looks like with the case off, yet you think they can manipulate logic gates on the chips?

On the other hand, it would explain a lot. Windows isn't a piece of shit; but the fact that everyone thinks it is means it craps out because of dodgy thought processes, not dodgy programming.

c'est moi,

How can you equate the author's premise that:


Princeton’s PEAR lab has demonstrated beyond all reasonable scientific doubt,[viii] that a conscious mind can influence the outcome of random event generators.

with the researchers' own conclusion that:


5. The series score distributions and the count population distributions in both the collective and individual operator data are consistent with chance distributions based on slightly altered binary probabilities. (http://www.princeton.edu/~pear/correlations.pdf)

and then accuse me of:


fighting the conclusions of the two professors carrying out the experiments for many years.

when in fact I was merely quoting them while fighting a conclusion of the author? If he is in this one specific matter so willing to state certainty based only on slightly altered chance probabilities, how rigorously founded might be his other conclusions?

and where is your answer to my question?

we affect experiments, any quantum physician will agree with that, and yet you believe PK is bullshit, how is that possible???

I am sorry, but I will have to call you an idiot.

A VERY BIG ONE (you even put a source where one can read it that what you say is false)

When you start reading this report, immediately the authors give the conclusion of their experiments after 12 years that the data retreived are BEYOND chance

then go at the conclusions, same there

Would these people after so many years be PROUD of themselves to conclude to have achieved nothing???
"It was all but random stuff, pure chance, sorry for your time."

Okay, you can go and fight their results and conclusions, but it is only an idiot who will say that Dunne et. al have not at all concluded that interaction with consciousness, ie PK has been prooved. THEY SAY IT. GO AND READ SOME INTERVIEWS.

Please, say something more intelligent next time.

And please, also explain why experiments in QF proof micro-PK.

And also, how is it that your thoughts affect your body's health etc., isn't that PK? Or is it magic .......

Just think about who's being "rational". The paradigma of Mechanics is DEATH. Newton is DEATH (at least, his body is).

where is your answer to my question? we affect experiments, any quantum physician will agree with that,

Presumably the same quantum physicians who doctor the data of Quantum Physicists in ways severely out of context with the nature of the actual experiments? If you cannot properly label the researchers doing Quantum Mechanics research are we not also to suspect that your interpretation of their data is similarly flawed?


you believe PK is bullshit, how is that possible???

Um, lack of empirical, independently reproducible, peer-reviewed evidence? Point me to a published, peer-reviewed Journal article, if you can.


reading this report, immediately the authors give the conclusion of their experiments after 12 years that the data retreived are BEYOND chance

And then in the summation they say SLIGHTLY beyond chance -- 1 part in 10,000, if I correctly recall.

Suppose you possess a revolver with 10,000 chambers -- 9,999 chambers occupied by bullets and 1 chamber empty. And suppose you were to spin the chambered cylinder to randomize the experimental output and then place the revolver to your temple for the purpose of pulling the trigger.

How certain are you of the ultimate results of the impending experiment -- that you have psychokinetically positioned the empty chamber precisely where you need it to be?


Would these people after so many years be PROUD of themselves to conclude to have achieved nothing???

Proud to have advanced Science? Yes. One would hope that's precisely how they would feel. Falsification is a most important part of science. Pride in successfully falsifying something is to be encouraged. But I think that you actually mean to imply that scientists should be like just like everyone else seems to be -- seek out only that evidence that can be construed to support their own a priori conclusions rather than seek to discover serendipitously actually meaningful a posteriori conclusions, and to willingly do so at the expense of their own pet notions.


It was all but random stuff, pure chance, sorry for your time.

As I just said, finding out what is not real is more important human pursuit than finding out what appears to be real. In reality (whoa, a pun), they are precisely the very same thing: elimate possibilities and whatever is left is likely to be actually true. Science is more about Falsification and not very much about confirmation.


who will say that Dunne et. al have not at all concluded that interaction with consciousness, ie PK has been prooved.

I do, for one. The data tells me - 1:10,000 variation from chance probabilities.


THEY SAY IT. GO AND READ SOME INTERVIEWS.

I'm much more likely to consider what they say as being elemental and fundimental after their reviewing peers tell me they provisionally agree with the conclusions drawn from the experimental data.

I don't hear, nor see, any of their peers being interviewed, let alone offering up the same conclusions as the original researchers. Why do you suppose that might be?


also explain why experiments in QF proof micro-PK.

I cannot as I do not know what QF is. May I presume that you mean Fhysics?


Just think about who's being "rational". The paradigma of Mechanics is DEATH.

:rolleyes:

mr. g, a pleasure to read ... thanks.

c'est moi, your ad hominem presentation begs to be treated with much less grace than G has afforded you, I think.

I cannot spend my time on you.

I am right, you are wrong.

Any idiot can go and read the conclusions of Jahn and Dunne (Radin, Dean I., and Nelson, Rodger D.,1989, Consciousness-related effects in random physical systems, in Foundations of Physics, Vol 19, pp.1499-514.)

They found that the odds against the overall result being the result of chance was 1 in 1035. (got that??? go read it)

To understand how unlikely it is that this result was obtained by chance, it is like finding a lottery ticket in the street, finding that it is the winning ticket and you have won first prize of millions -- and then continuing to find the winning lottery in the street every week for a thousand years.

There's no purpose in discussing the conclusions of Jahn and Dunne. They kept going on with the experiments in PEAR lab because it looked promessing and because they found positive evidence that micro PK occured.

They only thing you can do is NOT agree with their statement. Stop saying that they did conclude something else.

And obviously, you know zip on quantum physics.

Physicist Nick Herbert says this has sometimes (this = quanta only manifest as a particle when we observe it) caused him to imagine that behind his back the world is always "a radically ambiguous and ceaselessly flowing quantum soup".
And whenever he turns around and tries to see the soup, his glance instantly freezes it and turns it back into ordinary reality.

I hope you do know that this is quite a conventional interpretation, ie quanta behave always as a wave unless being observed.
Did anyone said something on PK?

Consciousness and its interaction with the enironment is conventional in quantum physics. Got that?

That's about enough time spend on you. Go read some books and then come back.

Originally posted by c'est moi
I cannot spend my time on you. I am right, you are wrong.

All things being relative?


Any idiot can go and read the conclusions of Jahn and Dunne.

Obviously.


They found that the odds against the overall result being the result of chance was 1 in 1035. (got that??? go read it)

So, intrigued by the possibility you might actually be right, I searched their original research document (http://www.princeton.edu/~pear/correlations.pdf) for the appearence of the number 1035.

How many times do you imagine that specific number appeared in their supposedly peer-reviewed, published paper?

How many times have you been right so far?


There's no purpose in discussing the conclusions of Jahn and Dunne.

Au contraire.


They only thing you can do is NOT agree with their statement.

Whoa, I'm impressed. We agree.


obviously, you know zip on quantum physics.

I sense that the closer you look the less you see.


Did anyone said something on PK?

Said what?


Consciousness and its interaction with the enironment is conventional in quantum physics. Got that?

You mean, if I observe what you've written than I must suspect that it has no true meaning?


That's about enough time spend on you. Go read some books and then come back.

And here I was hoping you would personally recommend some Dr. Zuess.

I don't want to step into the middle of an argument, but there has been more work on conventional evolution that provides plausible explantions to the increase in information the author of that paper mentions than the evidence he presents.

I don't know much about quantum physics and liked the holographic universe, but there are clearly lots of very subtle things going on in the universe around us that we don't understand. Including microscopic evolution (not to mention this macroscopic type). The author doesn't present any way of experimentally validating his conjecture.

Without the ability to do experiment, all you have is conjecture. He might be right he might not. I think science should focus on the things that can be tested and not conjecture as the scientific method requires experiments.

Arguing whether or not the author of that piece was right is premature. Pretty much no simulations of real world phenomen are accurate. All use approximations. If subtle effects build as the author suggests we have no hope of even being able to model it.

So I suggest not arguing. For the time being it is a theory that exists in the world of belief in the possible. Not the world of proven scientific theory. No amount of arguing will change that and until more conclusive results are obtained it is to easy to interpret things one way or another.

Evolution not only driven by a certain thing, I guess.
Many thing has influence the living creature, so we should make an interdisciplinary studies to know about evolution.

scilosopher, you are right but not totally

just think a moment, where are the experiments to sustain neo-darwinian evolution???
where are the models?

and then consider the devastating evidence against it put forward not only his site, but by many many others (including myself)

if we expand our knowledge of consciousness, plasma behaviour etc. we'll be able to know more on these issues and if the theory is valid
up till now it is a good possibility, much better than the current one which remains because of dogma, not because it is good

c'est moi,
Personally I believe in evolution. Sadly I'm not sure what exactly neo-darwinism states as the basis of evolution so I'm not sure what exactly I am discussing. I may very well not believe in neo-darwinism, but something else related.

With respect to gradual change - gradual change in DNA sequence does not necessarily mean that morphology will change gradually. Richard Milton actually quotes CH Waddington, who did some interesting experiments back in the day. He raised fruit flies under stressful conditions of high temperature and got flies of a range of distinct morphologies (it is also interesting to note that types of cells are similar in that you can get a skin cell or a nueron, but not something in between). There were no intermediate versions. Actually when he bred for one of these traits while heat shocking, after a few generations the progeny would have the altered morphology even under normal conditions. Interestingly enough the variation was already present in the organisms - it was the selection for groups of genes that together gave a certain genetic program altered characteristics that was responsible (actually I'll admit no one has conclusively demonstrated this, but procedures for mapping multiple genes at once are still under development and are quite laborius. There is also some reasonable evidence.).

Development is a very complex and nonlinear process. The expectation of gradual morphological change isn't even in keeping with what is understood to be the basic characteristics of developmental processes.

In regard to the quote: C.H. Waddington, professor of biology at Edinburgh University wrote; "Natural selection, which was at first considered as though it were a hypothesis that was in need of experimental or observational confirmation, turns out on closer inspection to be a tautology, a statement of an inevitable although previously unrecognised relation. It states that the fittest individuals in a population (defined as those who leave the most offspring) will leave most offspring. Once the statement is made, its truth is apparent."

He was certainly not arguing against darwinism. I have read some of his writing including a statement very similar if not identical (it was in a different book than the one listed). He is actually saying it is inarguable that those who leave the most offspring effect the genetic pool (or generally the heritable aspects of a species) the most. If these individuals differ from the average current composition, the genetic characteristics of the species will change. If the environment is very permissive they won't necessarily be more fit, from an objective stand point in relation to the environment (though they will be fit from the point of view of expanding the number of individuals in the population, which gives more redundancy and protection from extinction as well as more gene combinations [which is very important for the mechanisms of evolution through shuffling]). If it is very harsh on average those with characteristics better suited to survival will survive to have kids and thus will be selected for. Thereby giving the population an improved heritable tendency for success.

I actually find it somewhat interesting that the people quoted are skewed to paleontologists since they are only going to look at things from the morphological perspective. Developmental biologists wouldn't expect a gradual change in morphology based even on a linear change in sequence. Also groups of genes are important more than change in single genes. This is accomplished by shuffling during meiosis and can result in very nonlinear shifts in groups of genes even if single genes change at a basic gradual rate.

Disproving neo-darwinism doesn't disprove evolution. Also it does seem that some (at least yourself), want to disprove it because of it's association with randomness in the universe and it's historic mis-application in various instances. Just because it has been tied in with faulty thinking does not mean it is faulty itself.

I do not think evolution is understood or proven, but I do feel it is the best theory available. I have not seen any alternative theory proposed. There certainly isn't more evidence of aliens coming and seeding the planet or god creating us. Any alternative theory also suffers from the same lack of evidence.

Personally I think there are disturbing social aspects of people accepting that "randomness" is what guides the universe. Evolution isn't a random process though even if mutations, which provide the basis for the process are. Personally I think randomness as it relates to science is not what people think of as random (essentially lacking order), but rather it is due to a lack of information and the use of statistics to reason at a general level in that absence. See my thread in free thoughts on is randmoness real? I would have reworded a lot of what I said at this point, but I think the basic gist of my perspective is there.

Tasty seed Scilosopher. Gonna run on my wheel while chewing this one.

"Personally I believe in evolution."

so it's a belief

"Sadly I'm not sure what exactly neo-darwinism states as the basis of evolution so I'm not sure what exactly I am discussing."

are you serious??

"With respect to gradual change - gradual change in DNA sequence does not necessarily mean that morphology will change gradually."

I think you should really get yourself to know the prinicple of irreducible complexity
if you can solve that problem for darwinism, you'll get yourself the nobel price (not kidding here)
I've read a few papers from academics who "solve" the problem, and they were not even near it
all they did was start talking about other things
nobody has solved, and clearly, nobody will, because neo-darwinian evolution is wrong

"Richard Milton actually quotes CH Waddington, who did some interesting experiments back in the day. He raised fruit flies under stressful conditions of high temperature and got flies of a range of distinct ......................."

they were still flies, that's it

"Development is a very complex and nonlinear process. The expectation of gradual morphological change isn't even in keeping with what is understood to be the basic characteristics of developmental processes."

I think you should also study Haldane's dilemma

"Disproving neo-darwinism doesn't disprove evolution."

when did I say that?
further, what do you mean with 'evolution'? you probably mean common descent

"Also it does seem that some (at least yourself), want to disprove it because of it's association with randomness in the universe and it's historic mis-application in various instances. Just because it has been tied in with faulty thinking does not mean it is faulty itself."

I think the evidence is quite convincing by now, not to say which alternative is correct but to say that it surely can't be neo-D.

"I do not think evolution is understood or proven, but I do feel it is the best theory available."

again, what do you mean with evolution?
and also, about which theory are you talking now, because as you said in the beginning 'Sadly I'm not sure what exactly neo-darwinism states as the basis of evolution so I'm not sure what exactly I am discussing', making your reply here sounding strange

"I have not seen any alternative theory proposed. There certainly isn't more evidence of aliens coming and seeding the planet or god creating us. Any alternative theory also suffers from the same lack of evidence."

to whom are speaking now?

"Personally I think there are disturbing social aspects of people accepting that "randomness" is what guides the universe. "

there we agree totally

Belief is not a dirty word. Nothing is proven, everything is belief.

Yes I am serious about not knowing what people define as neo-darwinism. I like ideas not definitions. This does occasionally put me in the unfortunate position of not knowing exactly what someone means, but hopefully they will clarify instead of asking if I'm serious. Could you please clarify and state what neo-darwinism is?

Still flies and that's it... hmm if something is in between a horse and something else equine I would imagine many people would still call it a horse. What do you want me to do, invent a new word just so I can say it is a missing link? (though they were still flies, but this was a lab experiment done over a short period of time, I would be amazed if it's that simple to make a new species).

By evolution I mean natural selection leading to change in organisms genetic makeup, which on average makes them better suited to their current niche. I thought you implied it. You certainly never said it explicitly. Sorry if it sounds strange for me to speak loosely about what I consider to be evolution, when I actually spoke of the mechanisms involved in my post. I generally try to say what I think instead of making statements that require people to read stuff others wrote to try and figure out what they mean. I think this especially dangerous as sometimes they don't mean the same thing as some of the people they might refer you to, but something close. Confusing.

I guess I was talking to the people in some of the quotes your home page linked to, who seemed to think disproving neo-darwinism proved there was a creator.

Irreducible complexity and Haldane's dilemma, I'll check them out ...

"Belief is not a dirty word. Nothing is proven, everything is belief."

that's an extreme way to put things, it's like the Hindus "eveything is an illusion", well, you can't really disproof it
so yes you can say that we know nothing for sure, but don't think everyone will agree with this attitude and certainly not hard-die evolutionists

"Yes I am serious about not knowing what people define as neo-darwinism."

plenty of sites will be able to tell you it
www.talkorigins.com (poor faqs though)

"Still flies and that's it... hmm if something is in between a horse and something else equine I would imagine many people would still call it a horse."

you're not really understanding the issue here
experiments with fruitflies have revealed one thing: Macroevolution works differently than Microevolution

"By evolution I mean natural selection leading to change in organisms genetic makeup, which on average makes them better suited to their current niche."

well that's very simply a def. of what neo-darwinism stands for
so you do know, and that's why I asked if you were serious

Ok, I have the definitions now. But I don't see experiments with fruit flies have shown that macroevolution is different from microevolution.

I accept lot's of things in science as fact, but they aren't really proven they are just really well substantiated. I certainly don't want to get into any philosophical debates though I agree the statement can be interpretted as being extreme and in regard to some contexts it is.

I may have agreed with the definition of neo-darwinism, but that doesn't mean I knew it was the definition. If you had simply responded with a definition of that sort it would have spead up the conversation.

You seem to like directing me to arguments elsewhere and making statements of fact without showing the reasoning. I think it makes for much more interesting threads when people don't do this.

I also haven't seen any evidence that convinces me at all of what you say. If there is evidence please present it or give me a link or reference to a relatively concise summary of it. If you are not aware of such a compilation, at least point me to some evidence.

If this evidence only consists of the fossil record stuff I saw earlier, then whoever thinks it's solid doesn't understand non-linearity or current developmental biology. Neo-darwinism might be wrong, but I don't think it has been clearly disproven by anything you have presented.

I do not have the time nor the desire to go through a whole presentation of everything just for you
i'll give you my website when it's finished

you have to understand, the only thing that the evidence is telling us is that we don't know everything as evolutionists think and that we have to search the explanations else where
evolutionists still think within the paradigma of Newton, but that's completely wrong
the universe is not like a clock
people who still stick with darwinism are
1) just too old and have spend a lifetime working in it
2) have never been attempted to think differently, they are "asleep"
3) practice dogma, are emotionally attached to it (big group here)
4) they don't know maths, they don't know a knew paradigma has started last century, they don't know what 'logic' is => circular reasoning all the time etc.

the discussion on neo-darwinism is quite closed
the next discussion is: what's the best alternative or do we just keep searching for more facts to be able to constitute a new theory in the future

Ok if the discussion is closed I'll stop discussing it with you. In my experience generally the people saying it is closed are the ones who aren't open minded.

I would be curious to know why some people think it's wrong. If you can give me a link/description/etc. that would be great. If your site does the trick let me know address (is it the same as the one you posted earlier) and I'll keep checking til it's done.

Whether it's right or wrong I generally think I would be a good person to discuss it or alternatives with and find it quite unfortunate you have reacted so defensively and aggressively to much of what I've had to say.

Quite simply the Conscious mind can have repercussions upon the universe. I through experiment, have seen how a universe can be shaped just through thoughts, if you don't believe me, just continue to exist and you'll see what I mean.

I don't doubt that - it has repercussions on the type of evolution I believe exists as well as any conscious driven evolution. Choices a species makes certainly affects it's evolution - choice of mate etc. Conscious driven evolution may exist, but is of even more dubious standing than neo-darwinism which was evidently disproven. (In all fairness c'est moi did not say it was what he believed he just wanted to discuss it - just as I was hoping to keep discussing general evolution)

Then again the conscious mind is likely to be affected by evolution and genetics, which we are discussing. Further there are considerations of which came first that are important in the context of this discussion which included the idea of conscious energy driving evolution.

I would need to re-read the original article to comment on what the relation is between conscious energy and human consciousness if it is even covered. From my recollection there was not a concrete tie mentioned.

I hope you along with c'est moi are not suggesting I am flawed mentally and require a simple explanation for being at all recalcitrant. He already seemed to suggest I either don't know math, practice circular reasoning, am dogmatic, am asleep mentally and can't think outside the box, or am too old. That wouldn't be very nice and in our prior encounters I generally enjoyed interacting with you on threads and hope that our future interactions don't suffer from you talking down to me. I hope I'm not being touchy, but generally intelligent people react negatively when others take the "ad hominem" approach to an argument and I think I was just subject to such an attack ... though at least it was aimed at a whole group and not just me.

I was not referring to you with these points but to evolutionists.

did you read this link:
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Rampart/4871/evolu.html

again, the evidence against neodarwinism is devastating, any rational alternative is better
punk-eek is even worse
wishful thinking is not science
many say that conscious driven evolution is really just a hypothese and not science, but that's not really true
it
1) makes predictions, for the past and the future
2) has it's roots in quantum physics which itself doesn't give a reason why consciousness is so important and how it can affect the environment, but theories like the holographic universe do explain this till some extent

nobody has up till now put forward *any* serious objection, including many academics and professors who visit the page
nobody, except one person, has attempted to answer the questions on the other page I just gave you
well, people like that bellong to one of those four groups I gave you and that's reality

This guy's website is hosted on Geocities? Now that's a reputable source if I ever saw one...

I recommend Richard Dawkin's The Selfish Gene (1976, 1989) for anyone interested in the truth about the theory of evolution.

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/0192860925.01.MZZZZZZZ.jpg (http://images.amazon.com/images/P/0192860925.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg)

Weitzel, no need to be rude. The opinions cited in the site on the link do point at some areas in which the standard explanation of evolutionary theory might need some improvement. I have no idea what that consists of and I'm sure there are flaws in any evolutionary theory. Any process that could design something as complex as all the life on the earth certainly has its own complexities. We are only beginning to understand biology. While I imagine the Selfish Gene is a good book and makes many interesting points I very much doubt it is the whole truth of evolution.

c'est moi, first I'm sorry I assumed you were insulting me, but it certainly sounded that way. I read the argument posted by the link. It is a well written argument. It made me think and had it's interesting points. To put it simply in the terminology used I still believe the mechanisms of microevolution are a much more defendable position for macroevolution than the conscious type, directed evolution, or creationism. That isn't to say I believe in neo-darwinism, I'm sure what I believe doesn't have a name attached to it. If you want to talk about my views on evolution I would be happy to discuss them.

In regard to the lack of intermediates: This relates to what I said earlier, the way developmental morphological systems work it is unnecessary that there be a gradual morphological change as a result in gradual change in sequence. Actually in the experiments I mentioned there was a rapid change in only grouping of genes. Selection acting on grouping of genes can act quite quickly. There is actually a chaperone protein called HSP90 in yeast which seems to have been involved in Waddington's experiments. Chaperone proteins help other proteins maintain the correct folded state. In this way they can buffer minor changes in genes that are relatively conservative of structure. If you group the right genes together these changes can no longer be buffered as the interactions of multiple bufferable genes alter the characteristic behavior of the pathways and protein complexes involved that results in significantly altered behavior in morphology for example.

EDIT: I realized I should give a reference "HSP90 as a capacitor of morphological evolution" Suzanne L Rutherforrd and Susan Lindquist. If you want more references for anything I'll dig them up.

On irreducible complexity: The author of the site even mentions and accepts the reality of gene duplications. They have most obviously occured in plants which have a tendency toward polyploidy or the doubling, tripling, etc of chromosome number (It's interesting that the cell size increases and little else seems to change). If you have multiple copies of genes they can drift and pick up entirely new functionality even depending on sets. As to how exactly this happens, I know of no clear examples. In all fairness in organisms like human, drosophila, and elegans which are the only completed multicellular eukaryotes we have only previously worked on a tiny fraction of the predicted genes. In elegans as of september 2001 we had only worked on 6% of the 19k or so genes (I only uses these numbers as I have them handy) as stated in "A gene expression map for Caenorhabditis elegans" by Stuart Kim a Stanford biologist. There is also reasonable evidence we are missing genes. The count in human using predictions is pretty unreliable because genscan/genomescan the best prediction software around (for human at least), has trouble with splitting and joining genes and uses a length distribution calculated from a number of genes that is small and possibly skewed by cloning techniques and traditional genetic techniques (cloning selects against big genes and genetics selects against small genes). We are just starting and certainly have a lot more to observe.

In response to a new unrelated function arising from an existing gene: There is a gene that forms the optical matrix of the eye and is essentially a single base pair mutation in the active site away from an enzyme. I will find out what it is and post it. It might take a while for me to track it down as this type of query is hard to do at ncbi etc. and I can't remember a reference. I basically have to ask people until I get someone who remembers. There are other less spectacularr examples as well as a lot of sequence similarity between other genes with significantly different functions. One problem is that function is actually annotated based on sequence similarity. This isn't always the most intelligent thing to do. If I ran a blast of the two proteins mentioned above I would have been convinced.

In regard to Haldane's Dilemma I'll try and find the mathematical statement some other time so that I know what assumptions he makes. If he original wrote it in 1957 the assumptions essentially have to be wrong. Even today we don't know enough to make reasonable estimates for that type of calculation (also I bet the real equations are tougher than string theory). It sounds like it would be interesting reading though. It also doesn't sound like it allows for duplication., which clearly serves an important role.

I didn't even realize that punk-eek was punctuated equilibrium at first. The very name it's referred to seems to be an attempt to discredit the theory. Do people who support it call it that? I don't know what that theory states, but as I said it is possible for rapid changes in groupings of genes to drastically change morphology. In the hsp90 work there is actually the inherent suggestion that our collective gene pool has memory that can lay dormant by selecting only on the level of combinations. This could actually allow switching on very rapid time scales between two morphologically distinct organisms (< 10 generations). The European Map Butterfly, Araschnia levana, actually has two heat induced morphs in the spring and summer which were originally classified as two different species. Though there differences are in color only. There are other examples that involve physical morphology such as kairomone induced "helmet" in Daphnia. There's a whole interesting list in Scott Gilbert's paper "Ecological Developmental Biology: Developmental Biology Meets the Real World". So there can even be morphological shifts with no change in genotype so I think rapid change in morphology is pretty acceptable as a theory. I've never read any Gould, but I have read some of Ernst Mayr's stuff. I might read Gould at some point, but my understanding is while he has many interesting ideas he's kind of gone off on an ego trip.

If you don't want to take the time to put together information to discuss the topic with me that's fine. But if you expect me to believe that current evolutionary theory as it is taught at a more advanced level is wrong, you're going to have to give me something other than that link and any argument certainly requires more information and different points.

As to the possibility of conscious driven evolution, we choose our mates, so evolution on a certain level is driven by consciousness. It would certainly be interesting if basic matter has a hint of this and our consciousness is a reflection of that. It would be more interesting if it had been in some way driving evolution the whole time.

As to randomness and how we exist check out my thread "does randomness exist?" on the free thoughts forum. I would change much what I said in many of my posts, but my basic thinking is there. I also was trying to get a discussion going so worded things a bit differently than how I stated them to being with, but was hoping to get a conversation going. It never really materialized. I also have posted a couple things about how evolution is basically a learning process, like on the "nature of thought" thread in human sciences.

There are also constraints on evolution anyway. The characteristics of the system impose them and actually seem to have been arranged to encourage certain types of change. I hope you choose to discuss rather than discount. There is certainly room for more to the theory of evolution, but it certainly has a pretty believable core.

I don't think you are:
1) just too old and have spend a lifetime working in it

You certainly aren't:
2) have never been attempted to think differently, they are "asleep"

I hope you don't:
3) practice dogma, are emotionally attached to it (big group here)

And no knowledge of math or understanding of circular logic is required to understand my argument:
4) they don't know maths, they don't know a knew paradigma has started last century, they don't know what 'logic' is => circular reasoning all the time etc.
It is also safe for children of all ages (The only negative side effect was boredom and occasional confusion).

Seriously though, I have studied biology quite a bit and that is a pretty solid argument, but it doesn't disprove essential features of evolution. Most theories are not accurate at a certain level and they need to evolve. We find the mistakes in them and make guesses until we find something better. I still think Darwin had some insight into the core of the best bet ...

Oh yeah, I forgot to comment on how life started.

Who knows? Mathematically it can be demonstrated that make predictions about the past from limited information is just as hard as predicting the future. They're essentially inverse operations. It is difficult enough to understand the part of evolution we have much more information on.

Also the theory of evolution isn't supposed to explain how life started as far as I know. Darwin only spoke about how later organisms might be generated from earlier organisms. We gotta crawl before we can walk.

There are some interesting theories involving RNA, which I have limited familiarity with, but I believe they deal with events very early, but not right at the start of life.

conscious driven evolution. Is it means "conscious is driven by evolution"?

evolution on a certain level is driven by consciousness.

I think both claims are right.
Just different 'point of view'.
The first claim tries to predict what human consciouesness come from and what it will be.
The second claim is to describe how instinc (animal's consciousness) drive the evolution.

BTW, before living creatures were created, is there any evolutions?

Scilosopher, thanks for the great post. Been running and chewing on this stuff since your earlier post. Been thinking about how genotype relates to phenotype mediated by external and cellular environment. Trying to understand evolutionary genetics as a mechanism for constrained adaptation.

“There are also constraints on evolution anyway. The characteristics of the system impose them and ACTUALLY SEEM TO HAVE BEEN ARRANGED TO ENCOURAGE CERTAIN TYPE OF CHANGE”

“Selection acting on grouping of genes can act quite quickly.”

This hamster is very interested in your statements. Wanted to break it down into components and then impose a structure. This hamster’s knowledge in this area is fuzzy and this hamster would appreciate corrections and clarifications as well as help filling out missing pieces. (This is an Imahamster post that is full of errors. /777 coulda done a much better job.)

Shuffling chromosomes through sexual reproduction generates new “solutions” and the environment selects for chromosomes that on average produce better solutions. (There is also genetic drift.)

There is gene mixing on the chromosomes. This hamster has heard of “jumping genes”. Also heard of entire groups of genes jumping together. (Is this only across the paired chromosome?) This “mistake” in sexual reproduction introduces chromosomes with different collections of genes.

There are the duplicate chromosomes and chromosome fragments.

Then there are gene changes. A single polymorphism could cause a minor change to a protein or could affect major changes if the changed nucleotide happens to affect a “start” or “stop” sequence. (Might even turn on some previously “junk” DNA.) (Seem to recall that certain polymorphisms are more likely.) (There is also the complication of DNA repair.)

Then there are the proteins...structural proteins, signaling proteins, developmental proteins, regulatory proteins. A minor change to a gene for a regulatory protein could have major consequence while a structural protein might still function.

(For now leave out environmental effects on gene expression. Fish changing sex is too much for this poor hamster. Sheesh go to an all girls school and change into a guy. Hang out too long at the gym and turn into a woman.)

What has Imahamster missed? (The big stuff anyway. One could fill libraries.)

Now the role of chromosomal reshuffling seems simple enough. How are the other engines of adaptation to be organized? If the complete tree of the animal kingdom were examined what type of changes led to major branches? Minor branches? (Not sure if this even makes sense.)

“If you have multiple copies of genes they can drift and pick up entirely new functionality even depending on sets.”

There are theories that developmental errors led to “extra” brain regions, e.g., two copies of a visual processing portion of the brain. The “extra” region was then “recruited” and “specialized” for a new function.

PS Thanks for pointing out your “does randomness exist” thread.

Originally posted by Mr. G

Obviously.

LMAO....oh man..thanx for that laugh LOL

shit lol

Originally posted by Weitzel
This guy's website is hosted on Geocities? Now that's a reputable source if I ever saw one...

I recommend Richard Dawkin's The Selfish Gene (1976, 1989) for anyone interested in the truth about the theory of evolution.

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/0192860925.01.MZZZZZZZ.jpg (http://images.amazon.com/images/P/0192860925.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg)

there used to be a review on that website from this book
it was quite funny actually
anyway, you will have to do better than presenting this piece of junk because that's what it is
Dawkins is not even in the position to discuss neo-darwinism, he is not a bio-chemist
he should shut up and stick with animal behaviour because that's what he's studied for
but hey, he's making loads of money there
would that influence his convictions?

"Weitzel, no need to be rude. The opinions cited in the site on the link do point at some areas in which the standard explanation of evolutionary theory might need some improvement."

you're being very prudent here
*might*

"To put it simply in the terminology used I still believe the mechanisms of microevolution are a much more defendable position for macroevolution than the conscious type, directed evolution, or creationism."

if you still believe so firmly that macro is the cumulative effect of micro then I don't know what kind of evidence you need
I think you need a time machine

"In regard to the lack of intermediates: This relates to what I said earlier, the way developmental morphological systems work it is unnecessary that there be a gradual morphological change as a result in gradual change in sequence. Actually in the experiments I mentioned there was a rapid change in only grouping of genes. Selection acting on grouping of genes can act quite quickly."

the lack of intermediates is a great objection against neo-darwinism
I hope you understood this
I kow you don't really care about "theories" but more about "beliefs" but for evolutionists who care about their theory this *unacceptable*
they'll keep on telling people that there are plenty of intermediates

"On irreducible complexity: The author of the site even mentions and accepts the reality of gene duplications. "

Of course, why not? This is not some kind of biblical idiotical creationist website. the stuff written here is from an academic.
The rest you say is interesting though it does not tell me more on irreducible complexity. If you have read Mike Behe's book on this and then still feel that the micro = macro then I will have to say again, no evidence is enough 4 u, you need a time machine


"In regard to Haldane's Dilemma I'll try and find the mathematical statement some other time so that I know what assumptions he makes. If he original wrote it in 1957 the assumptions essentially have to be wrong. Even today we ..........................."

You can search the original calculations but they are flawed. You need to get those from The biotic message. The argument still stands. No evolutionists has solved it. It's devastating. The calculations favour darwinism as much as possible, even, too much, and the idiots will keep on repeating that "it doesn't favour evolution enough".

"I didn't even realize that punk-eek was punctuated equilibrium at first. The very name it's referred to seems to be an attempt to discredit the theory. Do people who support it call it that?"

Yes.

"If you don't want to take the time to put together information to discuss the topic with me that's fine."

I'm having exams right now. so ...

"But if you expect me to believe that current evolutionary theory as it is taught at a more advanced level is wrong, you're going to have to give me something other than that link and any argument certainly requires more information and different points."

excuse me, but do I have to convince you? hey, you belief whatever you want no, it's not my job to try to convince you
you don't think the site offers enough? well did you read the book given there? you cannot have discussion on this if you haven't read a few of them

sorry being short here (actually all the time) but i cannnot spend more time on this
these exams are quite important

C'est moi,
Wow. You totally discard everything I have to say. Did you even think about it? I thought about what you had to say. Arguing that I need to read more, sorry I don't have the time either. I'm to busy doing actual biological research and now I have to go to a class being taught by Mark Ptashne who is a bit more reputable in terms of evolutionary theory than anyone you mentioned. Unless what they right in their book is FUNDAMENTALLY different, more won't make a difference. I'm still glad you pointed me towards potential problems with evolutionary theory it made me think about it and was interesting, I have a feeling though we will never come to an understanding on this topic.

Imahamster,Gotta run I'll think about the best way to answer your questions ... Ptashne might get me going on some cool stuff too. Maybe I'll start a new evolution thread though, I don't want to subvert a thread on a different topic.

"I have to go to a class being taught by Mark Ptashne who is a bit more reputable in terms of evolutionary theory than anyone you mentioned."

I had some discussion with a doctor in Biology from the Netherlands some time ago. He's a real expert and he was so honest to tell me that he does not no the answer for Mike Behe's irreducible complexity, but he still endorses neo-darwinism.
I myself consider irreducible complexity as *the* most powerful objections against neo-d.
if anyone out there has an answer and can provide the mechanisms and the steps of evolution of the systems Behe mentions and many others, the this theory is saved for 90%

You say you don't have the time to read those books but you want me to give you more evidence etc. but you know, these books do a fine job
it's needless to repeat them
if you avoid these books, that's okay for me but then you're avoiding your own "internal" discussion with this whole issue
do you know how technical Behe's book is? people without biological training of some sort can't follow it very well
if you read at least one book, then read this one
if Mark Ptashne has an answer on what Behe has to say, then where are the papers? you can maybe ask him it in class

Scilosopher, beginning another thread seems appropriate. Imahamster naively thought this one was “closed”. Didn’t want to let you escape without satisfying hamster curiosity. Hehe. Take your time responding. Imahamster is patient and appreciates your insight. Well worth waiting for.

c'est moi,
I wouldn't hide from reading the books. I just have other ones I want to read first.

It's also interesting that you seem to still consider the disagreement a failing in me to see the truth. I'm open to the possibility that I'm wrong, but with all I know I'm making a very informed decision that I'm at least on the right track.

Scientific theories are usually only abandoned when there is a better one. You haven't even come close to presenting or making any argument for an improved theory.

Furthermore my replies had content, yours had petty comments about time machines. And asking if I understand lack of intermediates when I gave a reply that clearly showed I understand, makes me wonder if you do. I also gave a reasonable answer about irreducible complexity and you want me to spend my time reading a book and answering detailed questions to satisfy who exaclty? I'm satisfied. You are clearly not.

Hamster, don't worry I hope to start one ... give me a day or two. I don't know whether I should ressurect one or start from scratch ...

"I'm open to the possibility that I'm wrong, but with all I know I'm making a very informed decision that I'm at least on the right track."
it seems to me that you know a lot, but that it's simply not very relevant

"Scientific theories are usually only abandoned when there is a better one."

they are usually not abondoned

"You haven't even come close to presenting or making any argument for an improved theory."

could you repeat that?
I think the arguments are fair
at least, it is in ACCORDANCE with the given data, which is the least a theory can do
neo-darwinism has been performing acrobitcs of an unparaleled calibre

"Furthermore my replies had content"

which was simply half of the time irrelevant, you start quoting kinds of genes etc. but it still does NOT explain how a irreducible complex system as a flagellum could evolve

"yours had petty comments about time machines"

because you underestimate the arguments which are well-presented on the site

"And asking if I understand lack of intermediates when I gave a reply that clearly showed I understand, makes me wonder if you do."

you said:
- evolution does not happen gradual so no intermediates in fossil record
- you gave the example of gene grouping + selection which has a large impact on the morphology

given what you've said, what makes you thick? some grouping and hey people, we've got a new species
btw, intermediates are still *vital* for neo-darwinism
and neo-darwinism is still the most widely accepted theory
punk-eek has gained acceptance at last because there is a lack of intermediates
but given what punk-eek has to say, it is even more idiotic than neo-darwinism

· It amounts to a claim that inbreeding is the most major source of genetic advancement in the world.

Does this need an explanation?? Maybe you (or Gould) can read some stuff about the cheetah: http://www.cheetah.org/genetic.htm.

· It requires tiny peripheral groups to conquer vastly larger groups of animals millions if not billions of times.

Isn't this very unlikely to happen?

· It requires an eternal victory of animals specifically adapted to localized and parochial conditions over animals which are globally adapted.

This never happens in real life! Ask the Australians what happened when the rabbit was introduced there ...

· Maybe the biggest objection against punk-eek is Haldane's dilemma, which shows evolution can in no way happen fast in small isolated groups if mutations occur only by undirected mechanistic processes.

· Where is the magical mechanism which makes this "punk-eek" possible?

There is none!

"I also gave a reasonable answer about irreducible complexity"

you talked about gene duplication
is that a reasonable answer?
do you think you solved it that way?
your answer shows that you don't seem to understand what an irreducible complex system really is
further, given that you haven't read the book who presented the idea in the first place, how could you understand it fully?
I will be very surprised to read what your opinion is on I.C systems *after* you have read that book

"and you want me to spend my time reading a book and answering detailed questions to satisfy who exaclty?"

hè?
not following here
read books for your own, not for me

"I'm satisfied. You are clearly not."

with what?

I don't know what you mean, by they're not abandoned. I also think it's true that a theory that is partially accurate is used and explored until one that is more accurate is found. The fact that microevolution does clearly happen through selection has been pretty well demonstrated and not in dispute so that is at least part of it.

If you thought it was irrelevant, maybe I wasn't clear and you didn't understand my points. You can always ask questions to make sure you understand what I am saying. I certainly have gone to more lengths to understand your point. I also don't have the time to explain to you everything I know about biology and you haven't even shown any interest in learning it.

Maybe I do underestimate some arguments, I certainly have been known to be wrong. You do not even seem to be open to the fact you could be, which is interestingly essentially the main problem you have with people who believe in neo-darwinism. It is also a bad trait for those practicing science.

I'm not going to discuss this with you anymore simply because you just argue and are very rude. I lost sleep writing the long post that addressed the various attacks on neo-darwinism presented in the link. I'm sure I didn't explain everything perfectly and there were some points that were unclear. In some cases I may have been wrong.

I suggest to you that a) If you are right and see everything perfectly clearly and we can't for some reason, you should be nice or society will never appreciate you. Unless you aren't human this probably sucks. b) If you are wrong and missing certain things other people understand, you should be nice so they help you clear up your misunderstanding. The truth may be somewhere in between.

Have a nice life.

"I don't know what you mean, by they're not abandoned."

that's what you said m8, not me

see: Scientific theories are usually only abandoned when there is a better one.


I know, I'm not always the best guy to argue with.

Let us say goodbye in peace

I was always meant to be at peace. Including with you (maybe not in agreement, but ...). Never sure if you were at peace with me. Or yourself. I'm probably not at peace with myself either though that seems to drive me forward and is a good thing. I hope it is for you too. Follow your heart and I'm sure you'll do ok, my heart just said enough abuse.

all the best ...

There seems to be more going on inside cells then we are aware of.

nspired by such research, biologists have now begun to systematically look
for so-called RNA genes." DNA whose final product is RNA instead of
protein. Several groups, including one led by Eddy, recently surveyed the
DNA of the bacterium Escherichia coli and uncovered dozens of such
genes. Just a few months ago, Ambros' team and two other research
groups reported that worms, flies, and people contain dozens of previously
undetected genes that spawn RNA instead of protein.

God, this is interesting stuff. Here's an article on micro RNA modifying messenger RNA to regulate protein synthesis. (Natural anti-sense technology?)

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2001-10/dcms-nsg102301.php

Also of interest are:

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2001-09/jhmi-nmf092501.php

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2001-07/uonc-dwc072601.php

Wanted to post these articles before but none of the active threads seemed appropriate. (Wow! This hamster has never chattered with god before.)