Was Darwin Wrong? [Wild Animal and Human Friendship]

After reading Wikipedia and doing some research I figured out that human beings are too complex to be explained solely by evolutionary biology, molecular biology, genetics, biochemistry and biophysics.

Human beings are just too complex to have simply evolved through abiogenesis and evolution, as paddoboy pointed out in some other thread.

http://www.indiana.edu/~ensiweb/behe.rev.html
http://www.esotericscience.org/article1a.htm

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The first link there explains (from one of several informed points of view, all in agreement), why the second link is confused, poorly thought out, mistaken in its assumptions of fact, and in consequence completely wrong.

Why would anyone put their faith in the poor reasoning and factual errors of the second link, especially after reading the first?

Coral reefs are considerably more complex than human beings. Does evolution therefore fail to explain them, as well?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Evolutionary theory starts in the middle of a long timeline; starts at replicators. Anything before that is treated as separate and connected to another area of specialty study, called abiogenesis. These left and right hands of life science, do not properly overlap, even though common sense says, life should be connect to both under one larger theory.

Darwin's thesis was the origin of species. Darwin only went back to the level of life that is defined by species; animals. He knew little of cells or DNA to be able to make this connection part of his thesis. The zero point on the time line of life, has an impact on the type of theory that will result. Darwin was not concerned with DNA. If you don't know about DNA, but only animals that are catalogued and maybe the idea of human bloodlines, you will use that as the data set, for theory.

Evolution has the same conceptual problem, because it starts the timeline of life at replicators. Anything that came before that, that may have an impact, is not part of the theory. This is why random is needed.

For example, say a child is from a 100 generations of peasants, and then 5 generations of middle class ancestors, before he becomes billionaire. Where do we start his story, to get a complete picture of him? Do we like evolution, start at his birth. Or like Darwin, do we start when he makes his first billion. Or like a complete theory, do we start at his first ancestors?

The first two options explain him as separate from his past. His vision and drive is random and not something handed down. Is this valid? Did the dreams of his grandfather's father, whom he never met, play a role or is random good enough? The further back one can go, the cleaner the theory becomes since it explains many loose random ends with logic.

Starting evolution in the middle is why it is often fuzzy to many people, who seek a reason that is not dice related. This often needs to become political, use censor and induce emotions. There is not enough logic and reason to clear up doubts of the mind. Reason outside of the dogma is taboo, since a house of cards is delicate. This type of reasoning will be lumped as religion to avoid having to address questions with logic. The billionaire just came up with his drive and idea from genetics. This had nothing do with his past so stop asking or be banned.

If we stay the timeline at the very beginning of abiogenesis, what you have is water as the source of chemical selection. Water was and is still the majority chemical of life and prelife and impacts the chemical selection process.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Modern humans have willpower and choice. If you compare this modern human behavior, to other phases of human evolution, not all that is cataloged as human, in biology, had will power and choice. The DNA and biology classification of human, which starts over a million years ago, is misleading, since it does not properly characterize this modern human behavior and differentiate it from previous aspects that it lumps as human.

Willpower and choice means the brain and consciousness is able to choose apart from the natural human instincts within the DNA. The DNA is no longer king of the hill, since one can choose to override the natural. This is quite modern and appears to occur at about the time of civilization or about 6000-10,000 years. Before that, the genetic human or as I like to call it the pre-humans, had similar human DNA, but were not the same species, in all practical terms. Only the modern human, with choice and will power could change the environment to extremes that can even create natural imbalances. These are all lumped as the same by a subjective catalog system. Consciousness that is under the DNA and consciousness that is over the DNA, are not the same thing, even if both look the same on the surface.

The problem willpower creates for evolution is, how can the DNA randomly change, in a way that allows the rise of a consciousness, which can then override the DNA with willpower? Now this overridden DNA, via subjective human mating selection, allows further willpower to override the DNA? The lack of an answer to this question may have to do with a poor understanding of the DNA. Science places all it eggs in the 2% coding genes because it lacks a good working understanding of the 98% noncoding.

This is an another time-line effect, in evolution. It truncates the real human end point; willpower, by subjectivity treating this unique modern human behavior, like it is prehuman. Thus allows coding DNA to appear to stay consistent. Evolution starts late, replicators, and does not use all the latest human data based on willpower; data truncation. The theory loses historical context with the remote past where water was the basis for selection, and loose real time and future data where consciousness is the basis of selection. These should integrate, naturally and nor be truncated.

 

Willpower and choice allows the individual to make unnatural choices, so natural selection not longer applies. Liberalism, for example, has little to do with natural selection, since most of its choices require resources not used by nature and external law to force cooperation. Instinct is an inner voice that animals have that targets behavior. There is no other species with relative instincts/morality. Apes may do a few stunts, that some humans might project into, and call it willpower, since their brain is not properly calibrated. Yet, these apes don't depart from natural instinct.

One will not see high rates of obesity in natural animals, that we see now in first world humans. This is not based on genetics or else he implication is the DNA would have had to change the same way, over a wide population, simultaneously, in a few decades. This contradicts other DNA assumptions that assume random and no sense of coordinated direction. It has to do with choices that are unnatural to the DNA. Any valid evolutionary theory should be able to take this into account. There was a human tipping point, where will and choice, made the brain supersede the natural path inherent within the DNA.

How does genetics evolve to where it begins to renders itself more secondary? Evolution, as is, can't go there, because it only applies to a narrow bandwidth of time; after biogenesis and before human will power. It does good with that limited data, but it gets weak wrist outside this narrow specialty area. This is why it needs an upgrade. It useless for describing the main changes in humans, since these exists above the DNA and is not under natural selection. The DNA does not have enough genes to account for every thought and choice humans make.

 

All socially structured species demonstrate some morality in decision making.

All hunting or predatory mammals, and at least a few birds, reptiles, etc, demonstrate willpower - postponed gratification.

 

Human will power and choice is different from what you are describing. Human willpower is often connected to subjectivity. Animals use an objective standard based on instinct. Postponed gratification is simply where one instinct will override another. One can teach a dog not to eat his food when he is hungry. This is based on conditioning his instinct for pack leadership until it override the instinct to eat. If his hunger is denied long enough, to where his hunger gets stronger, than the natural logic for this choice will shift.

Subjectivity is different in that there is no real logic for the choice. One may decide they will only eat cereal in colorful boxes. That makes no sense, but is a subjective choice. The dog will smell for food value, and make a logical and consistent choice. It nothing to do with packaging. If packaging is the deciding factor, this can impact health, which means the optimization in the DNA is being pushed the wrong way.

Evolution, as is, does not naturally extrapolate to this. What it adds is artificial selection, which can be subjective and not based on the logic of natural selection.

There is a species of plant from Peru, Mirabilis or more commonly called Four O'clocks, which was used as a model for studying cytoplasmic inheritance. If you look at the flowers on this plant, they usually have two or more colors.The flowers will have every variations of tone and color pattern using these colors, from stripes, to dots, to half and half to ever random patterns. It is sort of similar to humans where one genetic line can makes hundreds of unique patterns. The 4 o'clocks make use of an epigenetic phenomena, that can post alter the nuclear genetics output into subjective variation. Below is one plant. This may be the basis for free will in humans.

Around 1900, Carl Correns used Mirabilis as a model organism for his studies on cytoplasmic inheritance. He used the plant's variegated leaves to prove that certain factors outside the nucleus affected phenotype in a way not explained by Mendel's theories.[4] Correns proposed that leaf color in Mirabilis was passed on via a uniparental mode of inheritance.[4]

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Humans have two centers of consciousness, the ego and the inner self. The inner self is more intimately connected to the DNA. This is what animal consciousness is based on. Humans also have a secondary center; ego, which is often called the conscious mind. This binary is how will power and choice appear.

If I dropped you in the woods at night, without any supplies, many humans, who are not used to the woods at night, would think the shadow or noise in the bushes is a wild animal; lions and tigers and bears, Oh my! An unconscious projection will often become conscious. Your dog will not do this. He will use his instincts and react appropriately; he has only one center connected to cause and effect of instinct.

The humans can feel tension from this projection of what is not there. He may say this is all in my imagination, to make it go away and return to one center. The inner self is more based on Mendel theory, while the ego is more epigenetic, relative to the brain. This allows for subjective variations of objective instincts. The inner self still contains the objective instincts, but it is too unconscious and may be overridden by what is more conscious; epigenetic projection.

With the 4 o'clock flower, I can take a seed from a yellow flower, expecting the next generation of the plant to look like that flower; yellow. However, the entire variety of color and texture will appears in the next generation; inner self is passed forward and not the unique subjective representation of the ego.