Conscious Driven Evolution

Discussion in 'Physics & Math' started by c'est moi, Dec 9, 2001.

  1. c'est moi all is energy and entropy Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    583
    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

    any interesting comments?

    take care,

    c'est moi

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Mr. G reality.sys Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,109
    I was willing to give the dude that you referenced some slack until he stated:

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

    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?
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. c'est moi all is energy and entropy Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    583
    "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

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. rde Eukaryotic specimen Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    278
    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.
     
  8. Mr. G reality.sys Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,109
    c'est moi,

    How can you equate the author's premise that:

    with the researchers' own conclusion that:

    and then accuse me of:

    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?
     
  9. c'est moi all is energy and entropy Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    583
    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???
     
  10. c'est moi all is energy and entropy Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    583
    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).
     
  11. Mr. G reality.sys Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,109
    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?

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

    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?

    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.

    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.

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

    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?

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

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  12. fluxnumen Registered Member

    Messages:
    20
    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.
     
  13. c'est moi all is energy and entropy Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    583
    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.
     
  14. Mr. G reality.sys Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,109
    All things being relative?

    Obviously.

    So, intrigued by the possibility you might actually be right, I searched their original research document 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?

    Au contraire.

    Whoa, I'm impressed. We agree.

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

    Said what?

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

    And here I was hoping you would personally recommend some Dr. Zuess.
     
  15. scilosopher Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    435
    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.
     
  16. SISGroup Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    49
    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.
     
  17. c'est moi all is energy and entropy Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    583
    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
     
  18. scilosopher Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    435
    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.
     
  19. Imahamster Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    135
    Tasty seed Scilosopher. Gonna run on my wheel while chewing this one.
     
  20. c'est moi all is energy and entropy Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    583
    "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
     
  21. scilosopher Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    435
    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 ...
     
  22. c'est moi all is energy and entropy Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    583
    "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
     
  23. scilosopher Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    435
    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.
     

Share This Page