Discussion in 'Biology & Genetics' started by davewhite04, Jan 5, 2015.
I don't see any valid criticisms here.
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
Macro evolution places large chunks of life in black boxes and applies statistics. From this semi-blind approach, theory appears. Micro evolution is different in that it looks inside the black box and tries to logically connect the details of water as it interacts with organics. Organics in water create a potential (water and oil), with the lowering of this potential the push for evolution. This mechanism remains inside a black box with the macro-approach.
For example, lipids in water get pushed into a bilayer membrane as a way to lower potential. As a loose analogy of the differences in approach, the macro-approach puts this in a black box. It starts with water and lipids, there is then a black box, then it sees and analyzes the final product. There is sort of a magic in this approach, since things are hidden so there does not appear to be any logic, only the magic hand of chance.
The micro-approach also looks at H2O and the organics, but it leaves the box open, to see how they interact, how potentials are created and based on the logic of lowering potential, one will calculate the final shape before you look at the output: bilayer. This is less magical, taking away the emotions that drives the politics of evolution. Matter of fact logic does not stir up the same level of sentiment as black box magic.
What tends to happen is the consensus uses black box, while those like myself and others who open the box, are called creationists to confuse and hide who the magicians really are. We need transparency in evolution where all black boxes are required to be open to make sure there are no magic tricks.
For example, mutations in the DNA for evolution, although useful, uses a black box approach. We look at the DNA before and the DNA after and can see subtle changes. The black box has to do with not providing the cause and effect for such change. It is assumed to be chance like the assumption used for all black boxes.
Life folds proteins into exact folds with a probability equal to 1.0. The push of water does not leave many things to chance. One might conclude the changes in the DNA also have a probability of 1.0, that can't be seen inside a black box. That logic would change the way we view evolution. The opacity of the black box allows for subjective macro-theory that follows the laws of chance and drives emotions for politics.
This is not evolution per se, but will help create a mental awareness of why the black box method appears more effective than it is, in reality. This will help calibrate the mind.
When memory is created the limbic system attaches an emotional tag to the memory. If we get hungry, images and thoughts of food and eating might appear. The tagging allows our memory to be stored in layers, so when an feeling is activated, like hunger, that layer will appear; all have the same tag.
Because thought and feeling is connected, we can start with a thought and induce a feeling, or we can start with a feeling and induce a thought. I can feel hungry and start to think about pizza. Or I can see a pizza on TV and start to get hungry. One can trigger the composite of thought and feeling, from either side.
Although we can trigger from either side, extended extrapolations of thoughts are not the same each way. For example, if I am hungry, breakfast, lunch or dinner foods might appear depending on the time of day and sometimes substituted for each other; midnight breakfast. The one emotional tag can shuffle the thoughts on its layer. In the case of the cook, this might result in a new recipe.
If we go the other way and I think of a pizza, the emotion stays the same. The emotional tag does not change into fear, then into love and then into boredom depending on the time of day. I may hate pizza, but that association stays the same. The net effect is approaching the composite memory with feeling first adds subjectivity and creative randomness to thoughts. While approaching the composite memory from thought first is objective since there are natural feeling tags needed for survival; hunger stays consistent.
The politics of evolution is based on emotional inductions to drive one to use the emotional side of the memory composite leading to a divergence of thought. This makes the world looks more random and based on chance since internal perception is randomizing.
The logical approach tries to avoid all sources of emotion; Mr Spock, so thoughts come first. This allows any emotional tags to remain consistent (hunger) so the discussion does not diverge. Politics in science will create the impression of random, because emotional appeal with rhetoric triggers a memory approach leading to divergence; self for filling random.
I generate a lot of ideas. I do this by using emotion first, so the memory will form a new meal, each time, out of the same ingredients/subjects. The constant variation looks like my brain is random. This is an artifact of the emotional approach to my memory.
But I can also go the other way and stick to the thoughts side approach. I will control emotions so I can remain consistent in logic. I can use and see both ways. The emotion first is good for brain storming and loosening traditions; new recipe and approach. Liberalism has relative morality due to emotion first and brain storming. While the thought side approach is better for picking the best logical alternative of the many random options.
The black box approach to evolution, will trigger an unconscious background of emotions, due to the void area; mystery. This emotional background will create its own random perception of reality due to emotion first when dealing with memory. It may not be easy for those who have done this for many years to switch. They will attempt to induce emotions, through names and intimidation, so you can think like them and see what they see. This way is easier to induce, than to induce calm emotions, so one can start from the side of thought; age of reason.
In my opinion teaching men to be more emotional has atrophied their thought first approach, where emotion used to be controlled. This has led to more men with emotion first and a more random universe perception.
When I say calibrate the mind, sometimes other emotions can be unconsciously leading, such as ambition, prestige, material security, fear of defaming isolation, etc.. This will unconsciously make the universe appear more random; need to change odds.
1. What evidence do you have that it was a hoax? What was Darwin's motivation in implementing the hoax? Why have many religious persons and organisations accepted the hoax?
2.Scientists do not believe in evolution. A scientist can determine directly for himself that the scientific method is a practical, effective method of determining how certain phenomena work. He or she will do this likely in a specialised area of research. Within that area they will be able to verify by experiment and observation that such and such seems to be the case. They can compare their results with the results of others performed from different perspectives and find their hypothesis is validated, or in need of modification.
They can do this for a lifetime and thus demonstrate in a specific field that the scientific method is a reliable one. No faith is required for this. They can then examine the work of other scientists in other fields and observe that they are employing the same methodology. It requires no faith to expect the same methodology to produce the same results. Thus they can readily accept provisionally all findings reported by scientists in other fields that have been derived by the scientific method.
Notice the two qualifiers: accept and provisionally. I do not believe findings of scientists about evolution. I accept those findings. I do so provisionally because all scientific findings are provisional. And still there is no need at any point for faith.
My previous post is important to evolution because it describes how the human memory is composed of a binary that is both thought and feeling, due to the way the limbic system (source of instinct and emotions) writes memory to the cerebral matter. Because memory is thought-feeling binary, one can extrapolate memory; for thinking and perception, from either the thought side or the feeling side. Each path will create a different view of reality.
For example, if I feel hungry thoughts of food will appear, with maybe different foods for each time of the day. One feeling can diverge into many different thoughts. On the other hand, if we think of any food item, it will always converge to one feeling; hunger. Thinking of pizza does not diverge into a spectrum of feelings based on the time of day from hunger, to fear, to tired, to love to hate, the same way hunger can diverge into a range of thoughts.
Thinking from the thought side creates convergence of feeling, leading to a rational perception of the universe. While thinking from the emotional side of memory, although creative in terms of its many options, creates a divergence, leading to a more random perception of the universe; food is relative to the time of day and the mood.
Most discussions of evolution are not rational, but often begin or detour into name calling, insults and politics which is more about creating emotions for emotional thinking. This causes the mind to diverge into a random perception where things repeat but never resolve; all appears relative and the universe appears governed by chaos and randomness; unconscious platform.
When Darwin was alive, and wrote his thesis, this was before modern psychology was in vogue. He was from a time when men were not supposed to show feelings (being British) defaulting him to think from the thought side of memory. His model, although dated to his time, is quite rational. His theory of natural selection was not concerned with randomness, but was based on a logic connected to many variables; strength, health, smarts, environment, etc. He was thinking in terms of a convergence of many variables into a focus point, which he called natural selection.
The genetic addendum to his theory, is where randomness was introduced. This new cornerstone was added to make the once rational model of evolution, more consistent with the new random universe perception that appears at the turn of the 20th Century. This POV is more divergent; odds of anything can happen. This change parallels an emotional approach to memory that corresponds to the impact of modern psychology that starts in Austria and Germany. The new way is the release of repressed feelings, instead of burying feelings The golden age of science shifts to the silver and bronze ages where machines and math think for humans in their random universe.
I harp on the impact of water, with respect to life and evolution, since this adds a source of potential and logic that can explain away the apparent randomness, that has been created by the unconscious mind of the emotional male. This simple logic does not seem to register, because the random POV is so unconsciously engrained; self for filling perception of a random universe and evolution.
In terms of human evolution, the original modern humans who started civilization, thought from the emotional side. This allowed the creativity divergence needed to provide the tools and the multitudes of languages that all diverge. They depended on periodic inspiration, to think rationally for them allowing convergence into the best of the best. These became the traditions.
The age of enlightenment changed this background divergence of the mind. Science needed to remain with what was proven to the senses and not what might be possible because of the divergence of sentiment. The more contemporary history of human evolution regressed backwards into emotion first; whims of gods that are not called gods. The machines and math do the thinking.
The evolutionary debate is about two emotional thinking POV, competing, with science backing up its apparent divergence of evolution, while religion appeals to its pivotal historical convergence from 6000 years ago. Getting the mind right is needed before we can get evolution right.
Long on words short on meaning.
This assertion is trivially refuted.
Your mention of pizza triggered the following thoughts. Is pizza actually Italian? How many of styles of pizza are there, in terms of the base? What is the history of pizza? How many companies have global pizza retail businesses? How much is this business worth in a year? What are the favourite toppings? How do these vary from country to country? etc .
I'm imagining pizza right now - picturing it in all its mouth watering glory, except I am not salivating. I am not feeling hungry. Perhaps, you think that is because I am presently sated. You would be wrong. I just don't feel like pizza at present.
This demonstrates your logic on this point is fundamentally flawed.
Passing thought: There is no such thing as micro evolution.
As follows: the attempts to distinguish between micro and macro evolution are obviously ignorance in operation (the categories become hopelessly muddled when confronted with information), but the usual response is to deny the existence of macro evolution, by pointing out that according to Darwinian theory, that being the presently established theory of the observed biological world, evolution proceeds in comparatively small and/or simple steps. Micro by micro, one gets to something that only in foreshortened hindsight perspective looks "macro".
But one could approach from the other side. Any change enforced by or even visible to evolutionary selection is macro, has significantly affected the larger physical world. A single point mutation that creates a color blind human being is a macro change, for example. Biologists often gloss over such huge events by lumping the new organism in with a bunch of others under one name, "species" or "variety" or "genus" or whatever, but that's just for convenience - we could name otherwise, when analyzing.
The only reason the terms micro and macro were made was because it is not possible for the deniers to say change doesn't occur in species (dogs for example). So the evolution deniers said little changes occur but big changes do not. It is just a bullshit smoke screen to try and force reality into their religious beliefs.
This is incorrect and in being so assuredly incorrect, it plays into the hands of the creationists. Macroevolution is a term introduced by and frequently used by biologists who reside firmly in the evolutionary camp. If it is good enough for Dhobzhansky and Mayr, it should be good enough for us.
Not so sure about that 'playing unto the hands of the creationists', but you are correct and I was wrong about the term not arising from biological science.
Emotional thinking leads to divergence of thought.
Emotional thinking creates a divergence of thought, as you are demonstrating. The assertion of triviality is there to induce emotion in me, through pride, so I will also diverge away from the subject at hand. I have learned to control my emotions, so I don't diverge my path so it leads nowhere. This induction is OK, because it was a good example of evolutionary debate from the side of emotions.
When we use our memory from the side of emotion, this causes our thoughts to spread out into randomness. This can allow us to become creative, as your mental imagery shows, because the divergence allows new combinations of thoughts and ideas to take form. This direction of memory also impacts general perception; the universe will look divergent and random.
For example, liberalism is about feelings. The liberal concept of diversity is an example of thinking from the emotional side; people diverges into smaller groups, instead of converging into unity. The melting pot will seem wrong to a divergent thinker, because their universe is relative and has no one center.
The feeling first approach to memory will make the universe appear much more divergent and random, making it harder to show smoking gun convergence for evolution. The critics want to see evolution happen before their eyes, and not through the filter of a random theory. Add to this, the critics are also using emotional thinking, causing them to see divergence even when there is convergent proof. Welcome to the chaotic world of feeling first.
Relative to human evolution, Jesus tried to deal with the reality of this situation. He lived in a world of a feeling first approach to memory, induced by pride, by fear of death, by greed, by lust, by hate, etc.. This cause brother and sister to fight and it caused the chaos of war, as each group or subgroup randomized and created but could not agree, or converge with the other.
His solution was very clever. He said, love one another. Love your enemy. Love is the one feeing/emotion that unites over the most boundaries. Love adds a paradox to the divergence process of emotional thinking. It adds a uniting emotion to a process that tries to diverge.
Love represented the emotion that came closest to the process of convergence, than would someday come from the thought side approach to memory. It was at the divide, into light; enlightenment.
Other great thinkers like Buddha, tried to separate from the petty emotions of the world; pride of life, so he could shut off these emotions which diverge, and become very still, so he could learn to think first and converge his being.
Emotional thinking creates its own reality and not true reality.
Evolution's a black box, you know: Take This (theory)!
Tune: "It's Dangerous To Go Alone" (Joel C, Starbomb)
*instrumental organ keys*
Aww yeah -
My name is Geoff, y'all, straight outta some U
Been a-doin' science since ‘92’, old school
I'm bringin' you a laid-back evolution Friday fisker -
WellWisher: Hold on a minute, Geoff!
Geoff: Hey, what's up there WellWisher?
WellWisher:I see that you're embarkin' on another mental quest
You're gonna use that data for some theoretical address
But you need a new perspective that'll never ever miss!
Evolution’s a black box, y’know: Take this!
Geoff: Oh, thanks WellWisher, that is really very nice
I can always count on you for some logic that’s concise!
Though I've never seen a theory that relied so much on ice –
Oh god, that's not a theory! It's woo-woo in disguise
WellWisher: *grabs mic* Yes, I can't liiieee, I have disguised my woo!
And I’ve published on the internet like all the crackpots do!
No emotions Geoff, don't leave the thread, where do you think you're going?
This's a chance to make you famous with some deluded crowing!
Geoff: That. Was. Weird. But whatever: there is no time to lose
I gotta analyse some data for an agricultural group
Wait, this isn't straight residuals, I'm in Lamarkian City
Looks just like Mary Eddysville but even more shitty
At the corner of Faulty Logic and Tautological Junction
This fucking SAS macro must have gone and malfunctioned
I gotta fix it quickly there is science to do
Wellwisher: Hold on a minute Geoff!
Geoff:WellWisher, that you?
Wellwisher: Life science is a field you can’t control with doctrine and wits
Evolution’s a black box, y’know: Take this!
Geoff: Well that's really kind o- D'aaah! That's your crazy plan again!
Look, I know I'm openminded but water's just a sol-vent!
WellWisher: Don't be that way bitch: let me introduce you
To my best friends Colloidal Johnson and the Christian Science dude
If you get the Nobel Prize, you know, you're prob'ly gonna lose it
So why don't you drop a word for me about my fishy bullshit?
Geoff:Oh my God!
I gotta log outta here, my in silico awaits
I really must submit before the last review date
Looks like the macro isn't working with this fixer
WellWisher: Hold on a minute Geoff!
Geoff: God damn it, WellWisher!
WellWisher: Macroevolution, it's a tautlogical mess
Evolution’s a black box, y’know: Take - !
Fuck you, I'm not listening to your-
Doesn't make any damn-
Stop the chilled out groove!
You start these threads telling me you got a water theory -
It's not real, I'm not gonna validate it, I'm-No!
WellWisher: … so is that a "No" on the funding or... okay.
I agree with Ophiolite, but I'm sympathetic with Origin's complaint. I first encountered the micro-/macro- distinction in creationist writings and have never liked it (perhaps for that reason). I prefer to use the word 'speciation' in place of 'macroevolution'. When opponents of evolution criticize 'macroevolution', it's usually the idea that evolution can generate new species that they are attacking.
Yeah. We call them "people who have a science education".
Post your evidence, please, and we'll discuss it.
I can quite understand the viewpoint of yourself and Origin, since the creationists have usurped, distorted and corrupted the terminology. I find I can almost agree with your position. Two quite separate issues prevent me from taking that step.
1. I participate occasionally on Christian christianforums. com, in those sections dealing with evolution and creationism. These are populated by a large number of stereotypical YECs whose arguments are routinely dismantled by "evolutionists". Yesterday one of us posted a response that included the sentence "There is no such thing as scientism." My heart sank. There is, of course, such a thing as scientism. The YEC was quick to come back and demonstrate that there was.
Now why is that important? The undecided lurker has just seen a YEC win over an evolutionist in terms of facts. Our efforts to demonstrate the generally unsupported nature of YEC claims has taken a blow. The undecided lurker moves slightly closer to a decision that takes them away from science and towards superstition. Fighting such superstition and the impact it has on society is, I believe, and important fight. Needlessly handing ammunition to the other side through inaccurate claims or loose use of terminology is, therefore, to be avoided.
For those with an interest, or involvement in science, who consider this an unimportant battle, then this argument will be quite unconvincing. I understand that viewpoint, but - having thought about this a lot - have reached a different conclusion.
2. I am not convinced, as yet, that their may not be some distinction in the mechanisms involved in at least some aspects of macro and micro evolution. Micro evolution does involve small quantitative changes, but there are changes (generally above the species level) that seem to involve qualitative changes. Process and mechanism to account for these do not seem to have been adequately explained in every case. The discovery of hox genes was ,for me, a major step in explaining some of these steps. The comparatively recent research into epigenetic effects is interesting, as is the role of viral DNA within the genome. I am left with a suspicion that there may be other elements at work that could facilitate, or generate qualitative changes of a macro variety.
It is amazing how subtle language differences can influence our thinking. It is easier to contemplate such elements and research them, if we have a term to describe them. For that reason I like to distinguish between macro and micro, even if it may later turn out to be an unnecessary distinction.
I'm not convinced that there are any genetic changes exposed to selection in some way that are reliably "small". We attribute insignificance largely on the basis of intuition, it seems, but selection events are capable of splitting what seem to humans fine hairs.
I don't trust human judgment in this matter.
Human beings are already heavily speciated, and evolution is most likely responsible, at least in part, for that. Assault on survival by various diseases is probably related to why there are so many incompatible blood types today. Just like Darwin's finches, Gregor Mendel's peas, and anti-biotic resistant superbugs. There's no 'debate' about evolution. It's all in the chemistry and genetics.
Injections of rh immunoglobulin during pregnancy are occasionally required when blood types (mother, child) are blood type incompatible. Medical science, not religion prevents such occurrences from becoming spontaneous abortions. As you can see from the charts, this happens AN AWFUL LOT. Praying isn't likely to stop it, either.
YECs believe that Bishop James Ussher's calculation of creation is correct, and if so, there simply wasn't time for very much evolution to occur. They got the last half of that argument right, however, the first part is as wrong as it can possibly be. The date of creation, if there even is such a thing, is not what he calculated (Oct 23, 4004 BC or some such). Human ancestors have been around for very much longer than that, to the tune of about 8 million years or so. The fossil record is hard forensic evidence this is true. Ussher's calculation is just wrong.
Possibly we should simply save ourselves the effort to "debate" these superior primates who are dead certain their great uncle was not a monkey. Their genes tell us an entirely different story.
It appears that Ussher has conveniently set the date of creation at the beginning of the Bronze Age. This is when we begin to recover evidence of civilization as we know it, with metal tools, domesticated draft animals pulling conveyances supported by wheels, and, perhaps most importantly, the first written records. The technology of writing was invented at the beginning of the Bronze Age, because this is when communities became so large, and commerce became so complex, that transactions had to be recorded. Before long the technology was used to record important dates, procedures for making tools, etc...
. . . And of course the fairytales of religion. We have no records of the supernatural beliefs of the Paleolithic and Neolithic communities that came before the Bronze Age, save for what we can deduce from a considerable worldwide collection of statues, amulets, carvings and cave paintings. But in the Bronze Age, the fairytales about prehistory began to be written down, making them seem to be considerably more true (and therefore more important) than the beliefs of the Stone Age ancestors--many of which were surely carried forward, with, of course, the embellishments that could be added by a scribe.
Humans are apes, not monkeys. No tails, larger brains, thumbs that can reach further across the palm for more nuanced grabbing. Our closest relatives are the two species of chimpanzee, Pan troglodytes, the "true" chimp, and Pan paniscus, the much more peaceful bonobo. Ardipithecus, the first spinoff from the chimpanzee evolutionary line that had the first rudimentary human traits, such as efficient bipedal walking, goes back about 4M years.
Separate names with a comma.