The Darwin Spin Off

[Nalates Urriah]

To avoid derailing another thread I'll start this one. These are the two key posts starting the discussion.

On 3/8/2021 at 4:09 PM, Nalates Urriah said:

There are several places where you can find where they acknowledged the short coming of Darwin's Hypothesis.  Search Results

Don't be surprised to find most institutions still claiming Darwin or Neo-Darwin is their model for evolution. The Scientific community is big on canceling anyone that strays from the official line. But with the deeper and deeper exploration of biology and information theory Darwin's idea is not holding up.

 

On 3/8/2021 at 4:35 PM, Mollymews said:

the search links provided don't show any proof that the Royal Society gave on Darwin's work

on the contrary what the links do show are proofs of Darwin's work

like the 3rd one on the list: https://scitechdaily.com/cambridge-researcher-finally-proves-one-of-darwins-evolution-theories/

it proofs Darwin's work from Chapter 3: On the Origins of Species

I think you miss understand the "...acknowledged the short coming of Darwin's Hypothesis". These are scientists that are loath to admit a mistake and there is a prime agenda to avoid having a god one has to answer to. So, when they say we need a better hypothesis than Darwin's that implies there are problems with Darwin's ideas. Which is what I mean by acknowledges. If you say they never said Darwin was wrong, then you are right. But, if he wasn't wrong then why do we need a new hypothesis?

That we have Neo-Darwinism is additional proof something doesn't work with the original ideas. But Neo-D has problems too.

So, to your Cambridge article. Darwin's basic idea is that all evolved from a single life form via a random selection guided by survival of the fittest. His actual contribution was to improve on Anaximander's (611-546 B.C. – Greek - before Socrates) idea by providing the concept of "survival of the fittest". The idea being that single cell randomly muting which made the best fish became a fish, and then an amphibious something that eventually be came bird, then a dinosaur, then a cow, etc.

The Cambridge paper talks about species having subspecies and Laura van Holstein's research giving us new insight to that. Yet I can't see anything new in the basic hypothesis. We have known species have subspecies forever. This isn't new. Her research does appear to more formally describe the nature of how subspecies works. That is pretty lame support for the fundamental hypothesis. THe subspecies of birds are birds, fish - fish, foxes - foxes. I am not seeing where this is 'new' proof Darwin was right. Other than they say it is. In the fake news era I have to have more.

A good article on the 2015 issue is by Richard William Nelson (Jul 28, 2016) titled: Royal Society. I'll quote from it...

Quote

Pigliucci and Müller find the evidence for the standard theory to be “either inaccurate or incomplete.”  Since they see that the scientific evidence “clearly demolish[es] the alleged central dogma [the standard theory],” they convened sixteen leading evolution advocates to develop a framework for a new evolutionary consensus.

I think that makes it clear what is going on with the RS as they try to come up with a new hypothesis. While this is about 2010 time frame, the doubts and challenges have only gotten worse for Darwin.

It is probably worth mentioning what it is they think destroys the central dogma of the standard theory for those that can't be bothered to read the article.

Research into DNA is literally destroying the hypothesis on multiple levels as is the new field of Information Science.

The big challenge to Darwin is biological research into the nature of life at sub-cellular levels, DNA and proteins specifically.

According to Darin's idea basically life had to evolve from a primordial chemical soup. Chemicals came together to form self replicating proteins which came together to form living replicating differentiating organisms. Seems plausible. When we started learning more about the primordial conditions and trying to replicate them to test the idea we found the 1950's and 60's experiments that are said to have succeeded were flawed and inaccurate. With new knowledge of Earth's ancient history replicating the experiments always fails to produce life or even self replicating proteins. We need a new hypothesis.

Now that we know human DNA, not the most complex on the planet, has 3+/- billion nucleotide pairs that make up the protein chain we know there has not been enough time for random chance to have evolved human DNA. 3 Billion pairs made from 4 nucleotides provides 9.63x10^{1,806,179,973} possible combinations. The article: The million-year wait for macroevolutionary bursts. Published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Aug 23, 2011 suggests all significant changes take a   a l o n g  time. We need to multiply that 9.63 number by a million to get years.

Since the universe is only 13.8 billion (13.8x10⁹) year old we have a serious "time" problem. While mathematically possible it just isn't reasonable... and I have way simplified the probabilities. On this point we need a new new hypothesis.

Then we have the problems with Information Science (IS). This field deals with what we consider knowledge and information. Human DNA contains an amount of information 11 times larger than The Encyclopedia Britannica, which is 44 million words in 32 volumes. The big revelation from IS is DNA is information. (Ref) One thing that we know about information is that it is always created. Which for the no-god people really sucks and freaks them out. But, IS is  new. So they have hope. But we still need a new hypothesis that explains how it may be possible for 'information' to evolve before we can explain biologic evolution. We currently have no idea how that may be possible and there are no examples in nature of information spontaneously appearing. So, we are a long way from a usable hypothesis.

These are the problems the Royal Society has been dealing with to provide an evolutionary hypothesis that is workable and more than an unreasonable mathematical possibility. The RS acknowledges these problems. They do not like to talk about it in public. As you'll find they lock the meeting room doors when they get together to talk about it. They never say Darwin was wrong or evolution does not work. A scientist cannot go against community doctrine without being canceled. But they do acknowledge the problems with the hypothesis and are searching for a better explanation.

 

 

Edited March 10, 2021 by Nalates Urriah
fixed a new-line problem

[Luna Bliss]

[Arielle Popstar]

[Theresa Tennyson]

If life is too complicated to evolve without a creator, how did the creator, which logically would be more complicated, come into being?

[Rowan Amore]

[Mollymews]

1 hour ago, Nalates Urriah said:

The Cambridge paper talks about species having subspecies and Laura van Holstein's research giving us new insight to that. Yet I can't see anything new in the basic hypothesis. We have known species have subspecies forever. This isn't new. Her research does appear to more formally describe the nature of how subspecies works. That is pretty lame support for the fundamental hypothesis. THe subspecies of birds are birds, fish - fish, foxes - foxes. I am not seeing where this is 'new' proof Darwin was right

this is how science works.  First person says: this is how I think it works based on my observations/measurements with the tools at my disposal. Second person comes along with a different and/or more advanced toolset and measures the same. And the second person says here are my findings, the first person is correct

in this case, the first person (Darwin) said sub-species are more diverse in larger populations of the same species than they are in smaller populations of the same species. And as you say this intuitively makes sense to the average person.  Scientist says can you prove it. The second person in this case said: yes I can

another case. The first person (Darwin) said that based on my observations, local (soft) factors impact on selection behaviour. Second person(s) comes along later and measures this. Second person says: yes that's right and here is my data to proof this

https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/abs/10.1098/rspb.2020.1111?af=R&

this paper also points toward a further path of research and discovery. "These results suggest that soft selection could be a general mechanism for the maintenance of ecological diversity over evolutionary time scales."

which is pretty interesting I think

[Rowan Amore]

2 hours ago, Nalates Urriah said:

But, if he wasn't wrong then why do we need a new hypothesis?

For the same reason they keep changing the way math is taught.  To give those in the mathematics field something to do?  

A more fun read on science.  https://www.syfy.com/syfywire/8_incredibly_dumb_theorie

 

 

[Arielle Popstar]

17 minutes ago, Theresa Tennyson said:

If life is too complicated to evolve without a creator, how did the creator, which logically would be more complicated, come into being?

Being that God is said to be One, I would venture that paradoxically God is the Singularity from which all else flows.

[Luna Bliss]

2 hours ago, Nalates Urriah said:

These are scientists that are loath to admit a mistake and there is a prime agenda to avoid having a god one has to answer to.

There are many Scientists who believe in God and also believe evolution is true....the very basics...that humans evolved from 'lower' life forms.

[Luna Bliss]

[Luna Bliss]

2 hours ago, Nalates Urriah said:

A good article on the 2015 issue is by Richard William Nelson (Jul 28, 2016) titled: Royal Society. I'll quote from it...

Quote

Pigliucci and Müller find the evidence for the standard theory to be “either inaccurate or incomplete.”  Since they see that the scientific evidence “clearly demolish[es] the alleged central dogma [the standard theory],” they convened sixteen leading evolution advocates to develop a framework for a new evolutionary consensus.

I think that makes it clear what is going on with the RS as they try to come up with a new hypothesis. While this is about 2010 time frame, the doubts and challenges have only gotten worse for Darwin.

Nope. Bad source.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Richard_William_Nelson

[Janet Voxel]

37 minutes ago, Theresa Tennyson said:

If life is too complicated to evolve without a creator, how did the creator, which logically would be more complicated, come into being?

 

[Theresa Tennyson]

2 hours ago, Nalates Urriah said:

Since the universe is only 13.8 billion (13.8x10⁹) year old we have a serious "time" problem. While mathematically possible it just isn't reasonable... and I have way simplified the probabilities. On this point we need a new new hypothesis.

If we accept that life exists, however, it is not only possible but actually occurred.

The odds of two people firing guns at each other having their bullets collide in midair is laughably small. However, after the American Civil War people found more than one pair of bullets that did exactly that.

Edited March 10, 2021 by Theresa Tennyson

[Luna Bliss]

2 hours ago, Nalates Urriah said:

Then we have the problems with Information Science (IS). This field deals with what we consider knowledge and information. Human DNA contains an amount of information 11 times larger than The Encyclopedia Britannica, which is 44 million words in 32 volumes. The big revelation from IS is DNA is information. (Ref) One thing that we know about information is that it is always created. Which for the no-god people really sucks and freaks them out. But, IS is  new. So they have hope. But we still need a new hypothesis that explains how it may be possible for 'information' to evolve before we can explain biologic evolution. We currently have no idea how that may be possible and there are no examples in nature of information spontaneously appearing. So, we are a long way from a usable hypothesis.

This sounds like the idea that consciousness always existed (information), and that each particular life form developed a unique connection to the larger consciousness (or developed their own type of awareness/consciousness with needed limitations, suitable for their particular life form) as they evolved.

So both could apply here.

Edited March 10, 2021 by Luna Bliss

[Luna Bliss]

[Arielle Popstar]

15 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

This sounds like the idea that consciousness always existed (information), and that the physical life forms developed along with each particular life forms unique connection to that grander consciousness (or developed their own type of awareness/consciousness suitable for their particular life form).

So both could apply here.

In one of the dead sea scrolls there is a quote purportedly by Jesus saying that It was "a miracle for the physical to have come from the spirit (consciousness), It would have been a miracle of miracles for the spirit (consciousness) to have come from the physical."

I have no idea whether it is a true statement or not, but the implications are quite interesting when meditated on. 

Edited March 10, 2021 by Arielle Popstar

[Luna Bliss]

1 minute ago, Arielle Popstar said:

16 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

This sounds like the idea that consciousness always existed (information), and that the physical life forms developed along with each particular life forms unique connection to that grander consciousness (or developed their own type of awareness/consciousness suitable for their particular life form).

So both could apply here.

In one of the dead sea scrolls there is a quote purportedly by Jesus saying that It was "a miracle for the physical to have come from the spirit (consciousness), It would have been a miracle of miracles for the spirit (consciousness) to have come from the physical."

I have no idea whether it is a true statement or not, but it is quite interesting when meditated on.

Interesting...I've never heard of this from the dead sea scrolls.

I've always believed that consciousness came first as opposed to the theories that believe consciousness was kind of 'squirted out' from the human meat body as it evolved.

[Mollymews]

5 hours ago, Nalates Urriah said:

Now that we know human DNA, not the most complex on the planet, has 3+/- billion nucleotide pairs that make up the protein chain we know there has not been enough time for random chance to have evolved human DNA. 3 Billion pairs made from 4 nucleotides provides 9.63x10^{1,806,179,973} possible combinations. The article: The million-year wait for macroevolutionary bursts. Published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Aug 23, 2011 suggests all significant changes take a   a l o n g  time. We need to multiply that 9.63 number by a million to get years.

Since the universe is only 13.8 billion (13.8x10⁹) year old we have a serious "time" problem. While mathematically possible it just isn't reasonable... and I have way simplified the probabilities.

a comment on the math

to arrive at 3 billion pairs from 1 pair there are 32 steps when each step multiplies by 2. At each step there is a set [2, 4, 8, 16, etc]

each element of the set at each step can interact with other elements of other sets numbering in the billions/trillions. A total number that is dependent on the presence of the external elements within the interactive local environment. When an other external element is not present then the interaction doesn't occur. The paper I linked to earlier examines the consequences of this

interactions at each step don't happen linearly, they also happen simultaneously [across the elements of the set] and not every interaction is going to affect/influence the path to the next step. The paper you mention models this behaviour. What the paper calls the blunderbuss pattern

the math used to record this is basic peano arithmetic, addition and subtraction. Adding a positive influence going into the next step. Subtracting creating a negative influence on the next step. Progressive addition results in survival. Progressive subtraction results in extinction

Edited March 11, 2021 by Mollymews
[set]

[Lindal Kidd]

You can join any one of three camps:

1. Darwin IS right! So there!
2. Darwin is wrong, and here's the new secular theory of How We Got Here
3. Religionists

Arguments and/or evidence about the current accepted theory of evolution being wrong are not proof of the existence of God. In fact, by definition there can be no proof of the existence of God. That is a matter of faith, not of scientific proof.

Contrariwise, absolute proof of (any form of) secular evolution is not DISPROOF of the existence of God, either. He works in mysterious ways, y'know?

[Prokofy Neva]

I don't know why you are spending any time on this subject, Nalates.

Clearly, Evolution is God's Plan for Our Planet.

He wouldn't have it any other way.

😁

Lindal, I guess you have not read St. Anselm, who wrote that God is that "than which no greater can be conceived."

So can you conceive that there might be something greater than what you can conceive? Ok, then. 

 

[Profaitchikenz Haiku]

7 hours ago, Lindal Kidd said:

You can join any one of three camps:

Actually, there's a fourth way - truth is relative to any era, today we have evolutionary theory because there is no better explanation, tomorrow we'll have a better explanation that will last for probably another 150 years (*), and then, the truth will change yet again.

To my mind the only part of evolutionary theory that I'm a bit suspicious of is the lack of any explanation for purposefulness. There is an interesting story "The case of the midwife toad" that describes an interesting scientific attempt to study this area which failed due to somebody's compassion.

 

(*) There is some possibility that the duration of a truth-era might be decreasing, Euclidean-Aristotelian lasted a couple of thousand years, Newtonian about 400 years, Q... about a dozen  months....

[Arduenn Schwartzman]

Hiya folks. Science is not about truth. Scientists do not claim to hold the truth. Science is merely the art of not BS-sing yourself or others, while trying to understand things and make predictions based on those understandings. Scientists do not claim that the theory of evolution is the truth. It's merely at tool to make predictions about the emergence of new variants and species whenever the environment changes.

You're perfectly welcome to come out with a new theory to explain diversification and the emergence of new species. There is no controversy with regard to the core principle of the theory of evolution, that new species emerge from changes in the environment, mutations that result in biological variation, and selection of the variants most thriving in this new environment. So if you have some alternative mechanisms to explain changes in body plan and speciation of organisms, and not just attribute these things to magic or miracles, have a go at it.

There's no conspiracy among scientists to cancel anyone who disagrees with them. Quite the contrary. If someone truly has the opportunity to shake up some feathers in the 'establishment' (resulting in a better understanding of things, of course), all the better.

The problem is just that there are just many many crack pot 'scientists' out there on the internet (great, easy and free platform for spreading information and disinformation alike), whining about how everyone is against them, rather than admit that mentally, some things are bit out of their league. And then there's people, like the OP, who just copy/paste a flood of nonsense, half-truths and utter falsehoods from these crack-pot websites, so overwhelming in volume, it's hard to even decide to determine where to begin.

I'll just do one then, for the sake of argument.

13 hours ago, Nalates Urriah said:

unreasonable mathematical possibility

"perfectly reasonable mathematical possibility but unreasonable to some, because: math is hard" - FTFY

[Alwin Alcott]

10 hours ago, Arielle Popstar said:

In one of the dead sea scrolls there is a quote purportedly by Jesus saying that It was "a miracle for the physical to have come from the spirit (consciousness), It would have been a miracle of miracles for the spirit (consciousness) to have come from the physical."

 

source please

[Ted McGregor]

To the dumb question "Why me?", the cosmos barely bothers to return the reply: "Why not?” ― Christopher Hitchens

 

Darwin is wrong != God is real.

Edited March 11, 2021 by TDD123

[Caroline Takeda]

We were all made by God Philip Rosedale, formed by pixels and developed into what we are today from Ruth.