Menu
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New profile posts
Latest activity
Vault
Time Travel Schematics
T.E.C. Time Archive
The Why Files
Have You Seen...?
Chronovisor
TimeTravelForum.tk
TimeTravelForum.net
ParanormalNetwork.net
Paranormalis.com
ConspiracyCafe.net
Streams
Live streams
Featured streams
Multi-Viewer
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More options
Contact us
Close Menu
Forums
Paranormal Forum
Spirituality & Mysticism
Treeees!!!
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Dmitri" data-source="post: 27052" data-attributes="member: 397"><p><strong>Re: Treeees!!!</strong></p><p></p><p>Hi everybody,</p><p><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(\"thenumbersix\")</div>Because science was competing with religion for political influence and biologists like Darwin wanted their part.</p><p><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(\"shane\")</div></p><p><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(\"Harte\")</div>So there are two issues here to address. First, recapitulation in the embryonic development and whether it indeed reflects evolutionary stages of structural change in its ancestral lineage. Second, testability of ID (intelligent design) or panspermia.</p><p> </p><p>Let?s start with the proof of the impossibility of randomness to build complexity or otherwise improve an organism. Please forgive my repeating some of my previous blogs here, I rephrased them to fit the points better. There is no way DNA or other informational molecules could have come about biochemically on their own. If you consider Gould's punctuated equilibrium, no one in human history has seen a lizard with a cat's tail in thousands of years, so how come we trick ourselves with five million years (less than 1000x as long) being able to do the magic. </p><p> </p><p>I started seriously questioning the concept of the common ancestry tree, although I had a bunch of those in my thesis - these trees can be made for you by programs, just drop all characters you want there and the trees are ready. Call it support for evolution if you want. Nobody included a train as an outgroup for vertebrates, but it will fit there too, because it has sort of eye looking front windows, kind of ear like mirrors and sort of leg looking wheels. This is mainstream biology called phylogenetics. 5 years ago I switched to cell biology where things get more basic and people do not invoke evolution almost at all, however Nature and Science journals always welcome any and every implication of it quite badly.</p><p> </p><p>Evolution by random mutations and selection has been proven anti-scientific from the hard science and pure logic basis (see L. Spetner "Not by Chance" and F. Hoyle "Mathematics of Evolution"). It exists as a common misconception blind to the fact. Random mutations can only destroy information, not create it. It takes a while to consider, so please do not jump to conclusions such as that selection can do the trick; it has never done it because it cannot in principle. We have been taught it can, but it is simply false.</p><p> </p><p>Let's get down to the root of the error. What the evolution theory proposes is natural selection on random variation resulting genetic change and thus new forms. The trivial simplicity of the following one gene model is the reason it penetrates minds starting from high school and does not go away easily. If "A" gene variety has a higher survival probability than variety "a" of the same gene, and no other variation exists, in a countable number of generations variety "A" will replace variety "a". This is what most of population genetics is about. Where is the flaw? An organism does not have one gene only. And a gene is not just a few nucleotides long but it is much longer. What if the individuals with the good gene "A" carry a bad gene "b" with the bad effect overweighing the good of "A"? What about the natural situation that the number of bad mutations significantly exceeds the number of good ones? The species dies very soon, life is impossible, or the theory must die. One may argue: natural selection can eliminate all bad ones, even when they are many, and keep the few good ones. Well, it cannot. You can either check the behavior of the function, or you can intuitively conclude the following. Suppose the genome size is 3 billion base pairs (close to ours), the non-neutral mutation rate is one per a hundred million base pairs, resulting 30 mutations per individual per generation. Most mutations are naturally neutral and do not affect survival. However, for those that are not neutral, we can hardly suggest a rate of more than 1:100 of good ones to bad ones (many functional protein motifs are pretty much fixed so that you cannot change their sequence at all). For the selection to work to the advantage of the species there should be some individuals with at least 16 good to 14 bad mutations. The selection will not find this or better one. Even if it did, it would have to wipe the rest of the population in every generation. But it will not find it in a billion years anyway. Some biologists would argue: the mutation rate is lower; it is like one per the whole genome per generation. To make the selection work just a little bit and to keep the topic a bit alive, Hoyle in ?Mathematics of Evolution? assumed the mutation rate 0.3 per organism per generation. This is way too low. Well, what genetic change would you get with such a low rate? A new gene in a hundred billions of years? - Not even that soon. Darwin did not know about genes. Muller found the contradiction and termed it genetic load. Those neo-Darwinians who knew of it hid it, they do not want to talk about it, they get angry if you mention it, fun isn't it? It is not just lack of evidence; it is clear evidence to the contrary.</p><p> </p><p>There is also this tree of life to the evolutionary theory, of course, the tree of common ancestry. Why should similar imply a common ancestor? We do not have any intermediates, apart from Archaeopteryx, which may have been faked anyway or does not prove much. All insect families are already present in the Cretaceous, no intermediates. All we have handy and misleading is the apparent similarity of living forms. All buildings are also similar in that they have some concrete and other construction material in common. They do not multiply though, but if they were made to, would we say that skyscrapers were grandchildren of our yard huts that happened to grow taller? </p><p> </p><p>If not randomness or ID, what else? You may suggest structuralistic ways of evolution meaning self-development along innate principles. Lamarckian learning may work indeed, but it would be supplementary only. An insect wing cannot gradually evolve by learning before it is used. This is not just an organ, it is the whole huge body-system that is not needed unless fully functional. And if there are laws by which the wing evolves gradually and without external influence, I will still call these laws purposeful and intelligently put forth. </p><p> </p><p><strong>Recapitulation</strong> in the embryonic development may just reflect the fact that similar organisms were built on the similar basis. If you modify a program, you may still leave some old and irrelevant scripts as long as they do not interfere with the function. ID in this respect does not produce something ideal or flawless. <span style="font-family: 'Verdana'">It can also imply that organisms indeed are directed to evolve from ancestral forms by consecutive (viral and bacterial) upgrades.</span></p><p> </p><p>The situation with the <strong>testability of ID</strong> is much better than it is generally thought. We should be able to show soon that genomes were/ have been built by intelligent agents. This should be partially based on careful statistics that will be able to distinguish between complexity built on gradual addition and modification of (genetic) characters and complexity built by unconstrained rearrangements and introduction of complete novelty. It would be possible even now, if the ID statistical models were to be considered and funded in genome research. Still, a few ID friendly people in bioinformatics should be able to make a difference fairly soon. Plus there are a few wet lab experiments to run to support ID, I cannot elaborate on them now yet. On top of it, we should be able to see what viruses have been incorporated in the genomes and we should also be able to find them high in the Stratosphere as Wickramasinghe points out. If somebody finds a watch, they understand it is made by somebody else. If we find viral signatures inside genomes, that were historically responsible for novel and complex characters of their hosts, we will not assume that a series of different viruses evolved for the sake of themselves the ability to develop the wing in the insect when coming together to the same host genome, for example. We will conclude that these are ID upgrades to existing species. </p><p> </p><p>Here is a small suggestion. Fact: There have been mass extinctions of life forms on Earth every 26-30 million years. They have been followed by spread of different life forms; some of them more different than generally perceived. Almost no intermediates are found. Suggestion: Earth intersects an orbit of an intelligent cosmic space where, now earth being within a workable distance, life forms on earth are replaced knowingly. Details like these are not testable yet. I want to buy a telescope anyway. However, the general ID principle is testable. </p><p> </p><p>~Dmitri</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Dmitri, post: 27052, member: 397"] [b]Re: Treeees!!![/b] Hi everybody, <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(\"thenumbersix\")</div>Because science was competing with religion for political influence and biologists like Darwin wanted their part. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(\"shane\")</div> <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(\"Harte\")</div>So there are two issues here to address. First, recapitulation in the embryonic development and whether it indeed reflects evolutionary stages of structural change in its ancestral lineage. Second, testability of ID (intelligent design) or panspermia. Let?s start with the proof of the impossibility of randomness to build complexity or otherwise improve an organism. Please forgive my repeating some of my previous blogs here, I rephrased them to fit the points better. There is no way DNA or other informational molecules could have come about biochemically on their own. If you consider Gould's punctuated equilibrium, no one in human history has seen a lizard with a cat's tail in thousands of years, so how come we trick ourselves with five million years (less than 1000x as long) being able to do the magic. I started seriously questioning the concept of the common ancestry tree, although I had a bunch of those in my thesis - these trees can be made for you by programs, just drop all characters you want there and the trees are ready. Call it support for evolution if you want. Nobody included a train as an outgroup for vertebrates, but it will fit there too, because it has sort of eye looking front windows, kind of ear like mirrors and sort of leg looking wheels. This is mainstream biology called phylogenetics. 5 years ago I switched to cell biology where things get more basic and people do not invoke evolution almost at all, however Nature and Science journals always welcome any and every implication of it quite badly. Evolution by random mutations and selection has been proven anti-scientific from the hard science and pure logic basis (see L. Spetner "Not by Chance" and F. Hoyle "Mathematics of Evolution"). It exists as a common misconception blind to the fact. Random mutations can only destroy information, not create it. It takes a while to consider, so please do not jump to conclusions such as that selection can do the trick; it has never done it because it cannot in principle. We have been taught it can, but it is simply false. Let's get down to the root of the error. What the evolution theory proposes is natural selection on random variation resulting genetic change and thus new forms. The trivial simplicity of the following one gene model is the reason it penetrates minds starting from high school and does not go away easily. If "A" gene variety has a higher survival probability than variety "a" of the same gene, and no other variation exists, in a countable number of generations variety "A" will replace variety "a". This is what most of population genetics is about. Where is the flaw? An organism does not have one gene only. And a gene is not just a few nucleotides long but it is much longer. What if the individuals with the good gene "A" carry a bad gene "b" with the bad effect overweighing the good of "A"? What about the natural situation that the number of bad mutations significantly exceeds the number of good ones? The species dies very soon, life is impossible, or the theory must die. One may argue: natural selection can eliminate all bad ones, even when they are many, and keep the few good ones. Well, it cannot. You can either check the behavior of the function, or you can intuitively conclude the following. Suppose the genome size is 3 billion base pairs (close to ours), the non-neutral mutation rate is one per a hundred million base pairs, resulting 30 mutations per individual per generation. Most mutations are naturally neutral and do not affect survival. However, for those that are not neutral, we can hardly suggest a rate of more than 1:100 of good ones to bad ones (many functional protein motifs are pretty much fixed so that you cannot change their sequence at all). For the selection to work to the advantage of the species there should be some individuals with at least 16 good to 14 bad mutations. The selection will not find this or better one. Even if it did, it would have to wipe the rest of the population in every generation. But it will not find it in a billion years anyway. Some biologists would argue: the mutation rate is lower; it is like one per the whole genome per generation. To make the selection work just a little bit and to keep the topic a bit alive, Hoyle in ?Mathematics of Evolution? assumed the mutation rate 0.3 per organism per generation. This is way too low. Well, what genetic change would you get with such a low rate? A new gene in a hundred billions of years? - Not even that soon. Darwin did not know about genes. Muller found the contradiction and termed it genetic load. Those neo-Darwinians who knew of it hid it, they do not want to talk about it, they get angry if you mention it, fun isn't it? It is not just lack of evidence; it is clear evidence to the contrary. There is also this tree of life to the evolutionary theory, of course, the tree of common ancestry. Why should similar imply a common ancestor? We do not have any intermediates, apart from Archaeopteryx, which may have been faked anyway or does not prove much. All insect families are already present in the Cretaceous, no intermediates. All we have handy and misleading is the apparent similarity of living forms. All buildings are also similar in that they have some concrete and other construction material in common. They do not multiply though, but if they were made to, would we say that skyscrapers were grandchildren of our yard huts that happened to grow taller? If not randomness or ID, what else? You may suggest structuralistic ways of evolution meaning self-development along innate principles. Lamarckian learning may work indeed, but it would be supplementary only. An insect wing cannot gradually evolve by learning before it is used. This is not just an organ, it is the whole huge body-system that is not needed unless fully functional. And if there are laws by which the wing evolves gradually and without external influence, I will still call these laws purposeful and intelligently put forth. [b]Recapitulation[/b] in the embryonic development may just reflect the fact that similar organisms were built on the similar basis. If you modify a program, you may still leave some old and irrelevant scripts as long as they do not interfere with the function. ID in this respect does not produce something ideal or flawless. [font=Verdana]It can also imply that organisms indeed are directed to evolve from ancestral forms by consecutive (viral and bacterial) upgrades.[/font] The situation with the [b]testability of ID[/b] is much better than it is generally thought. We should be able to show soon that genomes were/ have been built by intelligent agents. This should be partially based on careful statistics that will be able to distinguish between complexity built on gradual addition and modification of (genetic) characters and complexity built by unconstrained rearrangements and introduction of complete novelty. It would be possible even now, if the ID statistical models were to be considered and funded in genome research. Still, a few ID friendly people in bioinformatics should be able to make a difference fairly soon. Plus there are a few wet lab experiments to run to support ID, I cannot elaborate on them now yet. On top of it, we should be able to see what viruses have been incorporated in the genomes and we should also be able to find them high in the Stratosphere as Wickramasinghe points out. If somebody finds a watch, they understand it is made by somebody else. If we find viral signatures inside genomes, that were historically responsible for novel and complex characters of their hosts, we will not assume that a series of different viruses evolved for the sake of themselves the ability to develop the wing in the insect when coming together to the same host genome, for example. We will conclude that these are ID upgrades to existing species. Here is a small suggestion. Fact: There have been mass extinctions of life forms on Earth every 26-30 million years. They have been followed by spread of different life forms; some of them more different than generally perceived. Almost no intermediates are found. Suggestion: Earth intersects an orbit of an intelligent cosmic space where, now earth being within a workable distance, life forms on earth are replaced knowingly. Details like these are not testable yet. I want to buy a telescope anyway. However, the general ID principle is testable. ~Dmitri [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Paranormal Forum
Spirituality & Mysticism
Treeees!!!
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top