Evolution, an irreplicable lightning strike , or an unavoidable lightning bolt in a thunderstorm

Brian_the_bard

Lost Pilgrim
Member
#41
That is simply not true, the theory of evolution is based on observation, and evidence, not on dogma.
In the days of it's inception, there was no dogma to defend, on the contrary it replaced the oldest dogma in the world.
When evolution theory came out, everybody jumped on it because it allowed them to do away with God - hardly surprising given the church's history, but at the time there was no evidence, just an intelligent theory. Now, though, every time new evidence is examined, scientists can't help making Darwinian assertions whereas an impartial agnostic could find a variety of realistic explanations. It's only human to do so but it is hardly scientific!
 
#42
He believes it does not just act like a partial barrier, letting some adaptations through over others. Instead, the impact of this filtering allows gene networks in animals to actually "learn" what works and what does not over time. This way, they can improve their performance – in much the same way that the artificial neural networks used by computer scientists can "learn" to solve problems.
This is a well-worded summary of what I am claiming! This idea of living things designing themselves is winning in the explanation battle. There is nothing random about learning and no one argues that learning changes entropy naturally.

My critical view addresses only the tacit metaphysics in the writer's voice. Learning can be measured. Why the writer puts the variable - learning - in quotes is to avoid reaching the conclusion that mind is involved!

This is truly simple and plain to me.
 
Last edited:
#43
When evolution theory came out, everybody jumped on it because it allowed them to do away with God - hardly surprising given the church's history, but at the time there was no evidence, just an intelligent theory. Now, though, every time new evidence is examined, scientists can't help making Darwinian assertions whereas an impartial agnostic could find a variety of realistic explanations. It's only human to do so but it is hardly scientific!
Darwin was not just a theorist but a disciplined gatherer of data and a keen observer of the natural environment. Darwin, without the benefit of modern biophysical and physiological understandings - in my opinion - presented a far more coherent version of bioevolution than the now declining neo-darwinism of the 20th century.

The narrative developed of Darwin vs Lamarck was taught that Darwin rejected Lamarck's work - is just bunk. Further, Darwin was a proponent of Mental Evolution - something that was excluded from neodarwinian claims. Modern findings are still supportive of Darwin's actual ideas and are "in-the-face" of folks like Dawkins.

Interestingly, Darwin (1868) himself was a strong proponent of the inheritance of acquired characteristics. The blending of inheritance and evolution by natural selection appeared to be a fundamentally flawed concept that would require an untenably high mutation rate in order to maintain the trait variation required for selection (Jenkins 1867). To address this, Darwin (1868) proposed pangenesis, a complex theory of environmentally responsive somatic cell transmittance to offspring. Therefore, Darwin conceptually supported Lamarck’s theory of the inheritance of acquired characteristics, but until the last 30 years the potential molecular mechanism was unclear. - Michael Skinner
https://academic.oup.com/gbe/articl...ronmental-Epigenetics-and-a-Unified-Theory-of

Epigenetic events have a spot where they fill in in Darwin's theory. Darwin observed their effects in nature. Darwin also observed the mind's of living things having a role.

Bart where are you?
 
Last edited:

Brian_the_bard

Lost Pilgrim
Member
#45
Darwin was not just a theorist but a disciplined gatherer of data and a keen observer of the natural environment. Darwin, without the benefit of modern biophysical and physiological understandings - in my opinion - presented a far more coherent version of bioevolution than the now declining neo-darwinism of the 20th century.

The narrative developed of Darwin vs Lamarck was taught that Darwin rejected Lamarck's work - is just bunk. Further, Darwin was a proponent of Mental Evolution - something that was excluded from neodarwinian claims. Modern findings are still supportive of Darwin's actual ideas and are "in-the-face" of folks like Dawkins.


https://academic.oup.com/gbe/articl...ronmental-Epigenetics-and-a-Unified-Theory-of

Epigenetic events have a spot where they fill in in Darwin's theory. Darwin observed their effects in nature. Darwin also observed the mind's of living things having a role.
Wow, we're not taught very well in school are we? I'll have to start looking a little deeper!
 
#46
I thought I'd drop this link here to see if folks found it relevant to the conversation. I found this thread interesting (sniping of posters at each other aside ;) ).

Thanks.

https://futurism.com/new-theory-for-life-suggests-it-was-not-an-accident-of-biology-it-was-physics/

“Rocks Rolling Downhill”
How did life first originate from nothing? This has been the focus of biologists, specifically astrobiologists, and popular theories have included everything from meteorites to seemingly random chemicals to luck. In 1859, Charles Darwin posited that “All organic beings that have lived on Earth could be descended from some primordial form,” in The Origin of Species. His basic idea was that chemical components and energy sources somehow spontaneously generated life in the primordial soup.

However, in 2013, MIT biophysicist Jeremy England proposed a new theory that substituted thermodynamics in place of luck. He derived a mathematical formula to explain how atoms, driven by external energy (such as that found in primordial soup) and heat (like you’d find in an atmosphere), will gradually restructure themselves to dissipate more and more energy. In other words, under the right conditions, matter naturally acquires the basic physical quality — the tendency to capture energy from the environment and dissipate it as heat — associated with life, based on the law of increasing entropy or the second law of thermodynamics, also called the “arrow of time.”
Edit: Oh, I should add: Kudos to Laird for developing the thread reference post. I used it to try and find the best thread for this article (which I may have failed in doing!). Laird, really appreciate the obvious level of effort/work you put into that reference post!
 
#47
https://futurism.com/new-theory-for-life-suggests-it-was-not-an-accident-of-biology-it-was-physics/

Edit: Oh, I should add: Kudos to Laird for developing the thread reference post. I used it to try and find the best thread for this article (which I may have failed in doing!). Laird, really appreciate the obvious level of effort/work you put into that reference post!
Interesting article. My radar goes up when reading science commentary and I read terms like "basic physical quality". There is a measure of "quality of life", but afaik there is no concept or category called basic physical qualities.

Thermodynamics is about order and organization. And while developed for measurement of physical systems, it is an information science category and may be why the author calls its effects a "quality". Looking to thermodynamics and the mathematical theory of communication will lead us to a better understanding of life as an objective natural process. Materials science doesn't have a course of study in basic physical qualities.
 
Top