My biological hypothesis

[pgrmdave]

I don't think of evolution the way that you claim darwinists do, supersport. First off, I think that the environment can influence genetics to a degree - perhaps not in the existance of genetics but in the use of them. A good example of this is an experiment involving bacteria that discovered that bacteria will 'turn on' certain genes in the presence of other bacteria and 'turn off' certain genes when not. link: http://www.livescience.com/animalworld/050310_talking_bacteria.html .

 

Secondly, I have disagreed for a long time that evolution requires vast periods of time. I think it is possible for a group of organisms to evolve quickly over a short period of time given proper evolutionary pressures. I don't disagree with the idea that evolution happens over large periods of time, I simply think that it can occur over short periods as well, given the right conditions.

 

However, I think we disagree in that I feel that DNA is the main carrier of information for an organism, making it what is most likely changed in evolution.

[InfiniteNow]

SS,

 

Please consider the issues raised. My concern here is that your stance will quickly deteriorate, as it has for many others, if you simply keep changing the measureing stick ("moving the endzone") to justify your perspective.

 

Natural selection is probably one of the most robust and capable theories ever put forth.

[supersport]

SS,

 

Please consider the issues raised. My concern here is that your stance will quickly deteriorate, as it has for many others, if you simply keep changing the measureing stick ("moving the endzone") to justify your perspective.

 

Natural selection is probably one of the most robust and capable theories ever put forth.

 

If NS is so robust then why are there no experiments on animals to prove it? I think the concept of natural selection is bogus. It's an attempt to explain appearance by disappearance.

[supersport]

I don't think of evolution the way that you claim darwinists do, supersport. First off, I think that the environment can influence genetics to a degree - perhaps not in the existance of genetics but in the use of them. A good example of this is an experiment involving bacteria that discovered that bacteria will 'turn on' certain genes in the presence of other bacteria and 'turn off' certain genes when not. link: http://www.livescience.com/animalworld/050310_talking_bacteria.html . .

 

Darwinists do NOT accept that the environment can effect genes. They believe genes live in isolation from the environment and can only be altered randomly. This is not even debatable.

 

Secondly, I have disagreed for a long time that evolution requires vast periods of time. I think it is possible for a group of organisms to evolve quickly over a short period of time given proper evolutionary pressures. I don't disagree with the idea that evolution happens over large periods of time, I simply think that it can occur over short periods as well, given the right conditions.

 

well...I agree with you. Unfortunately for evolutionists they simply do not have a biological mechanism to create new traits in animals. Evolutionists, no matter what some people say, are still sticking to gradualism. Their whole platform is built on it, in fact, because that's the only way humans could have evolved from monkeys.

 

 

However, I think we disagree in that I feel that DNA is the main carrier of information for an organism, making it what is most likely changed in evolution

 

Well I believe you are just repeating what you've heard. There's nothing wrong with that, but you may want to at least consider that you may be wrong. DNA is neither the starting point, nor the ending point for genetic information. The body uses genes as a tool. The genes, themselves, don't dictate anything.

 

If we transfer the gene responsible for the occurrence of the eye in a cat to the egg of a blind fly that lacks its eye-forming gene, the fly develops its normal red-faceted eyes despite the fact that the gene came from a cat with round blue eyes. Guisseppi Sermonti, Phd

 

I believe genes are just tools to help carry out a destiny that resides somewhere in the deepest confines of the body.

[billg]

I just don't understand this argument at all. You seem to be saying genes aren't responsible for coding the differences between animals because all animals have the same genes... which is blatantly not true. Also, genes are basically the only thing an animals passes down to it's offspring. If genes aren't responsible for making a horse different from a fly, what is? You seem to suggest the environment somehow. What, are you suggesting we take a fly and raise it in a barn and it will grow up a horse?

 

Also - "an attempt to prove appearance by disappearance" - what the hell does that mean?

 

I'm sorry if this isn't the most well set out counter argument but I'm too impatient to comment on every point in a long, winding, basically nonsensical argument, which is what we have here.

[InfiniteNow]

If NS is so robust then why are there no experiments on animals to prove it? I think the concept of natural selection is bogus. It's an attempt to explain appearance by disappearance.

You've just confirmed my point that you are ignoring the evidence put forth despite it's clarity.

[HydrogenBond]

Natural selection fits the data fairly well. However, the data is sort of discontinuous leading to a self forfilling theory.

 

Let me give an example; A drug manufacturer comes out with a new drug. It runs scientific tests. One groups collects all the duds and the other group collects all the hits. Both groups will have valid data but both will draw opposite conclusions based on their narrow data field. The TV media does this all the time. They show tragic results and ignor all the good stuff leading people to believe that only tragedy is in the world. Selective evolution selectively uses selective data to reinforce its belief. It does not do this on purpose, but is limited by the discontinuous data.

 

If one put a German Sheperd in the artic or in the tropics, its fur would stay thicker or thinner longer, depending whether it was in the cold or warm. If the evolutionist didn't know this was the same dog, it would assume selective evolution adapted it to its environment over thousands of years. In truth, it adapted in one season. It either kept its winter coat or its summer coat.

 

Humans are interesting with respect to evolution. About 10K thousand years ago they began to advance at an accelerated rate. The DNA of humans 10K years ago probally isn't that much different than today, according to the assumed rate of mutations associated with the discontinuous data. That would suggest another variable needing to be added to the equation to explain the rapid change in adaptation. This would also suggest this variable needs to be added to evolution to get the full story.

[Tarantism]

It’s clear to me that contemporary science has only one eye open to how nature really works. Instead of natural observations, science, instead has an obsession to dig below the surface and focus on genetics. It’s a bizarre fixation on the flask and test tube. They've replaced the study of living organisms with the study of bacteria, viruses and genes. But there’s a reason for this odd diversion…and it’s because nature – as it truly operates – shatters theTheory of Evolution. Thus, the truth about how nature operates is very difficult to find.

 

:hammer:

 

blurring my vision makes it clear that tiny, moving parts make up the whole. think about it....

 

and what do you mean, the "truth" about how nature operates???? ugh. i have to leave. in the meantime, read some Darwin, and then read "what evolution is" by ernest mayer...and then find some hole in the ground somewhere in the vacinity of the carribian where its warm, insert head, and tell me if you evolve differently :doh:

[supersport]

:naughty:

 

blurring my vision makes it clear that tiny, moving parts make up the whole. think about it....

 

and what do you mean, the "truth" about how nature operates???? ugh. i have to leave. in the meantime, read some Darwin, and then read "what evolution is" by ernest mayer...and then find some hole in the ground somewhere in the vacinity of the carribian where its warm, insert head, and tell me if you evolve differently :)

 

 

I've got that book, actually.

 

Besides...what i mean by that statement is that evolutionsts no longer study REAL biology. They don't test animals in different locations to see what different traits may arise. Instead they bury their heads in genes, viruses, and bacteria.

 

I am suggesting that animals do not change their traits randomly -- which shatters their theory.

[ronthepon]

If NS is so robust then why are there no experiments on animals to prove it? I think the concept of natural selection is bogus. It's an attempt to explain appearance by disappearance.

Is it totally nessecary that the strongest hypothesis is bogus just because the experiments performed are not validated?

 

Can you disprove it?

 

It does make complete sense. It is perfectly logical. It does have the ability to explain almost any scenario of evolution that can be presented.

 

Your hypothesis is a mixture of Lamarck's theory of inherited charecters , and Hugo de Vries' theory of mutative evolution, with a few more additives. Do you have a way of claiming that it is the *only* truth, the *only* way by which evolution happens?

[ronthepon]

Gotta get some ideas across. Check this out, supersport.

 

Remember the excersise-***-challenge you had mentioned about testing Natural Selection (Involving Dogs, Austrailan outback and Arctic)? This has got to do with it.

 

------------------------------------

 

Get an enormous bunch of flies, germinate them in a convinient method.

 

Let's take pages out of T H Morgan's book, and do as he had done. (He used the fruit fly, Drosophila melanogaster for a start.)

 

Then select a particular trait of your choice. Suppose it is the presence of white eye colour. Now, you shall favour the propogation of this trait.

Indeed, this is analogous to nature favouring a particular trait such as a haelthier coat of fur against the cold wind.

 

Now, out of your pool containing ten thousand fruit flies, take a hundred out every day, and kill the flies not having white eye colur. (Most have red, for the record.)

If you've got better things to do with your life, pay ten men to carry out the task.

 

Each time you find a fly with white eyes, put it back into the fold.

 

Continue this for a few years.

 

Finally, select a 'judgement day'. And on that day, select ten thousand flies from the pool, and look into their eyes.

 

Compare the number of white eyes you have now with the number there was at the beginning of the experiment.

 

------------------------------------

 

Now, supersport, Try and guess the outcome of the experiment.

Tell me, what mechanism is working here.

 

 

You wont ignore this post, will you?

[Tarantism]

I've got that book, actually.

 

Besides...what i mean by that statement is that evolutionsts no longer study REAL biology. They don't test animals in different locations to see what different traits may arise. Instead they bury their heads in genes, viruses, and bacteria.

 

I am suggesting that animals do not change their traits randomly -- which shatters their theory.

I am suggesting that animals do not change their traits randomly -- which shatters their theory.

 

as far as i know, the theory states that animals adapt according to their envorments and surroundings. the ones taht do not adapt efficiently enough die out. the ones that do, live on to reproduce and their genes come to dominate. thus, as the dominant genes continue to get passed down and the species evolves, putting it at a higher advantage, giving it more oppertunity to survive in the surrounding world.

 

how can/does your hypothesis disagree with this?

[supersport]

Gotta get some ideas across. Check this out, supersport.

 

Remember the excersise-***-challenge you had mentioned about testing Natural Selection (Involving Dogs, Austrailan outback and Arctic)? This has got to do with it.

 

------------------------------------

 

Get an enormous bunch of flies, germinate them in a convinient method.

 

Let's take pages out of T H Morgan's book, and do as he had done. (He used the fruit fly, Drosophila melanogaster for a start.)

 

Then select a particular trait of your choice. Suppose it is the presence of white eye colour. Now, you shall favour the propogation of this trait.

Indeed, this is analogous to nature favouring a particular trait such as a haelthier coat of fur against the cold wind.

 

Now, out of your pool containing ten thousand fruit flies, take a hundred out every day, and kill the flies not having white eye colur. (Most have red, for the record.)

If you've got better things to do with your life, pay ten men to carry out the task.

 

Each time you find a fly with white eyes, put it back into the fold.

 

Continue this for a few years.

 

Finally, select a 'judgement day'. And on that day, select ten thousand flies from the pool, and look into their eyes.

 

Compare the number of white eyes you have now with the number there was at the beginning of the experiment.

 

------------------------------------

 

Now, supersport, Try and guess the outcome of the experiment.

Tell me, what mechanism is working here.

 

 

You wont ignore this post, will you?

 

I know nothing of that experiment...but he did not do the type of experiment I'm calling for.

 

What I'm asking for is much, much simpler than that -- yet it's never, ever done.

[supersport]

as far as i know, the theory states that animals adapt according to their envorments and surroundings. the ones taht do not adapt efficiently enough die out. the ones that do, live on to reproduce and their genes come to dominate. thus, as the dominant genes continue to get passed down and the species evolves, putting it at a higher advantage, giving it more oppertunity to survive in the surrounding world.

 

how can/does your hypothesis disagree with this?

 

Well...darwinism says that animals get their traits through random mutations -- only then to be "selected." I'm proposing the opposite: the traits are formed in the population nonrandomly via a cue from the environment. For example, if a new seed was introduced to a population of rodents, their jaws all might "adapt" and grow bigger/stronger to accommodate the new diet. This would happen to all individuals of the population at the same time. If viewed in the fossil record, this could give the illusion of evolution.

[Mercedes Benzene]

Well...darwinism says that animals get their traits through random mutations -- only then to be "selected." I'm proposing the opposite: the traits are formed in the population nonrandomly via a cue from the environment. For example, if a new seed was introduced to a population of rodents, their jaws all might "adapt" and grow bigger/stronger to accommodate the new diet. This would happen to all individuals of the population at the same time. If viewed in the fossil record, this could give the illusion of evolution.

 

Umm... that IS true. Creatures "adapt" all the time. What you're saying here is correct, it's just not the whole story.

Another form of adaption is natural selection, as opposed to an adaption based on necessity like your rodent example.

[ronthepon]

I know nothing of that experiment...but he did not do the type of experiment I'm calling for.

 

What I'm asking for is much, much simpler than that -- yet it's never, ever done.

supersport... won't you tell us all what you expect the result of the experiment to be?

 

And why do you act as you did not read my post just preceeding that one?

[HydrogenBond]

Here is an interesting intellectual experiment. Start with a group of small children and divide them equally into two. One group will be allowed to set their own environment for development and the other group will be have their environment set for them. For example, the first group can chose to go to school for one hour a day, play most of the time, eat junk food, etc.. The second group is forced, by the environment, into longer schooling, structured activities, healthy diet, etc.. These two groups will evolve in different ways into adulthood.

 

In both groups, members with selective advantage will form with respect to their particular environments. There will be expert playmates in one group and expert worker bees in the other group. If we reverse the environments, neither would have the same level of selective advantage in the new environment as the original experts.

 

If we extrapolate this to evolution, a static or dynamic environment will play a very signicant role in the direction of selective advantage. It can reverse the path of advantage at any time. It can speed it up selective evolution by changing quickly, or slow down down selective evolution via static environments.

 

If we look at the earth, it has been evolving in a logical way from 5billions years ago to the present. This is reflected in the observation that one can predict magnetic reversals, global warming-cooling, continental drift, hurricanes, earthquakes, etc.. The evolution of the earth has random variabliity built in but it still moves to the future with rational laws of nature. This combination of logical order and random variability in the evolution of the earth has been setting logical and random potential for selective evolution.

 

It is not cooincidental that cells first appear, than multicells, then sea critters, than land critters, from crawling to climbing to flying, from cold blooded to warm blooded, from six legs to four legs to two arms and two legs, to walking upright, etc. Along this logical progression of the earth and life, there is a layer of diversity to reflect the random aspect of the earth's evolution.