|
|
Post by bonehead on Jun 16, 2018 17:40:48 GMT
I have spoken here about other challenges to status-quo beliefs such as the Big Bang Theory, rational materialism and evolution (aka Darwinism). I believe all of those popular notions to be mistaken to some extent. In his magnum opus on evolutionary theory "The Origin of Species", Darwin suggested that the biggest objection to his theory was the relative lack of intermediate species in the fossil record.
A recent genetic study published in the science journal, Human Evolution gives Darwinism perhaps its biggest hit ever:
www.techtimes.com/articles/228798/20180530/massive-genetic-study-reveals-90-percent-of-earth-s-animals-appeared-at-the-same-time.htm
In a massive study, geneticist David Thaler concluded that 90% of present species originated at about the same time humans did, 100,000 to 200,000 years ago. Thaler said "This conclusion is very surprising and I fought against it as hard as I could."
From the article:
"In analyzing the COI of 100,000 species, Stoeckle and Thaler arrived at the conclusion that most animals appeared simultaneously. They found that the neutral mutation across species were not as varied as expected. Neutral mutation refers to the slight DNA changes that occur across generations." These conclusions stand in stark contrast to present evolutionary theory. If mutations are not as prolific as expected in Darwinist theory and so many species appeared nearly simultaneously, then Drawin's theories seem to be contradicted by the latest scientific evidence. It kinda makes me think that Intelligent Design (as I have argued for here in the past) is looking a lot more viable than Darwin's nebulous and inscrutable "random mutation and natural selection" concepts. I never bought those fuzzy notions in the first place.
I expect that this superstition will be almost as hard to kill as rational materialism. Even if contemporary science has demonstrated that both theories have outlived their usefulness....
Bonehead
|
|
|
|
Post by purr on Jun 18, 2018 19:53:36 GMT
I have spoken here about other challenges to status-quo beliefs such as the Big Bang Theory, rational materialism and evolution (aka Darwinism). I believe all of those popular notions to be mistaken to some extent. In his magnum opus on evolutionary theory "The Origin of Species", Darwin suggested that the biggest objection to his theory was the relative lack of intermediate species in the fossil record.
A recent genetic study published in the science journal, Human Evolution gives Darwinism perhaps its biggest hit ever:
www.techtimes.com/articles/228798/20180530/massive-genetic-study-reveals-90-percent-of-earth-s-animals-appeared-at-the-same-time.htm
In a massive study, geneticist David Thaler concluded that 90% of present species originated at about the same time humans did, 100,000 to 200,000 years ago. Thaler said "This conclusion is very surprising and I fought against it as hard as I could."
From the article:
"In analyzing the COI of 100,000 species, Stoeckle and Thaler arrived at the conclusion that most animals appeared simultaneously. They found that the neutral mutation across species were not as varied as expected. Neutral mutation refers to the slight DNA changes that occur across generations." These conclusions stand in stark contrast to present evolutionary theory. If mutations are not as prolific as expected in Darwinist theory and so many species appeared nearly simultaneously, then Drawin's theories seem to be contradicted by the latest scientific evidence. It kinda makes me think that Intelligent Design (as I have argued for here in the past) is looking a lot more viable than Darwin's nebulous and inscrutable "random mutation and natural selection" concepts. I never bought those fuzzy notions in the first place.
I expect that this superstition will be almost as hard to kill as rational materialism. Even if contemporary science has demonstrated that both theories have outlived their usefulness....
Bonehead Ha! Hi Bonehead, I always jump at a mention of my pet theory (Evolution), and absolutely agreed, to get that out of the way, that our great scientific theories (doubling as "popular notions"  ) fit your measured description of being "mistaken to some extent". Of course Popular Science = faith = extent of mistake by most of us lay people.
"..one out of ten uh.. from 100,000 kinds of animals is well.... Lots... right?"
Imo real science is realizing you DON'T KNOW SUMTIN and start to ask questions: the rest is the history of Science, Work In Progress.... Now I prefer to believe none of the theories you mention are doing quite as badly as you suggest. But I just read the link (thanks! intriguing article..) and am processing the discovery of the 9 out of 10 species appearance time cluster (they are grouped with modern humans emerging up to 200,000 yrs Before Present[sic oldest modern human find dated 350,000 BP, expected to extend even further back]). Bone IMHO the key could be the 1 out of 10 (from 100,000 species sampled) whose earliest genetic (mitochondrial?) signature dates back to any other, including earlier, times. They presumably still fit the mainstream model of species evolution. Not that things really are this desperate, but it takes only one evolved species to ensure Evolutionary Theory's continued viability. (The popular 'mistake' is thinking it's an across the board 100% proven slam dunk.) The article seems to point out an explanation for the 9 out of 10 species sampled who emerged together around up to 200,000 yrs ago. It's an evolutionary bottleneck, one of many near global extinction events, often cosmic impact or earthly volcanism related, that wipes out a vast array of species except for a selection of the hardiest and luckiest survivors. These family lines start life anew following each such disaster, and the big elephant in the room is that our planet is forever prone to sudden unimaginable catastrophes (Lesson for all: be crazy like a prepper!), which somewhat ominous state of affairs constitutes a reasonable explanation for finding genetic emergence clusters, a bunch of lucky earthlings seemingly dropped off yet another Noah's Ark. Natural selection to be continued.... purr
|
|
|
|
Post by bonehead on Jun 18, 2018 23:47:14 GMT
Ha! Hi Bonehead, I always jump at a mention of my pet theory (Evolution), and absolutely agreed, to get that out of the way, that our great scientific theories (doubling as "popular notions" ) fit your measured description of being "mistaken to some extent". Of course Popular Science = faith = extent of mistake by most of us lay people.
"..one out of ten uh.. from 100,000 kinds of animals is well.... Lots... right?"
Imo real science is realizing you DON'T KNOW SUMTIN and start to ask questions: the rest is the history of Science, Work In Progress....
Thanks Purr!
Of course, all knowledge is by necessity a work in progress. The primary stumbling block implicit in this work in progress is that you cannot know what you do not know. Yep, seems obvious. Yet, science seems obsessed with the idea of "knowing" stuff that at least for the time being is unknowable. Thus you have your big-bangs and your Darwinism. They are nothing more than "educated" guesses - amateur attempts at cosmology. But since such guesses are full to the brim with whatever stuff we don't know, they are by their very nature, flawed. Now I prefer to believe none of the theories you mention are doing quite as badly as you suggest. But I just read the link (thanks! intriguing article..) and am processing the discovery of the 9 out of 10 species appearance time cluster (they are grouped with modern humans emerging up to 200,000 yrs Before Present[sic oldest modern human find dated 350,000 BP, expected to extend even further back]). Bone IMHO the key could be the 1 out of 10 (from 100,000 species sampled) whose earliest genetic (mitochondrial?) signature dates back to any other, including earlier, times. They presumably still fit the mainstream model of species evolution. Not that things really are this desperate, but it takes only one evolved species to ensure Evolutionary Theory's continued viability. (The popular 'mistake' is thinking it's an across the board 100% proven slam dunk.)
I have never thought that macro evolution - the slight changes that species make over time in order to adapt to changing environments - was mistaken. The trouble comes when evolution is offered as a model for the genesis of species. You seem to be saying that one out of ten species (excluding the 90% of newly minted species) still adhere to Darwin's theories. But this is a little like saying their is still one horse in the corral even though all the others have run away. Sorry, they are gone. Darwin has left the building.
The trouble is, you cannot just throw out the rather obvious 90% that did not evolve the way Darwin claims. They just seem to have appeared suddenly with no significant precedents whatsoever. That is not Darwinism. It is something else. And if those species emerged in the way their DNA seems to indicate, then they seem to be the result of a massive creative event. There was no time for them to evolve from anything else. I do not have any idea how that came about, but it was not a lengthy evolutionary process that brought those species into being. Put dirt simple: they cannot have come about by a lengthy Darwinist process.
And that one pony (one out of ten) still in the corral? Where did they come from? Even if you demonstrated a Darwinist evolution for them, the cat is out of the bag. All those other species did not happen that way. They suggest something more akin to a "mass creation" event. Sorry, but that pretty much puts all the claims Science has made for Darwinism into the BS pile..... The article seems to point out an explanation for the 9 out of 10 species sampled who emerged together around up to 200,000 yrs ago. It's an evolutionary bottleneck, one of many near global extinction events, often cosmic impact or earthly volcanism related, that wipes out a vast array of species except for a selection of the hardiest and luckiest survivors. These family lines start life anew following each such disaster, and the big elephant in the room is that our planet is forever prone to sudden unimaginable catastrophes (Lesson for all: be crazy like a prepper!), which somewhat ominous state of affairs constitutes a reasonable explanation for finding genetic emergence clusters, a bunch of lucky earthlings seemingly dropped off yet another Noah's Ark. Natural selection to be continued....
Yes, the "event" does suggest a "recovery" from some cataclysmic event. I do not know enough about genetics to say whether the mitochondrial DNA indicates an ultimate origin for a species or simply indicates that the present species began with one pair at a certain point in time. As for the originating "ark" pair, if they are descended from pre-cataclysmic progenitors (as the ark story suggests), then their previous ante-cataclysmic origins would be reflected in the DNA. It is not. They just seem to appear in a short 100,000 year span, fully evolved.
That is not good for Darwinism. It pretty much contradicts the paradigm. At least that is how i understand it. I am open to being convinced otherwise. But your present argument falls short for me.
Bonehead  purr
|
|
|
|
Post by bonehead on Aug 30, 2018 18:44:28 GMT
Hey Purr,
I was just rereading all of this and it occurred to me that the one out of nine species that can be traced to a pre-cataclysmic genesis would simply be the ones that survived whatever cataclysm spurred that huge "creation event" in the first place. It would be a list of the hearty types that somehow were able to escape the total obliteration visited upon all the unfortunate others.
Perhaps something could be learned by studying those survivors? Food for thought, anyway. Besides with all the "greatness" we seem to be generating, another cataclysm seems to be in the offing soon, eh? That knowledge could come in handy! 
And thanks for your thoughtful response. How's that Darwinism looking now? 
Cheers!!
Bonehead
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 31, 2018 14:20:49 GMT
The modern theory of evolution (not Darwinism) is a complex subject. The casual mention of Darwinism seems to imply a grasp of evolution but the science is much much more than originally put forward by Darwin and popularly conceived. The modern theory of evolution would take several pages to summarize and even then it would not do the subject justice. The theory notion is a bit of a misnomer. The scientific method dictates a replicable experiment to support the hypothesis which if it cannot be challenged becomes theory and eventually a law. For example magnetism is a force of nature, gravity is a force of nature, and consequently we have the laws of physics, Newtonian mechanics. Evolution on the other hand cannot be replicated. I suppose if you had a time machine you could go back a million years, plant a twig and theorize it will become an oak tree a million years hence and you could prove it with genetic identification. This of course is impossible and consequently evolution remains a theory. There are many forces within evolution. What’s proposed in the article is not at all contradictory.
|
|
|
|
Post by HAL on Aug 31, 2018 16:58:38 GMT
The problem with Evolution becomes apparent when you 'keep on going back'.
All animals are derived from the splitting of a nucleus.
Logically you get to the point where there is only one nucleus.
It's a kind of 'Who was God's mother' problem.
HAL
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 31, 2018 17:22:00 GMT
The problem with Evolution becomes apparent when you 'keep on going back'. All animals are derived from the splitting of a nucleus. Logically you get to the point where there is only one nucleus. It's a kind of 'Who was God's mother' problem. HAL Could be like one of those unexplained forces of the universe, ie gravity. |
|
) fit your measured description of being "mistaken to some extent". Of course Popular Science = faith = extent of mistake by most of us lay people.
