You, one the other hand, sure *are* a researcher, you *have* been there, you *have* seen your idea, or someone else's, simply ignored and ridiculed without ever being given any consideration. Just as I have.
Real research is so hard to do, because the inertia is simply overwhelming, at least for many years until resistance is broken (by which time, the researcher himself is broken from exhaustion and even simple old age). Real science is done on the fringes, real discovery happens just outside Science, Inc.
Oh, but don't you worry: vulture scientists *will* think the idea is pure genius---as soon as *they* can profit from it.
> It prevents people from publishing stuff that is plain wrong.
Says *who*? Cost of publication is nil (/. perfect example). Publish and be grilled!
But no. No no no no. Why?
So-called "peer-review" is the mechanism big professors (Ivory-tower witch-doctors, as Gibson put it) protect their careers and their undeserverd positions from scientific progress. As many (most?) of them have no other merit than repeating what the great minds of the past said, being the High Priests of the Late Genius (who was usually brutally harassed in his own time by the same kind of big professors!) the mere chance of new evidence that could put those old views to the test must not tolerated. Hence, PeerReview(TM).
"You could write the entire history of science in the last 50 years in terms of papers rejected by Science or Nature." Paul C. Lauterbur, Nobel Prize in physiology or medicine (his paper was rejected).
ROTFL
> If you really have good evidence, good arguments and a well written paper and you are still getting rejections from achnowledged experts, then you have my sympathy.
I have good ideas, good arguments, and am building a solid case and writing it. As they mature, you are welcome to provide feedback, contribute, or perform any other kind of peer review.
But to to real science, I bailed out of Science, Inc. I couldn't care less for 'experts'. If you do, sorry, I have no use for you. Science is not about Authoritas, it is about *evidence*. But science has been perverted. Science is DEAD.
The flame of intellectual freedom has been passed to a something new. In Chrichton's words in the mouth of Iam Malcom (Jurassik Park): "See you on the other side."
For a metacellular, evolution can be defined as "the change in embryology along generations". You obviously do not understand this. For metacellular, embryology IS evolution. For cellulars not, of course, and that's why I stated that this 2 kinds of evol are qualitatively diff.
Structure-determined: autopoietical systems are structure-determined, but you seem not to understand that they are autopoietical. They change themselves, in fact that ALL they do, that's whay they ARE. Are you sure you understand autopoiesis?
Genes: at some point, the idea of genes (from genos, origin, meant to be the unit of inheritance) was debased to DNA. After a while, it was again debased to DNA-mediated protein synthesis. But the original implications were kept! (cf. Wilsonian genes). Therefore, gene, as used by Neodarwinians, is a non-concept, it means nothing. Somehow this led to the idea that understanding protein synthesis equalled understanding 'genetics' (i.e. inheritance). This is utter rubish. And you fall for this con.
Zigote choices: of course it decides how to develop; as an autopoietical system, what ELSE could it do but recompute itself???
You seem to fail to grasp the chasm between metacellulars and cellulars. A common mistake, as can easily be seen when most so-called evolutionary biologists use experiments done on bacteria (and even viruses, which are not even alive!) to explain the evolution of things like vertebrates; this is beyond stupid.
>So we KNOW that traits are inherited from parents to offspring via DNA.
No, we know that *some* traits at the molecular level are inherited as encoded in DNA. We know that there are others that are inherited but not that way. About most traits, no one ever bothered to look, especially so for metacellulars--no one looks for things that cannot be explained by Neodarwinism, and even if you try, no funding! Again, the debasing of genetics.
> DNA builds proteins that build cells that are somehow able to organise themselves. Nobody knows how this works in its entirity, but the fact that we dont know this yet doesnt alter the natural selection argument one bit!
Somehow. Not understood. No implication for evolution.
ROFL
Peer-review? I'm all for peer-review, the *real* kind. That's why I bailed out of academia. So called scientific "peer-review" is neither, it's editorial censorship. And this is why real scientific progress only happens at the borders of science and seldom at the Big Science, (even when they have almost all the resources!), as you can easily verify. And why science is both cracking open and dying at the same time; something new is replacing science as free inquiry.
re: NS requires criterion of what is good and what is bad. Where does it come from?
The problem with selection experiments is that there do not even remotely represent the typical environment of typical organism of those kinds. To start with, they are aberrantly oversimpified. Have you noticed, how the typical conditions for those experiments (eg. antibiotics) are aberrant, extreme conditions organism almost never face during their evolutionary history? Great! So Darwinians, at best, try to explain how evolution seldom if ever happened. Analogy: if I throw a fish out of a high-rise window, will I not be able to describe its movements with the same model I can use for a rock? And does that mean that fishes swim like rocks? Under brutal stress, complex sytems are deprived of most of their freedom and tend to behave like simpler systems. So, is it surprising that under brutally stressful conditions bacteria's behaviour (I mean responses) approaches that of the simpler allopoietical self-replicating systems? Great. Why not, say, burn them, and then say that bacteria are just like any other watery organic matter? Does all this tell us anything about the typical behaviour (evolution) of bacteria? Is this a realistic, or even useful, study?
So, we must accept that living systems live by their own rules, that they are *alive*. That they do a lot of things the like of which reductionists do not like:) Under *those* conditions, *natural* conditions, *evolutionary* conditions, the question of criterion for what is advantageous becomes quite a different story. Darwinian 'adaptations' are just post-hoc coverups of their total ignorance. An ignorance not much greater than mine, I just am HONEST about it: life absolutely baffles me. And why shouldn't it? Who said biology was easy?
> Mutations are completely unpredicted
Utter crap, sorry. I confidently predict a base will turn into either adenine, thymine, cytosine, guanine, or nothing. No, I'm not metting sophystry. Just inelegantly making a point: DNA structuree is not random, DNA duplication is not random. Life is about nanotechnological MACHINES. Even at the lowliest level, whatever the change in a DNA base pair, it will be read as A,T,C,G or nothing. Besides, we KNOW that the probabilities of, say, A->G is diff from say, A->T. Phylogeneticists use this evolutionary models all the time in a set of methods known as Maximum Likelihood. And that's only what we know. So you can see it's not random at all.
Crossingover random??? Oh golly, brace yourself! No, there is probably no cellular mechanism LESS random that crossing over. It *homogenizes* genomes quite beautifully in an exceedingly precise pairing of DNA strands.
It's late, and I feel grumpy, so let's be nasty:)
Gedankenexperiment: mutant allele in species A allows it to counter the poison in plant P, which is very abundant yet extrememly toxic. So, ND predicts that the mutation will increase in freq an even allow the species A to thrive and even to radiate into AA, AB, &c.
You like the scenario? If yes, shame on you, individual of specis A never eats plants!
Now for a wicked twist. Assume some individuals of A occasionally eat plants and some P, which is not lethal in those quantities. So, the more vegetarian in behaviour, the more advantage the mutants will have from an antitoxin allele, even if not perfectly protects them. The more they eat P successfully, the more likely they *individuals* will eat more and more of it. The more they include P in their diet, the more relevant the allele will be for fitness, and the stronger the selective pressure on its pressence, expression, and new subsequent mutations that code for a more effective antitoxin.
So, where are we? The individuals of A that try to eat P tend to have descendants that can eat P more and more successfully... Yes, we got to Lamarckism by way of Darwinism. Which should not surprise anyone, as Lamark
Gods, I simply have not the time:(
> Ok, how are these modifications made?
First, reproduction. There can be no other way. Reproduction, not copying, not replication. Living systeam are structure-determined systems, and this dynamics is what allows them to change as well as restricting what changes are possible.
What is called selection, when found by Darwinians, is just the result of this. But ONE result of this. The rest is ignored, as Darwinians only look for what looks like a selection, and they have all the money.
> Evolution would require the introduction of new genes, not the shifting in frequencies of existing ones.
In Neodarwinian terms, change in frequencies *is* enough, so you are wrong and the other poster was right. Biologically, both are wrong, as evolution has nothing to do with this, not directly.
> And why don't you define "gene"?
You can't. I remember, a whole room of truly brilliant biologists, we tried for a whole evening. Gene is not a concept, it's a anti-concept; what it truly says is "DON'T ASK DIFFICULT QUESTIONS!!!". Same goes for "fitness", "species", "genetics", and most of traditional (pseudo)biology.
Bold? Maybe, we need some boldness! Still, I must confess I'm shamefully conservative.
I must apologize, you do have some background, perhaps enough. YIIIIPES!!!:)
Maturana states himself that there is NS. Paper in 2001, I forget the title (it's quite an involved one and makes a paraphrase with Darwin's "Origin of Species", if you come accross it you'll recognize) and it's in Castilian and I know of no English translation.
Batheson religion? Then this computer is a miracle! No, he just, among many things, made painfully clear that the pieces of a clock do not tell the time; that there is a *critical difference* between a whole and its parts, and that science was ignoring that at our own peril.
Ironically, to think that the *pieces* of a clock are enough to tell the time, is magic thinking.
In biology, the ONLY things that remain is that difference, as the parts change all the time! So biology is not being studied AT ALL by reductionistic science; traditional (pseudo) biology is simply eluding the questions. Neodarwinism is but one way to avoid these questions, some of the hardest of them all.
The key issues here (some, rather):
NS requires self-replication. Living systems do not replicate, they *reproduce*.
NS requires criterion of what is good and what is bad. Where does it come from? Why is being small good for a mice and bad for an elephant? What makes those choices? If do not answer this, if you elude the question like Darwinians do, you let the gates wide open for ID and Creationists!
NS says that evolution, as the result of random mutation and selection of 'adaptive' changes, is a blind process. Why is this so? Why MUST this be so? If a bunch of organisms (cells, bags of water contaminated with organics!) interacting with each other can write "Don Quijote", then why
must evolution be unintelligent? If evolution is intelligent (I'm not saying it is, although I think it might be at least sometimes) then this open the gates yet again for antievolutionists.
In any case, it's a bogus claim by Neodarwinians, the more they make it, the stronger the anti-evolution argument seems.
In any case, the changes might not be the design of intelligence, but they are certainly NOT RANDOM! This must be obvious to anyone who knows anything about digital computers: if there is something that you cannot do with a computer is randomness; randomness *crashes* a computer. Randomness in life KILLS. Even mutations (not all evolutionary changes are mutations) are never random, becase life is not a random process. Random is just DarwinianSpeak for "I do not understand". Well, let's say so!
This one I find funny: check all models of 'biological' evolution. You will find that most if not all models (Gould water on sand, Kimura diffusion of liquids, &c. &c. &c.) DO NOT REQUIRE LIFE. Great! So what we have is e
> The only requirements for evolution is descent with modification. There is no point explaining until you have the basis. As I wrote, most of the pseudo-biology taught in schools and you find in books is useless crap. The very *words* you use let me know that you lack the background. If you do read what I suggested you to read, you'll see it is so, unfortunately so, and you'll understand that I am not being pedantic, but that really there is no way I can tell you. Ask me again in 6 months.
> Evolution, as Ive said, is the change in frequency of genes in a gene pool.
Utter nonsense. Again, define "gene".
> Oh come on - you cant give us a hint?
Sure. I'm writing, but it's in Castilian. Yet, very early drafts, more like sketches.
> "most so-called "biologists" cannot even define life!" Completely irrelevant. Its a pretty hard thing to define. This is a consequence of definitions rather than any lack of skill or knowledge. Of course, if you can do better, by all means go ahead.
WHAT???? Irrelevant? What drug are you on?
Life: molecular autopoiesis (Maturana and Varela, 1972).
And if you do not understand that statement, the you lack even the most basic background. Sorry. I can only point you to biology, I am not your teacher, no time.
> Explain this - I cant see any sense in it.
But of course you can't! For the Nth time, YOU SIMPLY LACK THE MINIMUM BACKGROUND. Up to this point, it was not your fault, but from now on, it becomes your fault if you are really interested and you fail to get yourself up to level. Again, I am just building on top of that background, following on the work of geniuses, and that's hard enough. I have no time to be your teacher, and your chances of understanding anything of what I am myself struggling to understand, my own contribuiton, are nil until you bring yourself up to level. I you ever start learning REAL biology, you'll understand how much this is so. I hope you try; I expect you, just like most, won't.
If you do, though, better put yourself in Neo's frame of mind, because Kansas really will go bye-bye.
Prediction: you'll take the blue pill:-/ You could easily try to falsify what I am telling you by reading the refs I gave you. But I'm almost certain you won't. Almost no one does. Almost no one wants evidence, faith is good enough. Reminds me of the saying: 2 kinds of people, those who hate Linux, and those who actually used it. Most will not ever try to expose themselves to evidence that would force them to change their views on evolution, or on anything in fact. Most Darwinians are cultists, no better that the staunchiest Creationists, if you rub the 'scientific' patina. Both have their answers, reality be damned.
> Otherwise, stop talking crap.
As I wrote at the begining, mandatory token comment. I gave up hope long ago. I just follow that wise principle: when someone does or say something that is wrong, you should tell him; he'll almost certainly not fix it, but at least truth is where it is to be. And keep working.
If you ever take the red pill and bring yourself up to level, I'd love to discuss Quasi-Autopoietical Phylo-Eco-Attractors, the Origin of reproduction from faulty cellular homeostasis, the Origin of species by compartimentalization and typification of lineages, and some really advanced ideas I am only now exploring, which I gave the working name of "biodesics".
Your move now. Take the blue pill, you go back to Darwinian fairyland and everything stays just fine. Take the red pill, and you see how deep evolution goes...
>There are several criteria required for evolution. Reproduction itself is not sufficient. You also need heritability and mutation. If mutations didnt happen, clearly life would not evolve. If these mutations couldnt be inherited, they would be one off.
Sorry if I sounded arrogant. But this, truly, tells me you truly lack the background; you do not write about evolution but about Darwinism. The only requirements for evolution is descent with modification. There is no point explaining until you have the basis. As I wrote, most of the pseudo-biology taught in schools and you find in books is useless crap. The very *words* you use let me know that you lack the background. If you do read what I suggested you to read, you'll see it is so, unfortunately so, and you'll understand that I am not being pedantic, but that really there is no way I can tell you. Ask me again in 6 months.
> Evolution, as Ive said, is the change in frequency of genes in a gene pool.
Utter nonsense. Again, define "gene".
> Oh come on - you cant give us a hint?
Sure. I'm writing, but it's in Castilian. Yet, very early drafts, more like sketches.
> "most so-called "biologists" cannot even define life!" Completely irrelevant. Its a pretty hard thing to define. This is a consequence of definitions rather than any lack of skill or knowledge. Of course, if you can do better, by all means go ahead.
WHAT???? Irrelevant? What drug are you on?
Life: molecular autopoiesis (Maturana and Varela, 1972).
And if you do not understand that statement, the you lack even the most basic background. Sorry.
I can only point you to biology, I am not your teacher, no time.
> Explain this - I cant see any sense in it.
But of course you can't! For the Nth time, YOU SIMPLY LACK THE MINIMUM BACKGROUND. Up to this point, it was not your fault, but from now on, it becomes your fault if you are really interested and you fail to get yourself up to level. Again, I am just building on top of that background, following on the work of geniuses, and that's hard enough. I have no time to be your teacher, and your chances of understanding anything of what I am myself struggling to understand, my own contribuiton, are nil until you bring yourself up to level. I you ever start learning REAL biology, you'll understand how much this is so. I hope you try; I expect you, just like most, won't.
If you do, though, better put yourself in Neo's frame of mind, because Kansas really will go bye-bye.
Prediction: you'll take the blue pill:-/
> Otherwise, stop talking crap.
As I wrote at the begining, mandatory token comment. I gave up hope long ago. I just follow that wise principle: when someone does or say something that is wrong, you should tell him; he'll almost certainly not fix it, but at least truth is where it is to be.
If you ever take the red pill and bring yourself up to level, I'd love to discuss Quasi-Autopoietical Phylo-Eco-Attractors, the Origin of reproduction from faulty isostasis, the Origin of species by compartimentalization and typification of lineages, and some really advanced ideas I am only now exploring, which I gave the working name of "biodesics".
Your move now. Take the blue pill, you go back to Darwinian fairyland and everything stays just fine. Take the red pill, and you see how deep evolution goes...
>I'm sorry I've gone over this many times and your writing is very unclear.
But of course it is! What else can I do? You, like most people, just lack the background. How do you see yourself explaining the Linux kernel internals to a Mac Luser?
Read modern biology, then you'll see that my comments, albeit terse and hurried, make perfect sense.
> only that organisms *must* evolve for life to exist.
Utterly WRONG. I never claimed or wrote such a thing. What I wrote is that organism, if they reproduce, *will* evolve, and that this evolution is neither caused nor explained nor need to be explained by NS.
> I am looking for a *how* things evolve. Why do things evolve the way they do?
Oh my!!! Do you think I, or anyone, can answer that question??? First, the answer mus be MU. The question, as stated, is based on wrong premises, that is that all evolution can be described together. Only at a *very* general level is this true. That's the whole point, since evolution is part of life, differents kind of organisms will evoluve each in different ways! After some 3,600,000,000,000 years, the lineages have divergeg so much that the detail of how eacha evolve are really different. Bacteria evolve in a very different fashion than acacias, and either from humans.
> Why are some changes made versus others?
Oh my...
> Natural selection happens to answer these questions very nicely, if you're going to offer an alternative theory, then you must also answer these very same questions.
NS answers *nothing*, it just declares ignorance an answer.
> Why is it non-parsimonious?
Because evolution can be explained *whithout* it.
> Those who are more fit are more likely to survive. How can it get any simpler? For example, sparrows that are faster are less likely to be hunted down successfully by hawks. Is that statement wrong?
It's not even wrong, it's not a statement. It's a petition of princible, a non-formal fallacy. If I were to write done the hidden assumptions that it's based on, it would be a very long book.
Why is Darwinian 'research' still conducted? Why is people still using Micro$oft? Same question, same answer. Novel ideas in science are suppressed for a rough avge. of 30 years. Don't trust me, go check. Theories are kept decades after they should have been discarded.
> Many fields use natural selection as the backbone of their research.
Fallacy ad populum. Many shops use M$. Try harder:)
> Can you also substantiate the claim that it cannot be tested?
Yes, of course. But have no time, and it's long and to understand you'd need a lot more background in modern biology. You can easily do it yourself: try and design an experiment that *unambiguously* test for it. Not evolution, but NS. Not corroboration, falsation. Prediction: you'll fail. Why? Because a falsation test needs a falsifiable prediction, and NS, being a myth, predicts nothing. Oh, you can corroborate, but never falsify the 'predictions' of NS. There is no possible experiment, even a thought exp, that can lead to the falsation of NS if the prediction of the theory turns false.
Another reason why Darwinian 'research' is still going on. You can always ask for more money even when you get results opposite to NS predictions, since those results NEVER FALSIFY. If you do corroborate NS, success! if you fail, you ask more money to waste and try again--and you'll likely get it. There is no possible accounting.
>I'm going to make the hypothesis that you are an intelligent person capable of forming your own opinions. But I can't disprove this, does that immediately make it false?
No. But you can disprove it. It's called a test. BTW: I was put to the test tens and hundreds of times by Darwinians, many of them my profs in courses I was taken, in 3 colleges and later. I disagreed with them openly, but I was never failed. Of the few tim
>Wow, I really don't know what you're trying to say. If you don't believe in natural selection, then please do tell, what is the underlying mechanism that explains how organisms evolve?
LIFE! Life itself. That's how life *works*. You just can't have life and reproduction without evolution, is like evolution without metabolism; it just does not happen. Nothing else is needed that what makes life life and reproduction (you *can* have life without reproduction; not for long, but that's besides the point).
>So then where is the falsation test where natural selection was rejected and another mechansim proven true?
It is not necesary. Parsimony. Life and reproduction are enough for evolution (H0) vs. NS is needed (H1). H0 has never been rejected, in fact, evidence for H0 (evolution) is *assumed* to imply H1 ! NS a *non-parsimonious* mechanism that contradicts the body of science (biology, cybernetics, thermodynamics). If you postulate it, it is YOUR responsibility to provide evidence for it: "extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence" alright!
Now, I'm not arguing that simpler explanations *must* be right, but that's how science works, and as SOP it's not half bad.
Scientific theories, by def, are never proven, they are either corroborated or disproven. And if it can't be disproven it's not a scientific theory, it's a myth, i.e. an untestable explanation for something. After a theory accumulates enought evidence, it's considered fact. Evolution is a fact; Evolution by Natural Selection is a myth, just as Creationism or Intelligent Design are.
I do not believe NS is any kind of mystical force or anything (BTW: I have a MS in Biology!). It's just a *myth*, i.e. it does not explain nor predict nor can be tested. The myth comes from the very concept of "advantageous" and "fitness". Define fitness, and you get to survival; define survival and you get back to fitness; define fitness and you are back to survival! This is just a circular argument, one that needs we utterly ignore what we *really* know about life (e.g. it's an autonomous system), and of course it's not science but mere sophystry.
> Can an experiment on evolution really be done considering the span of our lifetimes are so short?
Yes! Yes it can. Oh, there are many experiments we cannot perform because of the timeframes involved, but sure, there are very many we *can*. You just need to design them properly and base them on a serious theoretical fundament. BTW: don't bother unless you have independent funds available; you'll *never* get them funded by Science Inc. In fact, you would have commited academic suicide by presenting such a proposal. You have been warned.
As I wrote, just another "mandatory comment"; I'm getting tired of the issue, and have *lots* to do (including theoretical developments on evolution and speciation). I just can't let such steaming piles of bovine feces to pass by without even taking a token exception of them. Please, read Maturana, Varela, Bateson, and other real biologists, and understand them *first*. Then you can discuss evolution.
I fully agree that evolutionary theory was never postulated by Darwin, he says so himself. It predates Darwin by at least 2500 years. He did *prove* that is was *possible*, a major accomplishment, with his observations and experiments of artificial selection. And he provided a LOT of cases where evolution was the simplest explanation. So, Darwin did go a long way to make evolution theory an accepted fact.
He also proposed a mechanism for evolution, analogous to what he as seen in breeds and cultirvars, and called it natural selection. He was wrong. Not his fault, he did live in the 19th century. But by mid 20th century all and any doubt that NS was possible was erased. It's just plain WRONG, the whole thing.
About the evidence for NS, I absolutely disagree. There is none, nil, zero, zip, nada, niente, Nichts, nichto. All the evidence is for evolution, which is the interpreted to support NS because (we all know this, don't we?) evolution happens by NS. But NS has, AFIAK, never ever put to the test itself, not once, anywhere, by anyone, in any system, on any trait. I dare you: give me one reference of a falsation test of NS (H1) being accepted because evolution by other mechanisms (H0) was rejected. ONE reference.
We need no evidence to prove NS wrong; it is the very need for NS, a nonparsimonious explanation, that must be proved first. Evolution can be adequately explained by life itself and reproduction, without resorting to NS, gods, or alien designs. Evolution is as basic biology as metabolism, and no one needs to postulate any "Natural Assimilation" or "Selective Degradation of Foodstuffs" of "Pathways by Reaction of the Chemicalest" or any such bullshit.
Neodarwinism is probably the single greatest scam in the whole history of science. A myth preached to the laymen and that has in fact fostered, if not generated, the whole renaissance of creationism and related pseudoscience. Makes sense, pseudoscience battles pseudoscience in a neverending battle of sophystry, the blind showing the blind, while real scientists are pushed aside and stand there holding their facts and utterly ingored.
Neodarwinism is the Micro$oft of biology!
The whole issue of evolution vs. creationism and intelligent design is moot. The *real* issue is creationism and intelligent design vs. (neo)DARWINISM. Evolution does NOT require Natural Selection, only descent with modification; evolution != evolution by natural selection.
The Teory of Evolution != Darwinism. Even Darwin himself carified this! He (1) presented evidence for evolution, (2) proved it possible (artificial selection), and (3) proposed 1 explanation for evolution (natural selection, which was wrong, but that's not the main point). Natural Selection is but *one mechanism* hypothesised to explain evolution.
Nowadays, evolution is *fact*, and the evidence for evolution itself is absolutely incontrovertible. Evolution by *Natural Selection*, on the other hand, is at best a wrong theory, at worst but a myth: there is NO evidence for it, it has NEVER been put to any test, ever. Check it: there is a lot of evidence, yes, and all evidence is for evolution, none for natural selection vs. other natural mechanisms.
There are other theories of how evolution work (which need no external intervention of gods, aliens, whatever!), but most are suppressed by the (so-called) "scientific" establishment, who of course act as High Priests of Science and will do anything not to have to face facts that would jeopardise the acceptance of ideas which are the only reason for their high-level and often undeserved luxury suites in the Ivory Tower. Just think M$ vs. Linux et al., and you get a pretty accurate picture of the situation in science. Bad Science sells; Pseudoscience also sells; good science is suppressed for a generation.
But the whole here issue hinges in the equivocal identification of Evolution with Darwinism. That is plainly not so. Just think clearly and the whole Evolution Controversy(TM) is very much defused.
The whole point of fertilization, also known as gametic fusion or (imprecisely) as "sexual reproduction", is for species to make sure there is nothing really novel, nothing unusual, in its genes, hence the need for 2 genomes of independent sources, which need not be identical but they do need to be *compatible*. Otherwise, there is no embryo. How many species of metacellulars do you know that do not practice gametic fusion? I thought so. Even partenogenic species are very rare, and probably last a sort time (in evol timescales). Gametic fusion also 'reshuffles' the genomes in a population, homogenizing the population's gene pool and minimising genetic variability (or, more precisely, minimizing intra-lineage divergence).
Genetic engineering, and especially the trans-specific kind that is also *unstable*, is another thing altogether, quite. It is done by arrogant, irresponsible people who are simply ignorant of how life work, and is a veritable Pandora box.
BTW: this 'new' kind of genes is nothing new; it has been predicted decades ago. It's just that mainstream (pseudo)biology flatly refuses to face the evidence, because it would mean *progress* and that's something the High Priests of Science, Inc. just won't have. No sir. No stinkin' falsation of pet theories, thank you so much, I'm quite confortable in my chair. So we are still stuck with things like the stupid myth of Darwinism, and we still cannot cure cancer or have any clue how ecosystems work. And we play with truly dangerous things we cannot understand...
[But don't you worry, they get paid for it.]
New kinds of genes? Guess what? There are even more kinds! Many more! You'll see. They are predicted by (modern, non-traditional) theory---it will be a good test for it.
Thanks, but we gods cannot be bothered with karma:-P
And please, stop calling them "Americans". I am as American as any Usan, and we (Ibero)Americans really hate the Usans taking over our name and covering it with shame and blood. And since we outnumber them 2 to 1, in any case, it is *us* and not Usans who are the true "Americans".
On the rest of your post, how much must I agree, I lament! The USA is high on self-destruction mode, and we better take cover:(
Yes, killes US soldiers vs. killed Iraqi soldiers and *civilians*.
Yes, Iraqi civilians, those pesky "ragheads" who the USA is supposedly liberating. It must be "liberating from the tyranny of matter", I guess.
In any case, the USA was defeated in Iraq, just as it was in Afghanistan, by poorly trained militias armed with 30-year old AKMs and RPGs. I expect the US armed forces do need every single advantage they can get from technology---it will pospone the defeat a little.
1. Inundation is a problem indeed. Censorship is not the answer.
2. Yes they do. A generation too late. You may live with that, I won't. In fact, it probably will get us killed in the not-so-distant future.
3. There is no peer review. Censorship is performed by editors---theri decision is final, and reasons for rejection need not be discloses. Censors *do* often delegate, and request opinion of referees. Censors have full decision power as to whether reject outright of use referees, who these referees will be, and what to do with referees opinions---they absolute power.
4. Papers are commented post-publication. Too late, often. Comments are not easy to find from the paper itself. The process of commenting is cumbersome, and censored too.
As for Winstor Churchill: it's not surprising that your best choice for support of your argument must come from someone who has died half a century ago.
We live in a new world. Face it, or join Creative Anachonists.
1. Editors are NOT authors' peers. Ever. The same couple of people can be peers in other roles, but an authors and the editor who decides on his work cannot ever be peers.
Besides, it's publish or perish. Get published or you have no career, GAME OVER. The level of power these editors over professionals in science in truly of life and death as of your life a scientist. Conflicts of interests? Oh my, you can't start to imagine the size of it...
2. A review can only be made *after* the fact. Even the word is very clear on this, re-view. Only after it's visible, i.e. published. And a review does not per se change the fate of the work in question, a critic may review a film, and his review could very well affect how many people go to the theateras to watcht the film, but a review won't put the film on the screen or kill it. That's *precisely* what these 'scientific' editors do, make or break the author's paper.
So, clearly, this so-called "peer review" is neither. What editors is this "scientific" media do is censorship, or, if you want a more politically correct term, editorialship. "Scientific" journals are a *censored medium*.
Now, about quality control. Sure, we NEED it. We aboulutely most definetely must have it. But is all this censorship any good at stopping bad science? Even if physics, where it kind of works, a bullshit *chemical element* passed right through it. In something 'softer' like biology... again, you can't begin to imagine the size of it. What this censorhip *does* is effectively repress disruptive, revolutionary research, by all making it hard to communicate, hampering its acceptance since it can only be published in 'poor' journal or (gasp!) the web, and simply and silently killing the careers of these researchers. Barbarians assaulting our beatutiful Ivory Tower! (Quite confortable, thank you) They have brought IDEAS!!!
PLOS (Public Library of Science) is just MOTS (More Of The Same). They simply sidestep the core issue here, and that is that technological change has turned publishing upside down. Anyone can publish, anyone can copy, easily, instantly, and for (almost) free. This is the new landscape, and not facing it is just plain denial. POLS is in denial, trying to use computer networks to keep living in the world of the printing press. This can only have disastrous consequences for science, and science is already in serious trouble, under feroucious attack from many fronts (New Age, religious fanatics, corporatists, totalitarianists, &c.). Science, to survive, needs a REVOLUTION to its very foundations, and not a mere whitewash like the POLS, or worse, like the one in Nature.
The only way for science to work in the 21st century is to re-invent itself. One of the new characteristics it MUST have is freedom, both in the sense of freedom of publication and in the sense of freedom of dissemination. PLOS fits only the second part, and media like Nature neither one.
Quality control? A MUST. Even more than now, since what we have now clearly does not cut it.
But in the new landscape created by the computer revolution, it has to be PUBLISH FIRST AND REVIEW LATER. And review *openly*, in freedom, and not in the shadows of the "peer review". Linux has shown that the more the reviewers, the better.
And no more censorhip possible, ever. No more the breaking or making careers in the hands of the people who have the most to lose from progress. No more the fate of science and the best scientists, in the hands of those who have the most to lose from science itself!
You are right, there is no argument, just facetiousnes, both form the privateers ("publishers" my ass, a publisher is someone who makes things public), and from the cabals in academia, who find the censorship system (called "peer review" but actually neither) extremely useful to get job security by pushing each other up the ladder and 'protecting' their careers from the disruptive influence of those real scientists who do real research and are the real source of progress (progress is what you definitely DON'T want if you are a high-priest in academia).
Didn't you notice that it takes about a generation for novel ideas to get serious consideration in Science, Inc.? Did you ever wonder why this is so? Think about this, and you will understand why the web, created by (real) scientists for scientific communication, has been shunned by Science Inc. (and was adopted by the pornographers!). The very LAST thing the high priests of Science Inc. want is any kind of openness, transparency, publicity, or freedom in science. The best analogy for Science Inc. is Micro$oft. See the repeated pattern?
So, forget it people, we will never have an open, public, free system for scientific publication, not in Science, Inc. We will never---and havent' ever---get any progress, scientific of technical, from these people. (Check it, it always comes from outside!) What we *will* get is a free (in all senses) replacement for Science, Inc. Science Inc. business model just has no place in the 21st century.
But, of course, no one gives up entrenched position of power and privilege, and the high-priests of Science, Inc. won't, either...
Why, yes. And with other things, of course. But rocks are fine, thank you very much. "Mass bombardement", it's been called. Space warfare, Chicxulub-style.
Not long ago I was wondering: is there anything else the USA can do to lose even more of whatever respect the world has left for the country? I mean, nuking the disarmament treaties, wasting the Rio agreements, making international law a thing of the past, invading sovereign countries on a whim, driving foreign brains away, censoring science, obliterating the country's economy, wrecking NATO, creating a planetary wave of terrorism, driving countries to leave the Non-Proliferation Treaty... that's quite a record for less than 4 years. Man, how can you beat that?
A forum at the site for peer review would be nice.
That goes for all science. And that's why the so-called "Scientific Community ?" avoids the web like the plague. No way in hell the high-priests of the witch-doctor ivory tower will have their ideas soiled by the unwashed masses. Or by those scientits who are not part of their little old-boys game, and who might have an observation or seven on the quality of the work... No way the "Scientific Community ?" will have their privileges at risk by any kind of actual open quality control, no sir.
I no longer wonder why Wolfram got so fed up with the lot of them.
Dunno man, never been there? What kind of enengy? If that kind of energy can sustain an autopoietical dymanmics, well, I won't call that "life", but well deffinitely have to add another category next to "life" and "symbolic autopoiesis".
>Yes, I know my experiment was crap, but I'm sure you could learn something from it.
How NOT to design an experiment?:-P
>A study of single nucleotide polymorphisms in surviving giraffes reveals...."
Gee, some effect for that dammed nucleotide. Can happen, of course. But... you told me of a correlation. How can you tell that this A turned G does *cause* shorter necks. Mechanism, please? And please do remember that giraffes are not bacteria but excedingly complex metacellulars, and that there is far more to genetics than protein synthesis. [Probably more than DNA, in fact.]
> would you say that something other than "natural" selection was at work?
I'd say evolution took place. The result of if you can describe as a selection, and make it fit to the effect of the introduction of windmills. [Again, correlation.]
>why is there any cause to invoke some unknown factor?
Exactly! This "selection" is predicted to occur, by reprocuction and inability to survive of some lineages those with longer neck AND dumb enough to mistake windmills from acacias---a different behaviour could be what is left as the "selection". But you did not mention that. You could not predict that. I could be many other things, too. Can you tell? What kind of selective mechanism is this, that you cannot predict what it's going to select and on what it's going to act?
>The evolution occurs in a direction towards satisfying whichever fitness function I choose
Oh, playing good. Have fun! Would you please describe, though, how and where this computation is carried out in the real (as in non-simulated) world? You have the hidden "overmind" that's characterizes ND, an "overmind" that ND share with creationism and ID. And at least those last two don't try to hide it below the carpet (or the algorithm).
But you are dickering with a simulation that makes no attempt at simulating living systems. Because---being autopoietical---living systems define themselves as they make their conditions for existance. Now, and organism can become anything it can become (structural limitation from the conservation of the [org/env] structural coupling). In layman terms, it can do anything it can, as long as it does not die. ANYTHING.
>IMHO, this looks like evidence that 'natural' selection has a measurable affect.
And IMHO, this only means that you describe as "selection" that aspect of the *result* of evolution as you want to adscribe as selection. You are reversing cause-effect. In your imagination only, of course. A "Sehr interessanter Gedankexperiment", but one from which you'll learn nothing about biological evolution.
>inaccurate replication
Replication has nothing to do with living systems, which can't replicate, only reproduce (often, it's not requiered for life).
Now, innacuare replication will give you a kind of evolution, non-biological evolution, which CAN be explained pretty well by Darwin et al.'s ideas, and one that is very different from the biological one. Again, it's the autopoiesis, see. That "auto" part, is the key. Automony is a consequence of autopoiesis, and autonomous system cannot be instructed, as they are operationally closed. Self replicating systems aren't, and can.
>All this is all totally random.
It cannot be, or there would be no life. Conditio sine qua non.
[Man, those NDs do have you fooled!]
>evolved 'evolvability'
Deja vu. You---as many many people I had the please (well, not always such pleasure) to interact with, try *so* hard, and sometimes get so close. But the lack of the concept of autopoiesis clobs the
Slashdot Mirror
You, one the other hand, sure *are* a researcher, you *have* been there, you *have* seen your idea, or someone else's, simply ignored and ridiculed without ever being given any consideration. Just as I have.
Real research is so hard to do, because the inertia is simply overwhelming, at least for many years until resistance is broken (by which time, the researcher himself is broken from exhaustion and even simple old age). Real science is done on the fringes, real discovery happens just outside Science, Inc.
Oh, but don't you worry: vulture scientists *will* think the idea is pure genius---as soon as *they* can profit from it.
> It prevents people from publishing stuff that is plain wrong.
Says *who*? Cost of publication is nil (/. perfect example). Publish and be grilled!
But no. No no no no. Why?
So-called "peer-review" is the mechanism big professors (Ivory-tower witch-doctors, as Gibson put it) protect their careers and their undeserverd positions from scientific progress. As many (most?) of them have no other merit than repeating what the great minds of the past said, being the High Priests of the Late Genius (who was usually brutally harassed in his own time by the same kind of big professors!) the mere chance of new evidence that could put those old views to the test must not tolerated. Hence, PeerReview(TM).
"You could write the entire history of science in the last 50 years in terms of papers rejected by Science or Nature." Paul C. Lauterbur, Nobel Prize in physiology or medicine (his paper was rejected).
ROTFL
> If you really have good evidence, good arguments and a well written paper and you are still getting rejections from achnowledged experts, then you have my sympathy.
I have good ideas, good arguments, and am building a solid case and writing it. As they mature, you are welcome to provide feedback, contribute, or perform any other kind of peer review.
But to to real science, I bailed out of Science, Inc. I couldn't care less for 'experts'. If you do, sorry, I have no use for you. Science is not about Authoritas, it is about *evidence*. But science has been perverted. Science is DEAD.
The flame of intellectual freedom has been passed to a something new. In Chrichton's words in the mouth of Iam Malcom (Jurassik Park): "See you on the other side."
Can only reply to a few things. Sorry.
For a metacellular, evolution can be defined as "the change in embryology along generations". You obviously do not understand this. For metacellular, embryology IS evolution. For cellulars not, of course, and that's why I stated that this 2 kinds of evol are qualitatively diff.
Structure-determined: autopoietical systems are structure-determined, but you seem not to understand that they are autopoietical. They change themselves, in fact that ALL they do, that's whay they ARE. Are you sure you understand autopoiesis?
Genes: at some point, the idea of genes (from genos, origin, meant to be the unit of inheritance) was debased to DNA. After a while, it was again debased to DNA-mediated protein synthesis. But the original implications were kept! (cf. Wilsonian genes). Therefore, gene, as used by Neodarwinians, is a non-concept, it means nothing. Somehow this led to the idea that understanding protein synthesis equalled understanding 'genetics' (i.e. inheritance). This is utter rubish. And you fall for this con.
Zigote choices: of course it decides how to develop; as an autopoietical system, what ELSE could it do but recompute itself???
You seem to fail to grasp the chasm between metacellulars and cellulars. A common mistake, as can easily be seen when most so-called evolutionary biologists use experiments done on bacteria (and even viruses, which are not even alive!) to explain the evolution of things like vertebrates; this is beyond stupid.
>So we KNOW that traits are inherited from parents to offspring via DNA.
No, we know that *some* traits at the molecular level are inherited as encoded in DNA. We know that there are others that are inherited but not that way. About most traits, no one ever bothered to look, especially so for metacellulars--no one looks for things that cannot be explained by Neodarwinism, and even if you try, no funding! Again, the debasing of genetics.
> DNA builds proteins that build cells that are somehow able to organise themselves. Nobody knows how this works in its entirity, but the fact that we dont know this yet doesnt alter the natural selection argument one bit!
Somehow. Not understood. No implication for evolution.
ROFL
Peer-review? I'm all for peer-review, the *real* kind. That's why I bailed out of academia. So called scientific "peer-review" is neither, it's editorial censorship. And this is why real scientific progress only happens at the borders of science and seldom at the Big Science, (even when they have almost all the resources!), as you can easily verify. And why science is both cracking open and dying at the same time; something new is replacing science as free inquiry.
re: NS requires criterion of what is good and what is bad. Where does it come from?
:) Under *those* conditions, *natural* conditions, *evolutionary* conditions, the question of criterion for what is advantageous becomes quite a different story. Darwinian 'adaptations' are just post-hoc coverups of their total ignorance. An ignorance not much greater than mine, I just am HONEST about it: life absolutely baffles me. And why shouldn't it? Who said biology was easy?
:)
The problem with selection experiments is that there do not even remotely represent the typical environment of typical organism of those kinds. To start with, they are aberrantly oversimpified. Have you noticed, how the typical conditions for those experiments (eg. antibiotics) are aberrant, extreme conditions organism almost never face during their evolutionary history? Great! So Darwinians, at best, try to explain how evolution seldom if ever happened. Analogy: if I throw a fish out of a high-rise window, will I not be able to describe its movements with the same model I can use for a rock? And does that mean that fishes swim like rocks? Under brutal stress, complex sytems are deprived of most of their freedom and tend to behave like simpler systems. So, is it surprising that under brutally stressful conditions bacteria's behaviour (I mean responses) approaches that of the simpler allopoietical self-replicating systems? Great. Why not, say, burn them, and then say that bacteria are just like any other watery organic matter? Does all this tell us anything about the typical behaviour (evolution) of bacteria? Is this a realistic, or even useful, study?
So, we must accept that living systems live by their own rules, that they are *alive*. That they do a lot of things the like of which reductionists do not like
> Mutations are completely unpredicted
Utter crap, sorry. I confidently predict a base will turn into either adenine, thymine, cytosine, guanine, or nothing. No, I'm not metting sophystry. Just inelegantly making a point: DNA structuree is not random, DNA duplication is not random. Life is about nanotechnological MACHINES. Even at the lowliest level, whatever the change in a DNA base pair, it will be read as A,T,C,G or nothing. Besides, we KNOW that the probabilities of, say, A->G is diff from say, A->T. Phylogeneticists use this evolutionary models all the time in a set of methods known as Maximum Likelihood. And that's only what we know. So you can see it's not random at all.
Crossingover random??? Oh golly, brace yourself! No, there is probably no cellular mechanism LESS random that crossing over. It *homogenizes* genomes quite beautifully in an exceedingly precise pairing of DNA strands.
It's late, and I feel grumpy, so let's be nasty
Gedankenexperiment: mutant allele in species A
allows it to counter the poison in plant P, which is very abundant yet extrememly toxic. So, ND predicts that the mutation will increase in freq an even allow the species A to thrive and even to radiate into AA, AB, &c.
You like the scenario? If yes, shame on you, individual of specis A never eats plants!
Now for a wicked twist. Assume some individuals of A occasionally eat plants and some P, which is not lethal in those quantities. So, the more vegetarian in behaviour, the more advantage the mutants will have from an antitoxin allele, even if not perfectly protects them. The more they eat P successfully, the more likely they *individuals* will eat more and more of it. The more they include P in their diet, the more relevant the allele will be for fitness, and the stronger the selective pressure on its pressence, expression, and new subsequent mutations that code for a more effective antitoxin.
So, where are we? The individuals of A that try to eat P tend to have descendants that can eat P more and more successfully... Yes, we got to Lamarckism by way of Darwinism. Which should not surprise anyone, as Lamark
Gods, I simply have not the time :(
> Ok, how are these modifications made?
First, reproduction. There can be no other way. Reproduction, not copying, not replication. Living systeam are structure-determined systems, and this dynamics is what allows them to change as well as restricting what changes are possible.
What is called selection, when found by Darwinians, is just the result of this. But ONE result of this. The rest is ignored, as Darwinians only look for what looks like a selection, and they have all the money.
> Evolution would require the introduction of new genes, not the shifting in frequencies of existing ones.
In Neodarwinian terms, change in frequencies *is* enough, so you are wrong and the other poster was right. Biologically, both are wrong, as evolution has nothing to do with this, not directly.
> And why don't you define "gene"?
You can't. I remember, a whole room of truly brilliant biologists, we tried for a whole evening. Gene is not a concept, it's a anti-concept; what it truly says is "DON'T ASK DIFFICULT QUESTIONS!!!". Same goes for "fitness", "species", "genetics", and most of traditional (pseudo)biology.
Bold? Maybe, we need some boldness! Still, I must confess I'm shamefully conservative.
I must apologize, you do have some background, perhaps enough. YIIIIPES!!! :)
Maturana states himself that there is NS. Paper in 2001, I forget the title (it's quite an involved one and makes a paraphrase with Darwin's "Origin of Species", if you come accross it you'll recognize) and it's in Castilian and I know of no English translation.
Batheson religion? Then this computer is a miracle! No, he just, among many things, made painfully clear that the pieces of a clock do not tell the time; that there is a *critical difference* between a whole and its parts, and that science was ignoring that at our own peril.
Ironically, to think that the *pieces* of a clock are enough to tell the time, is magic thinking.
In biology, the ONLY things that remain is that difference, as the parts change all the time! So biology is not being studied AT ALL by reductionistic science; traditional (pseudo) biology is simply eluding the questions. Neodarwinism is but one way to avoid these questions, some of the hardest of them all.
The key issues here (some, rather):
NS requires self-replication. Living systems do not replicate, they *reproduce*.
NS requires criterion of what is good and what is bad. Where does it come from? Why is being small good for a mice and bad for an elephant? What makes those choices? If do not answer this, if you elude the question like Darwinians do, you let the gates wide open for ID and Creationists!
NS says that evolution, as the result of random mutation and selection of 'adaptive' changes, is a blind process. Why is this so? Why MUST this be so? If a bunch of organisms (cells, bags of water contaminated with organics!) interacting with each other can write "Don Quijote", then why
must evolution be unintelligent? If evolution is intelligent (I'm not saying it is, although I think it might be at least sometimes) then this open the gates yet again for antievolutionists.
In any case, it's a bogus claim by Neodarwinians, the more they make it, the stronger the anti-evolution argument seems.
In any case, the changes might not be the design of intelligence, but they are certainly NOT RANDOM! This must be obvious to anyone who knows anything about digital computers: if there is something that you cannot do with a computer is randomness; randomness *crashes* a computer. Randomness in life KILLS. Even mutations (not all evolutionary changes are mutations) are never random, becase life is not a random process. Random is just DarwinianSpeak for "I do not understand". Well, let's say so!
This one I find funny: check all models of 'biological' evolution. You will find that most if not all models (Gould water on sand, Kimura diffusion of liquids, &c. &c. &c.) DO NOT REQUIRE LIFE. Great! So what we have is e
> The only requirements for evolution is descent with modification. There is no point explaining until you have the basis. As I wrote, most of the pseudo-biology taught in schools and you find in books is useless crap. The very *words* you use let me know that you lack the background. If you do read what I suggested you to read, you'll see it is so, unfortunately so, and you'll understand that I am not being pedantic, but that really there is no way I can tell you. Ask me again in 6 months.
:-/
> Evolution, as Ive said, is the change in frequency of genes in a gene pool.
Utter nonsense. Again, define "gene".
> Oh come on - you cant give us a hint?
Sure. I'm writing, but it's in Castilian. Yet, very early drafts, more like sketches.
> "most so-called "biologists" cannot even define life!" Completely irrelevant. Its a pretty hard thing to define. This is a consequence of definitions rather than any lack of skill or knowledge. Of course, if you can do better, by all means go ahead.
WHAT???? Irrelevant? What drug are you on?
Life: molecular autopoiesis (Maturana and Varela, 1972).
And if you do not understand that statement, the you lack even the most basic background. Sorry.
I can only point you to biology, I am not your teacher, no time.
> Explain this - I cant see any sense in it.
But of course you can't! For the Nth time, YOU SIMPLY LACK THE MINIMUM BACKGROUND. Up to this point, it was not your fault, but from now on, it becomes your fault if you are really interested and you fail to get yourself up to level. Again, I am just building on top of that background, following on the work of geniuses, and that's hard enough. I have no time to be your teacher, and your chances of understanding anything of what I am myself struggling to understand, my own contribuiton, are nil until you bring yourself up to level. I you ever start learning REAL biology, you'll understand how much this is so. I hope you try; I expect you, just like most, won't.
If you do, though, better put yourself in Neo's frame of mind, because Kansas really will go bye-bye.
Prediction: you'll take the blue pill
You could easily try to falsify what I am telling you by reading the refs I gave you. But I'm almost certain you won't. Almost no one does. Almost no one wants evidence, faith is good enough. Reminds me of the saying: 2 kinds of people, those who hate Linux, and those who actually used it. Most will not ever try to expose themselves to evidence that would force them to change their views on evolution, or on anything in fact. Most Darwinians are cultists, no better that the staunchiest Creationists, if you rub the 'scientific' patina. Both have their answers, reality be damned.
> Otherwise, stop talking crap.
As I wrote at the begining, mandatory token comment. I gave up hope long ago. I just follow that wise principle: when someone does or say something that is wrong, you should tell him; he'll almost certainly not fix it, but at least truth is where it is to be. And keep working.
If you ever take the red pill and bring yourself up to level, I'd love to discuss Quasi-Autopoietical Phylo-Eco-Attractors, the Origin of reproduction from faulty cellular homeostasis, the Origin of species by compartimentalization and typification of lineages, and some really advanced ideas I am only now exploring, which I gave the working name of "biodesics".
Your move now. Take the blue pill, you go back to Darwinian fairyland and everything stays just fine. Take the red pill, and you see how deep evolution goes...
>There are several criteria required for evolution. Reproduction itself is not sufficient. You also need heritability and mutation. If mutations didnt happen, clearly life would not evolve. If these mutations couldnt be inherited, they would be one off. Sorry if I sounded arrogant. But this, truly, tells me you truly lack the background; you do not write about evolution but about Darwinism. The only requirements for evolution is descent with modification. There is no point explaining until you have the basis. As I wrote, most of the pseudo-biology taught in schools and you find in books is useless crap. The very *words* you use let me know that you lack the background. If you do read what I suggested you to read, you'll see it is so, unfortunately so, and you'll understand that I am not being pedantic, but that really there is no way I can tell you. Ask me again in 6 months. > Evolution, as Ive said, is the change in frequency of genes in a gene pool. Utter nonsense. Again, define "gene". > Oh come on - you cant give us a hint? Sure. I'm writing, but it's in Castilian. Yet, very early drafts, more like sketches. > "most so-called "biologists" cannot even define life!" Completely irrelevant. Its a pretty hard thing to define. This is a consequence of definitions rather than any lack of skill or knowledge. Of course, if you can do better, by all means go ahead. WHAT???? Irrelevant? What drug are you on? Life: molecular autopoiesis (Maturana and Varela, 1972). And if you do not understand that statement, the you lack even the most basic background. Sorry. I can only point you to biology, I am not your teacher, no time. > Explain this - I cant see any sense in it. But of course you can't! For the Nth time, YOU SIMPLY LACK THE MINIMUM BACKGROUND. Up to this point, it was not your fault, but from now on, it becomes your fault if you are really interested and you fail to get yourself up to level. Again, I am just building on top of that background, following on the work of geniuses, and that's hard enough. I have no time to be your teacher, and your chances of understanding anything of what I am myself struggling to understand, my own contribuiton, are nil until you bring yourself up to level. I you ever start learning REAL biology, you'll understand how much this is so. I hope you try; I expect you, just like most, won't. If you do, though, better put yourself in Neo's frame of mind, because Kansas really will go bye-bye. Prediction: you'll take the blue pill :-/
> Otherwise, stop talking crap.
As I wrote at the begining, mandatory token comment. I gave up hope long ago. I just follow that wise principle: when someone does or say something that is wrong, you should tell him; he'll almost certainly not fix it, but at least truth is where it is to be.
If you ever take the red pill and bring yourself up to level, I'd love to discuss Quasi-Autopoietical Phylo-Eco-Attractors, the Origin of reproduction from faulty isostasis, the Origin of species by compartimentalization and typification of lineages, and some really advanced ideas I am only now exploring, which I gave the working name of "biodesics".
Your move now. Take the blue pill, you go back to Darwinian fairyland and everything stays just fine. Take the red pill, and you see how deep evolution goes...
>I'm sorry I've gone over this many times and your writing is very unclear.
:)
But of course it is! What else can I do? You, like most people, just lack the background. How do you see yourself explaining the Linux kernel internals to a Mac Luser?
Read modern biology, then you'll see that my comments, albeit terse and hurried, make perfect sense.
> only that organisms *must* evolve for life to exist.
Utterly WRONG. I never claimed or wrote such a thing. What I wrote is that organism, if they reproduce, *will* evolve, and that this evolution is neither caused nor explained nor need to be explained by NS.
> I am looking for a *how* things evolve. Why do things evolve the way they do?
Oh my!!! Do you think I, or anyone, can answer that question??? First, the answer mus be MU. The question, as stated, is based on wrong premises, that is that all evolution can be described together. Only at a *very* general level is this true. That's the whole point, since evolution is part of life, differents kind of organisms will evoluve each in different ways! After some 3,600,000,000,000 years, the lineages have divergeg so much that the detail of how eacha evolve are really different. Bacteria evolve in a very different fashion than acacias, and either from humans.
> Why are some changes made versus others?
Oh my...
> Natural selection happens to answer these questions very nicely, if you're going to offer an alternative theory, then you must also answer these very same questions.
NS answers *nothing*, it just declares ignorance an answer.
> Why is it non-parsimonious?
Because evolution can be explained *whithout* it.
> Those who are more fit are more likely to survive. How can it get any simpler? For example, sparrows that are faster are less likely to be hunted down successfully by hawks. Is that statement wrong?
It's not even wrong, it's not a statement. It's a petition of princible, a non-formal fallacy. If I were to write done the hidden assumptions that it's based on, it would be a very long book.
Why is Darwinian 'research' still conducted? Why is people still using Micro$oft? Same question, same answer. Novel ideas in science are suppressed for a rough avge. of 30 years. Don't trust me, go check. Theories are kept decades after they should have been discarded.
> Many fields use natural selection as the backbone of their research.
Fallacy ad populum. Many shops use M$. Try harder
> Can you also substantiate the claim that it cannot be tested?
Yes, of course. But have no time, and it's long and to understand you'd need a lot more background in modern biology. You can easily do it yourself: try and design an experiment that *unambiguously* test for it. Not evolution, but NS. Not corroboration, falsation. Prediction: you'll fail. Why? Because a falsation test needs a falsifiable prediction, and NS, being a myth, predicts nothing. Oh, you can corroborate, but never falsify the 'predictions' of NS. There is no possible experiment, even a thought exp, that can lead to the falsation of NS if the prediction of the theory turns false.
Another reason why Darwinian 'research' is still going on. You can always ask for more money even when you get results opposite to NS predictions, since those results NEVER FALSIFY. If you do corroborate NS, success! if you fail, you ask more money to waste and try again--and you'll likely get it. There is no possible accounting.
>I'm going to make the hypothesis that you are an intelligent person capable of forming your own opinions. But I can't disprove this, does that immediately make it false?
No. But you can disprove it. It's called a test. BTW: I was put to the test tens and hundreds of times by Darwinians, many of them my profs in courses I was taken, in 3 colleges and later. I disagreed with them openly, but I was never failed. Of the few tim
>Wow, I really don't know what you're trying to say. If you don't believe in natural selection, then please do tell, what is the underlying mechanism that explains how organisms evolve?
LIFE! Life itself. That's how life *works*. You just can't have life and reproduction without evolution, is like evolution without metabolism; it just does not happen. Nothing else is needed that what makes life life and reproduction (you *can* have life without reproduction; not for long, but that's besides the point).
>So then where is the falsation test where natural selection was rejected and another mechansim proven true?
It is not necesary. Parsimony. Life and reproduction are enough for evolution (H0) vs. NS is needed (H1). H0 has never been rejected, in fact, evidence for H0 (evolution) is *assumed* to imply H1 ! NS a *non-parsimonious* mechanism that contradicts the body of science (biology, cybernetics, thermodynamics). If you postulate it, it is YOUR responsibility to provide evidence for it: "extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence" alright!
Now, I'm not arguing that simpler explanations *must* be right, but that's how science works, and as SOP it's not half bad.
Scientific theories, by def, are never proven, they are either corroborated or disproven. And if it can't be disproven it's not a scientific theory, it's a myth, i.e. an untestable explanation for something. After a theory accumulates enought evidence, it's considered fact. Evolution is a fact; Evolution by Natural Selection is a myth, just as Creationism or Intelligent Design are.
I do not believe NS is any kind of mystical force or anything (BTW: I have a MS in Biology!). It's just a *myth*, i.e. it does not explain nor predict nor can be tested. The myth comes from the very concept of "advantageous" and "fitness". Define fitness, and you get to survival; define survival and you get back to fitness; define fitness and you are back to survival! This is just a circular argument, one that needs we utterly ignore what we *really* know about life (e.g. it's an autonomous system), and of course it's not science but mere sophystry.
> Can an experiment on evolution really be done considering the span of our lifetimes are so short?
Yes! Yes it can. Oh, there are many experiments we cannot perform because of the timeframes involved, but sure, there are very many we *can*. You just need to design them properly and base them on a serious theoretical fundament. BTW: don't bother unless you have independent funds available; you'll *never* get them funded by Science Inc. In fact, you would have commited academic suicide by presenting such a proposal. You have been warned.
As I wrote, just another "mandatory comment"; I'm getting tired of the issue, and have *lots* to do (including theoretical developments on evolution and speciation). I just can't let such steaming piles of bovine feces to pass by without even taking a token exception of them. Please, read Maturana, Varela, Bateson, and other real biologists, and understand them *first*. Then you can discuss evolution.
I fully agree that evolutionary theory was never postulated by Darwin, he says so himself. It predates Darwin by at least 2500 years. He did *prove* that is was *possible*, a major accomplishment, with his observations and experiments of artificial selection. And he provided a LOT of cases where evolution was the simplest explanation. So, Darwin did go a long way to make evolution theory an accepted fact. He also proposed a mechanism for evolution, analogous to what he as seen in breeds and cultirvars, and called it natural selection. He was wrong. Not his fault, he did live in the 19th century. But by mid 20th century all and any doubt that NS was possible was erased. It's just plain WRONG, the whole thing. About the evidence for NS, I absolutely disagree. There is none, nil, zero, zip, nada, niente, Nichts, nichto. All the evidence is for evolution, which is the interpreted to support NS because (we all know this, don't we?) evolution happens by NS. But NS has, AFIAK, never ever put to the test itself, not once, anywhere, by anyone, in any system, on any trait. I dare you: give me one reference of a falsation test of NS (H1) being accepted because evolution by other mechanisms (H0) was rejected. ONE reference. We need no evidence to prove NS wrong; it is the very need for NS, a nonparsimonious explanation, that must be proved first. Evolution can be adequately explained by life itself and reproduction, without resorting to NS, gods, or alien designs. Evolution is as basic biology as metabolism, and no one needs to postulate any "Natural Assimilation" or "Selective Degradation of Foodstuffs" of "Pathways by Reaction of the Chemicalest" or any such bullshit. Neodarwinism is probably the single greatest scam in the whole history of science. A myth preached to the laymen and that has in fact fostered, if not generated, the whole renaissance of creationism and related pseudoscience. Makes sense, pseudoscience battles pseudoscience in a neverending battle of sophystry, the blind showing the blind, while real scientists are pushed aside and stand there holding their facts and utterly ingored. Neodarwinism is the Micro$oft of biology!
The whole issue of evolution vs. creationism and intelligent design is moot. The *real* issue is creationism and intelligent design vs. (neo)DARWINISM. Evolution does NOT require Natural Selection, only descent with modification; evolution != evolution by natural selection.
The Teory of Evolution != Darwinism. Even Darwin himself carified this! He (1) presented evidence for evolution, (2) proved it possible (artificial selection), and (3) proposed 1 explanation for evolution (natural selection, which was wrong, but that's not the main point). Natural Selection is but *one mechanism* hypothesised to explain evolution.
Nowadays, evolution is *fact*, and the evidence for evolution itself is absolutely incontrovertible. Evolution by *Natural Selection*, on the other hand, is at best a wrong theory, at worst but a myth: there is NO evidence for it, it has NEVER been put to any test, ever.
Check it: there is a lot of evidence, yes, and all evidence is for evolution, none for natural selection vs. other natural mechanisms.
There are other theories of how evolution work (which need no external intervention of gods, aliens, whatever!), but most are suppressed by the (so-called) "scientific" establishment, who of course act as High Priests of Science and will do anything not to have to face facts that would jeopardise the acceptance of ideas which are the only reason for their high-level and often undeserved luxury suites in the Ivory Tower. Just think M$ vs. Linux et al., and you get a pretty accurate picture of the situation in science. Bad Science sells; Pseudoscience also sells; good science is suppressed for a generation.
But the whole here issue hinges in the equivocal identification of Evolution with Darwinism. That is plainly not so. Just think clearly and the whole Evolution Controversy(TM) is very much defused.
Pues fíjate que muchos de nosotros NO lo aceptamos ni lo aceptaremos nunca.
Por supuesto, el que no estemos de acuerdo nunca ha tenido importancia.
[Para eso están las campañas de bombardeo, me imagino...]
Well, many of us DO NOT accept it, and never have, never will.
Or course, that we do not agree never mattered...
[That's what bombing campaigns are for, I guess.]
This is just a nonsensical argument.
The whole point of fertilization, also known as gametic fusion or (imprecisely) as "sexual reproduction", is for species to make sure there is nothing really novel, nothing unusual, in its genes, hence the need for 2 genomes of independent sources, which need not be identical but they do need to be *compatible*. Otherwise, there is no embryo. How many species of metacellulars do you know that do not practice gametic fusion? I thought so. Even partenogenic species are very rare, and probably last a sort time (in evol timescales). Gametic fusion also 'reshuffles' the genomes in a population, homogenizing the population's gene pool and minimising genetic variability (or, more precisely, minimizing intra-lineage divergence).
Genetic engineering, and especially the trans-specific kind that is also *unstable*, is another thing altogether, quite. It is done by arrogant, irresponsible people who are simply ignorant of how life work, and is a veritable Pandora box.
BTW: this 'new' kind of genes is nothing new; it has been predicted decades ago. It's just that mainstream (pseudo)biology flatly refuses to face the evidence, because it would mean *progress* and that's something the High Priests of Science, Inc. just won't have. No sir. No stinkin' falsation of pet theories, thank you so much, I'm quite confortable in my chair. So we are still stuck with things like the stupid myth of Darwinism, and we still cannot cure cancer or have any clue how ecosystems work. And we play with truly dangerous things we cannot understand...
[But don't you worry, they get paid for it.]
New kinds of genes? Guess what? There are even more kinds! Many more! You'll see. They are predicted by (modern, non-traditional) theory---it will be a good test for it.
--
Thanks, but we gods cannot be bothered with karma :-P
:(
And please, stop calling them "Americans". I am as American as any Usan, and we (Ibero)Americans really hate the Usans taking over our name and covering it with shame and blood. And since we outnumber them 2 to 1, in any case, it is *us* and not Usans who are the true "Americans".
On the rest of your post, how much must I agree, I lament! The USA is high on self-destruction mode, and we better take cover
As-salaam aleikum, Paz, Peace.
Yes, killes US soldiers vs. killed Iraqi soldiers and *civilians*.
Yes, Iraqi civilians, those pesky "ragheads" who the USA is supposedly liberating. It must be "liberating from the tyranny of matter", I guess.
In any case, the USA was defeated in Iraq, just as it was in Afghanistan, by poorly trained militias armed with 30-year old AKMs and RPGs. I expect the US armed forces do need every single advantage they can get from technology---it will pospone the defeat a little.
Rembember that rubbery black bodyglove under the white armor... ;-)
I briefly respond your comments:
1. Inundation is a problem indeed. Censorship is not the answer.
2. Yes they do. A generation too late. You may live with that, I won't. In fact, it probably will get us killed in the not-so-distant future.
3. There is no peer review. Censorship is performed by editors---theri decision is final, and reasons for rejection need not be discloses. Censors *do* often delegate, and request opinion of referees. Censors have full decision power as to whether reject outright of use referees, who these referees will be, and what to do with referees opinions---they absolute power.
4. Papers are commented post-publication. Too late, often. Comments are not easy to find from the paper itself. The process of commenting is cumbersome, and censored too.
As for Winstor Churchill: it's not surprising that your best choice for support of your argument must come from someone who has died half a century ago.
We live in a new world. Face it, or join Creative Anachonists.
1. Editors are NOT authors' peers. Ever. The same couple of people can be peers in other roles, but an authors and the editor who decides on his work cannot ever be peers. Besides, it's publish or perish. Get published or you have no career, GAME OVER. The level of power these editors over professionals in science in truly of life and death as of your life a scientist. Conflicts of interests? Oh my, you can't start to imagine the size of it... 2. A review can only be made *after* the fact. Even the word is very clear on this, re-view. Only after it's visible, i.e. published. And a review does not per se change the fate of the work in question, a critic may review a film, and his review could very well affect how many people go to the theateras to watcht the film, but a review won't put the film on the screen or kill it. That's *precisely* what these 'scientific' editors do, make or break the author's paper. So, clearly, this so-called "peer review" is neither. What editors is this "scientific" media do is censorship, or, if you want a more politically correct term, editorialship. "Scientific" journals are a *censored medium*. Now, about quality control. Sure, we NEED it. We aboulutely most definetely must have it. But is all this censorship any good at stopping bad science? Even if physics, where it kind of works, a bullshit *chemical element* passed right through it. In something 'softer' like biology... again, you can't begin to imagine the size of it. What this censorhip *does* is effectively repress disruptive, revolutionary research, by all making it hard to communicate, hampering its acceptance since it can only be published in 'poor' journal or (gasp!) the web, and simply and silently killing the careers of these researchers. Barbarians assaulting our beatutiful Ivory Tower! (Quite confortable, thank you) They have brought IDEAS!!! PLOS (Public Library of Science) is just MOTS (More Of The Same). They simply sidestep the core issue here, and that is that technological change has turned publishing upside down. Anyone can publish, anyone can copy, easily, instantly, and for (almost) free. This is the new landscape, and not facing it is just plain denial. POLS is in denial, trying to use computer networks to keep living in the world of the printing press. This can only have disastrous consequences for science, and science is already in serious trouble, under feroucious attack from many fronts (New Age, religious fanatics, corporatists, totalitarianists, &c.). Science, to survive, needs a REVOLUTION to its very foundations, and not a mere whitewash like the POLS, or worse, like the one in Nature. The only way for science to work in the 21st century is to re-invent itself. One of the new characteristics it MUST have is freedom, both in the sense of freedom of publication and in the sense of freedom of dissemination. PLOS fits only the second part, and media like Nature neither one. Quality control? A MUST. Even more than now, since what we have now clearly does not cut it. But in the new landscape created by the computer revolution, it has to be PUBLISH FIRST AND REVIEW LATER. And review *openly*, in freedom, and not in the shadows of the "peer review". Linux has shown that the more the reviewers, the better. And no more censorhip possible, ever. No more the breaking or making careers in the hands of the people who have the most to lose from progress. No more the fate of science and the best scientists, in the hands of those who have the most to lose from science itself!
You are right, there is no argument, just facetiousnes, both form the privateers ("publishers" my ass, a publisher is someone who makes things public), and from the cabals in academia, who find the censorship system (called "peer review" but actually neither) extremely useful to get job security by pushing each other up the ladder and 'protecting' their careers from the disruptive influence of those real scientists who do real research and are the real source of progress (progress is what you definitely DON'T want if you are a high-priest in academia).
Didn't you notice that it takes about a generation for novel ideas to get serious consideration in Science, Inc.? Did you ever wonder why this is so? Think about this, and you will understand why the web, created by (real) scientists for scientific communication, has been shunned by Science Inc. (and was adopted by the pornographers!). The very LAST thing the high priests of Science Inc. want is any kind of openness, transparency, publicity, or freedom in science. The best analogy for Science Inc. is Micro$oft. See the repeated pattern?
So, forget it people, we will never have an open, public, free system for scientific publication, not in Science, Inc. We will never---and havent' ever---get any progress, scientific of technical, from these people. (Check it, it always comes from outside!) What we *will* get is a free (in all senses) replacement for Science, Inc. Science Inc. business model just has no place in the 21st century.
But, of course, no one gives up entrenched position of power and privilege, and the high-priests of Science, Inc. won't, either...
Why, yes. And with other things, of course. But rocks are fine, thank you very much. "Mass bombardement", it's been called. Space warfare, Chicxulub-style.
I fully agree with you. Only one point to clarify: if the US wages wages space war against us,
WE'LL FIGHT BACK
's all.
License the issue? Yep, darn righto. License *is* the issue. Too bad.
Not long ago I was wondering: is there anything else the USA can do to lose even more of whatever respect the world has left for the country? I mean, nuking the disarmament treaties, wasting the Rio agreements, making international law a thing of the past, invading sovereign countries on a whim, driving foreign brains away, censoring science, obliterating the country's economy, wrecking NATO, creating a planetary wave of terrorism, driving countries to leave the Non-Proliferation Treaty... that's quite a record for less than 4 years. Man, how can you beat that?
Well, I guess they'll always find a way.
A forum at the site for peer review would be nice.
That goes for all science. And that's why the so-called "Scientific Community ?" avoids the web like the plague. No way in hell the high-priests of the witch-doctor ivory tower will have their ideas soiled by the unwashed masses. Or by those scientits who are not part of their little old-boys game, and who might have an observation or seven on the quality of the work... No way the "Scientific Community ?" will have their privileges at risk by any kind of actual open quality control, no sir.
I no longer wonder why Wolfram got so fed up with the lot of them.
>What about energy beings from Proxima Centauri?
:-P
Dunno man, never been there? What kind of enengy? If that kind of energy can sustain an autopoietical dymanmics, well, I won't call that "life", but well deffinitely have to add another category next to "life" and "symbolic autopoiesis".
>Yes, I know my experiment was crap, but I'm sure you could learn something from it.
How NOT to design an experiment?
>A study of single nucleotide polymorphisms in surviving giraffes reveals...."
Gee, some effect for that dammed nucleotide. Can happen, of course. But... you told me of a correlation. How can you tell that this A turned G does *cause* shorter necks. Mechanism, please?
And please do remember that giraffes are not bacteria but excedingly complex metacellulars, and that there is far more to genetics than protein synthesis. [Probably more than DNA, in fact.]
> would you say that something other than "natural" selection was at work?
I'd say evolution took place. The result of if you can describe as a selection, and make it fit to the effect of the introduction of windmills. [Again, correlation.]
>why is there any cause to invoke some unknown factor?
Exactly! This "selection" is predicted to occur, by reprocuction and inability to survive of some lineages those with longer neck AND dumb enough to mistake windmills from acacias---a different behaviour could be what is left as the "selection". But you did not mention that. You could not predict that. I could be many other things, too. Can you tell? What kind of selective mechanism is this, that you cannot predict what it's going to select and on what it's going to act?
>The evolution occurs in a direction towards satisfying whichever fitness function I choose
Oh, playing good. Have fun! Would you please describe, though, how and where this computation is carried out in the real (as in non-simulated) world? You have the hidden "overmind" that's characterizes ND, an "overmind" that ND share with creationism and ID. And at least those last two don't try to hide it below the carpet (or the algorithm).
But you are dickering with a simulation that makes no attempt at simulating living systems. Because---being autopoietical---living systems define themselves as they make their conditions for existance. Now, and organism can become anything it can become (structural limitation from the conservation of the [org/env] structural coupling). In layman terms, it can do anything it can, as long as it does not die. ANYTHING.
>IMHO, this looks like evidence that 'natural' selection has a measurable affect.
And IMHO, this only means that you describe as "selection" that aspect of the *result* of evolution as you want to adscribe as selection.
You are reversing cause-effect. In your imagination only, of course. A "Sehr interessanter Gedankexperiment", but one from which you'll learn nothing about biological evolution.
>inaccurate replication
Replication has nothing to do with living systems, which can't replicate, only reproduce (often, it's not requiered for life).
Now, innacuare replication will give you a kind of evolution, non-biological evolution, which CAN be explained pretty well by Darwin et al.'s ideas, and one that is very different from the biological one. Again, it's the autopoiesis, see. That "auto" part, is the key. Automony is a consequence of autopoiesis, and autonomous system cannot be instructed, as they are operationally closed. Self replicating systems aren't, and can.
>All this is all totally random.
It cannot be, or there would be no life. Conditio sine qua non.
[Man, those NDs do have you fooled!]
>evolved 'evolvability'
Deja vu. You---as many many people I had the please (well, not always such pleasure) to interact with, try *so* hard, and sometimes get so close. But the lack of the concept of autopoiesis clobs the