The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Is evolution theory correct?  (Read 2923 times)

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3154
  • Thanked: 44 times
    • View Profile
Is evolution theory correct?
« on: 13/01/2016 15:14:45 »
In a conversation with a friend about evolution I ha a thought and asked him a question.

If things evolve and do not stop evolving, and we are said to evolve from apes or sea life etc,

Why in all this time have we not observed an ape walking out of the forest and saying, '' hey look I have just evolved into a human'' or a sea life crawling out of the sea and saying '' hey look I am human''


In further conversation while I am writing this, my friend mentioned cavemen and said on the cave man walls, some of the drawings showed spaceships?  I do not know this


Were they actually drawings of the spaceships leaving after dropping us off?  if there was spaceships on the walls.




 

Offline Bill S

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1804
  • Thanked: 11 times
    • View Profile
Re: Is evolution theory correct?
« Reply #1 on: 13/01/2016 17:48:00 »
Quote from: Thebox
Why in all this time have we not observed an ape walking out of the forest and saying, '' hey look I have just evolved into a human'' or a sea life crawling out of the sea and saying '' hey look I am human''

To quote John McEnroe: "You cannot be serious!!!"  If you are, I suggest something like "Evolution 101".  :)
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3154
  • Thanked: 44 times
    • View Profile
Re: Is evolution theory correct?
« Reply #2 on: 14/01/2016 01:21:38 »


To quote John McEnroe: "You cannot be serious!!!"  If you are, I suggest something like "Evolution 101".  :)

Lol Bill, yes I am serious, some logic suggests so,

https://wordpress.com/post/theoristexplains.wordpress.com/631


To put a question to you Bill, hypothetically speaking,  if we found a sister Earth that had water and food growing and animals, but no humans.   If we sent young children there, who didn't know any knowledge really apart from eating, my logic tells me that they would live like cavemen or similar and have to re-discover everything. And because they are such a young age, ''we'' the senders are forgotten.


Is there any fault in that logic?

 




 

Offline Space Flow

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 400
  • Thanked: 31 times
    • View Profile
Re: Is evolution theory correct?
« Reply #3 on: 14/01/2016 03:15:07 »
Quote from: Bill S on Today at 04:48:00


To quote John McEnroe: "You cannot be serious!!!"  If you are, I suggest something like "Evolution 101". 

Lol Bill, yes I am serious, some logic suggests so,

I've said it before but I think it's worth repeating.
You have some very strange ideas, even for a strange ideas site....
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3154
  • Thanked: 44 times
    • View Profile
Re: Is evolution theory correct?
« Reply #4 on: 14/01/2016 05:01:28 »


I've said it before but I think it's worth repeating.
You have some very strange ideas, even for a strange ideas site....

I do not consider it strange ideas, I consider it elementary thinking.  If we can do it, i.e lets populate Mars, then if there is anyone else out there, the surely they could do it likewise.

Maybe when the Sun was younger, Mercury or Venus was in the correct place to live,Earth would have been too cold, maybe we lived there and had to move so sent our young to Earth.  A bit like we are trying to do with Mars. Evolution does not agree with DNA so I have been informed. Apparently there is no explanation of this Earth of DNA. 

Once there was Dinosaurs, they evolved from somewhere, why have they not re-evolved?

How did the dinosaurs get here?   

To evolve from nothing makes no sense when we are clearly so different than the rest of the Universe, in that which we have the ability to  have conscious decisions, it doesn't make sense that light/neurons can merge with matter to form a ''thinking''  intelligence.



 

Offline Space Flow

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 400
  • Thanked: 31 times
    • View Profile
Re: Is evolution theory correct?
« Reply #5 on: 14/01/2016 06:10:00 »
To evolve from nothing makes no sense when we are clearly so different than the rest of the Universe, in that which we have the ability to  have conscious decisions, it doesn't make sense that light/neurons can merge with matter to form a ''thinking''  intelligence.
Ohh don't get me wrong.
I totally agree. We certainly have to start worrying when observations of the way things actually are, do not make sense with the way we think they should be.
As you say  it makes absolutely no sense for you to have consciousness, yet here you are.
The way I see it, either what makes sense to you needs adjusting to at least come close to observational reality, or
Observational reality is most obviously wrong and you really are not conscious at all.
It's a conundrum.
I do hope you manage to solve this most complicated puzzle.
« Last Edit: 14/01/2016 06:16:59 by Space Flow »
 

Offline Fruityloop

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 35
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile
Re: Is evolution theory correct?
« Reply #6 on: 14/01/2016 07:44:30 »
Evolution is a joke that has been going on since 1859.  It is fairly easy to prove that evolution isn't true.  No new genetic information is coming into existence in bisexual species.  Offspring are simply rearrangements of pre-existing genetic information.   There are other arguments that lead to the same conclusion, but I usually don't post such things because it inevitably devolves into an argument.  Does anybody really believe that they are descended from a fish?
 

Offline evan_au

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4105
  • Thanked: 245 times
    • View Profile
Re: Is evolution theory correct?
« Reply #7 on: 14/01/2016 10:29:05 »
Quote from: TheBox
saying, ''hey look I have just evolved into a human"
This question presumes that being human is the best-possible goal to be attained.

I think if some hypothetical aliens were looking at what humans are doing to the planet, they could be forgiven for thinking that humans leave a lot to be desired.

In evolutionary theory, the "goal" (or "objective function", in optimization theory) is not to be human, or even to have more intelligence, but to grow successfully in some ecological niche.

Quote
Why in all this time have we not observed an ape walking out of the forest and saying, '' hey look I have just evolved into a human'' or a sea life crawling out of the sea and saying '' hey look I am human''
For multicellular species, evolution does not tend to occur at the level of a single organism, but at the level of an entire species, requiring huge numbers of mutations to occur; for some beneficial ones to spread through the whole population, while the far greater number of bad mutations to be weeded out - all without the changing species going extinct. This takes large amounts of time.

Each novel mutation is not just "rearrangements of pre-existing genetic information".

The history of humans has been that we have killed off (or at least out-competed) anyone that looks almost human; think Neanderthals and Denisovans. We are now in the process of chopping down the forests housing the remaining apes (and sea life), capturing them for zoos and killing them for food. In a century, they will be fortunate to have any forest to walk out of, let alone have a viable wild population.   
Quote
Were they actually drawings of the spaceships leaving after dropping us off?
We can say that the DNA design of humans has a lot in common with Neanderthals, Denisovans, chimpanzees, sea life and bananas.

It looks like humans did not just appear independently of other species on Earth, transplaneted here from somewhere else.
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3154
  • Thanked: 44 times
    • View Profile
Re: Is evolution theory correct?
« Reply #8 on: 14/01/2016 15:36:33 »


It looks like humans did not just appear independently of other species on Earth, transplaneted here from somewhere else.

It looks like is not fact, ''if'' is a very big word, if we came out of the sea.

Ok, in saying that, I think we need to look at DNA which I know very little about.   Please educate me. 

What is DNA? in your own words please.

Standard definition

''deoxyribonucleic acid, a self-replicating material which is present in nearly all living organisms as the main constituent of chromosomes. It is the carrier of genetic information.''



An acid?  that doesn't make sense either, Is DNA made of atoms ?  we do not seem to be like rock, I do not think we have lattice design atoms , I do not think we are made of atoms, biologically atoms and us make no sense.

What is the gravity effect of DNA on DNA?



added- I have just found this article


''Q: What are the reported benefits, results and symptoms of DNA Activation?

A: From my own personal experience the single best benefit from DNA Activation is becoming more aware of your divine purpose here on Earth. There is an indescribable sense of joy when you find the answer to the question ôwhy am I here and what is my purpose?ö. This is due to the fact that one of the main benefits and results from DNA Activation is consciousness expansion. Most people have no idea of what their Soul purpose is because they have blockages on their DNA.

Your Higher Self contains all the knowledge and purpose of why you incarnated right here and now and what is it that you came to do. DNA Activation also activates dormant brain functions to their highest energy holding potential and original divine function, specially your pineal and pituitary glands, medulla oblongata and hypothalamus so you will begin to manifest your dormant higher senses like telepathy, clairvoyance, intuition and direct cognition and with practice you will start using them on a daily basis.

Typical physical benefits and symptoms of DNA Activation include: increased energy and rejuvenation of various organs, tissues and muscles. On the emotional side your body will go through a detox of old, repressed and unresolved emotions, releasing these poisons from your body that have been causing you a great deal of suffering in your life. Many of these unresolved and repressed emotions are what actually manifest as physical diseases, so spontaneous healing of acute dis-eases are common. Your mental body will also go through a detoxification process as your brain neural nets re-pattern by clearing dysfunctional attitudes, beliefs systems and thoughtforms. This means greater genius, improved concentration and focus to accomplish the things you most desire. Common symptoms of a successful DNA Activation are
high temperatures, sweating, headache, dizziness, ringing in the ears, tingling in the arms, hands, legs or feet and wanting to sleep longer and more often than normal.''

http://auriccalibration.com/DNA_Activation_Symptoms_and_Frequently_Asked_Questions.html



Really?



It is all related to the thread, one answer leads to another path, but the journey is going in one direction looking towards an answer.


added - you can visual see DNA with a microscope and it looks like a twisted ladder? or is the twisted ladder model just another model of imagination?


added- Biological atoms are different to non-biological atoms?


added- sorry my thoughts are activated, So from my thoughts, we are made of  neurological interwoven twisted ladders that can process information, where as matter is made of single particle lattices with no coupling to process information?

added - just to be certain, there is no DNA in a brick?

added- none biological atoms absorb the energy and emit the energy, biological atoms absorb the energy and grow roots like a seed?


added - things that grow gain entropy and gain mass, things that don't grow retain entropy and retain mass by process?


added - ''high temperatures, sweating, headache, dizziness, ringing in the ears, tingling in the arms, hands, legs or feet and wanting to sleep longer and more often than normal.'' and raised  heart rate and feeling your own heart pound and entire body ''fitting'' inside and trembling.



I thought it may of been bi-polar, now I think I may be activated.

sorry added - DNA repair fails in Cancer, the new forming DNA does not know how big to grow , the sequence is lost ( I have no idea what that even means),




sorry so many questions now you got me started, it's all relatively new to me so I love it.
 

Lets start at the beginning, a female egg and a single sperm.


What is the egg 'made'' of?


What is the single sperm ''made'' of?


and am I correct in thinking this could be done in a test tube, cloning/growing babies?

We produce the sperm and eggs, could these hypothetically speaking be manufactured without us existing?


I observe, that life grows by activation of the seed by the activating sperm, a chemical reaction, I also observe that we can produce chemical reactions in science. We would not need a God to create life, we would only need to manufacture sperm and eggs from ''acids''/''chemicals''.













« Last Edit: 14/01/2016 17:18:42 by Thebox »
 

Offline Bill S

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1804
  • Thanked: 11 times
    • View Profile
Re: Is evolution theory correct?
« Reply #9 on: 14/01/2016 18:42:31 »
Quote
What is DNA? in your own words please.

National Dyslexic Association.
 

Offline evan_au

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4105
  • Thanked: 245 times
    • View Profile
Re: Is evolution theory correct?
« Reply #10 on: 14/01/2016 22:00:45 »
Quote from: TheBox
What is DNA? in your own words please
Wikipedia says it better than I can.
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introduction_to_genetics

Wikipedia says it a lot better than auriccalibration - the latter site will confuse you even further.

Is DNA made of atoms ? Yes

An acid? Yes. Many of your bodily functions depend on chemicals that dissolve in water. Acids are one of the groups of chemicals that dissolve more easily in water. 

What is the gravity effect of DNA on DNA? Negligible compared to the effects of water and other proteins on the DNA.

you can visual see DNA with a microscope and it looks like a twisted ladder? The twists of DNA are smaller than the wavelength of light, so you can't see them in a light microscope. Rosalind Franklin used X-Rays to determine the structure of DNA; the wavelength of X-Rays is smaller than visible light.

What is the single sperm ''made'' of? The head is a package of DNA (50% of a normal cell). The tail propeller is protein and a mitochondria power source.

What is the egg 'made'' of? It is a package of DNA (50% of a normal cell), plus all the contents of a normal cell, plus a supply of energy.
 

Offline Colin2B

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1917
  • Thanked: 123 times
    • View Profile
Re: Is evolution theory correct?
« Reply #11 on: 14/01/2016 22:57:31 »
....while I am writing this, my friend mentioned cavemen and said on the cave man walls, some of the drawings showed spaceships?
Edinburgh has a monument to Walter Scott which was built in 1840. It looks remarkably like a thunderbirds spaceship.
Does that mean the the Scottish nation was deposited here from by aliens, a sort of "beam me down Scotty" ?
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3154
  • Thanked: 44 times
    • View Profile
Re: Is evolution theory correct?
« Reply #12 on: 15/01/2016 05:08:41 »

Edinburgh has a monument to Walter Scott which was built in 1840. It looks remarkably like a thunderbirds spaceship.
Does that mean the the Scottish nation was deposited here from by aliens, a sort of "beam me down Scotty" ?

That would be a Gophic piece of architect and any resemblance to Thunderbirb 3 is simply coincidence.

However beam me down Scotty sounds about right after looking at some of the things mentioned in this thread from Evan.


We are seemingly far more ''futuristic''/advanced than the Universe we live in.( Meaning our complex structure).


Physics is so much simpler.

Ok, DNA seem's complex. even with all my thought I have no idea of how to  put a string of thought together about the subject.

How ''big'' is a cell compared to an atom?


and took from the link

 ''Genes are made up of molecules inside the nucleus of a cell that are strung together in such a way that the sequence carries information''


So from that sentence I drew this 



is this anything like a cell?   










 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3154
  • Thanked: 44 times
    • View Profile
Re: Is evolution theory correct?
« Reply #13 on: 15/01/2016 12:49:32 »
Any Silica  or Fluorines involved in a cell? I have found here and at here so far,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronegativity#Electropositivity

''The higher the associated electronegativity number, the more an element or compound attracts electrons towards it.''

edit-The higher the associated electro-negativity number, the more an element or compound emits the absorbed energy of Photons?

Based on something with Negativity becomes charged like a capacitor and emits  and repels other positivity.

A+B=C

rather than A attracts B


A=negativity
B=positivity
C= emitted outcome  (+-) di-pole ''charge''




« Last Edit: 15/01/2016 12:59:04 by Thebox »
 

Offline puppypower

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 555
  • Thanked: 43 times
    • View Profile
Re: Is evolution theory correct?
« Reply #14 on: 15/01/2016 13:45:31 »
Evolution is based on the changes in the heritable traits of biological populations over successive generations. This makes sense, to me, since one can see heritable traits like the fathers's eyes transferred to his child or the mothers hair to her daughter. However, in my opinion, the random change explanation followed by natural selection, to explain new things, has practical problems.

I can accept heritable traits being forwarded. I can also accept natural selection aspect, because humans carry on these traditions. The gold medal is given to him/her with the fastest legs. He/she is selected based on a genetic plus hard work criteria. It is the random mechanism that rubs me the wrong way. Random appears to the main source of confusion, that makes some people throw out the baby with the bath water. The random bathwater seems tainted, making the baby; change and selection, seem dirty and contrived. Change, transfer and selection is clean, but random adds conceptual dirt in the water.

If you assumed random changes on the DNA, I can accept that this will make it easier to deal with the complex systems of life. You don't have to explain tiny details. You can place these details in a black box, where squirrels roll dice. From a business POV this saves money and time. However, in practical reality, if you took any complex system, such as a computer, and then randomly change each part, cycling randomly though all the parts of the computer, it won't take long before the computer does not work. The odds this will make the computer better, and even jump to the next level, is remote. That is a conceptual problem.

Why don't the computer manufacturers gather the homeless to throw dice for the next generation of computers? The CEO, who can have a PhD in computers, can play the role of selector, who will decide which computers to put on the assembly line. This is the image people get and it does not make sense. Try an experiment at home. Build a puzzle with a blind fold. After you place a few pieces, take off the blindfold and see if you will select this. Statistics is a useful tool, created by man. However, is is a screw driver being used like a hammer. It is not the right tool for evolution. 

Intuitively, many people sense there needs to be a greater sense of order and even direction so the vast majority of changes, will not all lead to terminal problems. For some, this conceptual ordering principle is interpreted to mean God who provides order and direction. However, order and direction can also come from chemical principles. Unfortunately, any mention of order and direction is politically lumped to mean God, Creation and Intelligent design, which is them subjectively treated in a dismissing way, so nothing has to change.

The reason I believe that biology thinks it needs random, is connected to biology not assuming water is a co-partner in life, with the organics. Both play an equal and complementary role. For example, the DNA double helix has a double helix of hydrogen bonded water built into the DNA structure. The degree of DNA hydration determines the properties of the DNA, with beta DNA; most common active DNA, the most hydrated. If you take away water, in whole to part, the DNA can be made inactive. If you leave out an important variable, like water, then things will look mysterious and random.

Quote
Nucleic acid hydration is crucially important for their conformation and utility [1093], as noted by Watson and Crick [828]. The strength of these aqueous interactions is far greater than those for proteins due to their highly ionic character [542b]. The DNA double helix can take up a number of conformations (for example, right handed A-DNA pitch 28.2 ┼ 11 bp, B-DNA pitch 34 ┼ 10 bp, C-DNA pitch 31┼ 9.33 bp, D-DNA pitch 24.2 ┼ 8 bp and the left handed Z-DNA pitch 43┼ 12 bp) with differing hydration. The predominant natural DNA, B-DNA, has a wide and deep major groove and a narrow and deep minor groove and requires the greatest hydration.

For example, science has also shown that proteins will fold in repeatable ways with a probability of 1.0. The bulk of the cell's organic mass does not follow random laws for folding.  Also all the protein in cells are left handed helices. Protein can be left or right handed, like a two sided coin. Yet all protein always come up heads. What are the odds of flipping a two sided coin and always coming up heads, millions of times? The cell is avoiding random.

Statistic is a useful tool that needs a random assumption, but manmade tools should not be used to describe natural, especially when natural is not playing along in terms of its bulk structural properties.
« Last Edit: 15/01/2016 13:59:51 by puppypower »
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3154
  • Thanked: 44 times
    • View Profile
Re: Is evolution theory correct?
« Reply #15 on: 15/01/2016 14:06:07 »
Evolution is based on the changes in the heritable traits of biological populations over successive generations. This makes sense, to me, since one can see heritable traits like the fathers's eyes transferred to his child or the mothers hair to her daughter. However, in my opinion, the random change explanation followed by natural selection, to explain new things, has practical problems.

I can accept heritable traits being forwarded. I can also accept natural selection aspect, because humans carry on these traditions. The gold medal is given to him/her with the fastest legs. He/she is selected based on a genetic plus hard work criteria. It is the random mechanism that rubs me the wrong way. Random appears to the main source of confusion, that makes some people throw out the baby with the bath water. The random bathwater seems tainted, making the baby; change and selection, seem dirty and contrived. Change, transfer and selection is clean, but random adds conceptual dirt in the water.

If you assumed random changes on the DNA, I can accept that this will make it easier to deal with the complex systems of life. You don't have to explain tiny details. You can place these details in a black box, where squirrels roll dice. From a business POV this saves money and time. However, in practical reality, if you took any complex system, such as a computer, and then randomly change each part, cycling randomly though all the parts of the computer, it won't take long before the computer does not work. The odds this will make the computer better, and even jump to the next level, is remote. That is a conceptual problem.

Why don't the computer manufacturers gather the homeless to throw dice for the next generation of computers? The CEO, who can have a PhD in computers, can play the role of selector, who will decide which computers to put on the assembly line. This is the image people get and it does not make sense. Try an experiment at home. Build a puzzle with a blind fold. After you place a few pieces, take off the blindfold and see if you will select this. Statistics is a useful tool, created by man. However, is is a screw driver being used like a hammer. It is not the right tool for evolution. 

Intuitively, many people sense there needs to be a greater sense of order and even direction so the vast majority of changes, will not all lead to terminal problems. For some, this conceptual ordering principle is interpreted to mean God who provides order and direction. However, order and direction can also come from chemical principles. Unfortunately, any mention of order and direction is politically lumped to mean God, Creation and Intelligent design, which is them subjectively treated in a dismissing way, so nothing has to change.

The reason I believe that biology thinks it needs random, is connected to biology not assuming water is a co-partner in life, with the organics. Both play an equal and complementary role. For example, the DNA double helix has a double helix of hydrogen bonded water built into the DNA structure. The degree of DNA hydration determines the properties of the DNA, with beta DNA; most common active DNA, the most hydrated. If you take away water, in whole to part, the DNA can be made inactive. If you leave out an important variable, like water, then things will look mysterious and random.

Quote
Nucleic acid hydration is crucially important for their conformation and utility [1093], as noted by Watson and Crick [828]. The strength of these aqueous interactions is far greater than those for proteins due to their highly ionic character [542b]. The DNA double helix can take up a number of conformations (for example, right handed A-DNA pitch 28.2 ┼ 11 bp, B-DNA pitch 34 ┼ 10 bp, C-DNA pitch 31┼ 9.33 bp, D-DNA pitch 24.2 ┼ 8 bp and the left handed Z-DNA pitch 43┼ 12 bp) with differing hydration. The predominant natural DNA, B-DNA, has a wide and deep major groove and a narrow and deep minor groove and requires the greatest hydration.

For example, science has also shown that proteins will fold in repeatable ways with a probability of 1.0. The bulk of the cell's organic mass does not follow random laws for folding.  Also all the protein in cells are left handed helices. Protein can be left or right handed, like a two sided coin. Yet all protein always come up heads. What are the odds of flipping a two sided coin and always coming up heads, millions of times? The cell is avoiding random.

Statistic is a useful tool that needs a random assumption, but manmade tools should not be used to describe natural, especially when natural is not playing along in terms of its bulk structural properties.

Good post Puppy, thanks ,

I would not disagree with evolution that traits are inherited permissions from our parents and generations of our fathers, however if we were originally not of this earth, logically the process of inheritance would still happen regardless of where we originally evolved.  There is no evidence that suggests or remotely suggest that Earth is the birth place and creation place of human existence.
The complex structure of ourselves is to different to our environment.   Something is seemingly amiss. The universe is liking to a sterile environment and life is liking to a contamination.

I with a simple view now see DNA as to like having a key cut.  My family keys being cut closely the same design.


added- permission - edited version  ''The authorization given to users that enables them to access specific resources of the Universe, such as data files, ''
« Last Edit: 15/01/2016 14:21:02 by Thebox »
 

Offline alysdexia

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 121
  • Thanked: 3 times
    • View Profile
Re: Is evolution theory correct?
« Reply #16 on: 17/01/2016 18:31:34 »
Evolution is a joke that has been going on since 1859.  It is fairly easy to prove that evolution isn't true.  No new genetic information is coming into existence in bisexual species.  Offspring are simply rearrangements of pre-existing genetic information.   There are other arguments that lead to the same conclusion, but I usually don't post such things because it inevitably devolves into an argument.  Does anybody really believe that they are descended from a fish?

Evolutionary hřpothesis is thousands of years old.  You are most likely a hick who doesn't read much other than your lay blogs.

new beneficial mutations: digestions, immunities, pigments, shapes and sizes, acclimation/acclimatization, races, polřploidism, kimerism, mosaicism, intersexuality, supernumerary, tetrakromatism, dentition, hřoid/FOXP2.

A few babies are born with tails that must be cut off.

http://google.com/search?q=atavism
http://google.com/images?q=chicken+teeth
http://google.com/search?q=ethnic+haplogroups
http://google.com/search?q=comparative+embryology

Speciation over several years: http://google.com/search?q=%22youngest+species%22

There is no evidence that suggests or remotely suggest that Earth is the birth place and creation place of human existence.
The complex structure of ourselves is to different to our environment.   Something is seemingly amiss. The universe is liking to a sterile environment and life is liking to a contamination.

When would you say the cut-off date for humans was?
 

Offline paradigm

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 15
    • View Profile
Re: Is evolution theory correct?
« Reply #17 on: 19/01/2016 04:36:02 »
The Paradigm of Types in Cosmology and Biology specifies the construction and evolution of everything within the realms of cosmology and biology.

The Paradigm is presented in the essay ôThe Nature of the Universe and the Paradigm of Types in Cosmology and Biologyö, which is located at home.spin.net.au/paradigm/true.pdf

The Paradigm represents the ultimate paradigm shift revolution of science.


 

Offline evan_au

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4105
  • Thanked: 245 times
    • View Profile
Re: Is evolution theory correct?
« Reply #18 on: 19/01/2016 10:26:14 »
Quote from: puppypower
It is the random mechanism that rubs me the wrong way...
Chromosome crossover during DNA preparation for the egg and sperm appear "random". It's not totally random, since similar regions of the DNA pair up, so similar parts of the DNA are mixed together.

Copying errors introduce a few mutations every time a cell divides. Cosmic rays and decay of radioactive elements in our bodies add more "random" mutations.

These mutations are not designed by water molecules. And these are not deterministic events, unless you are God.

Quote
if you took any complex system, such as a computer, and then randomly change each part.... the odds this will make the computer better, and even jump to the next level, is remote.
Somewhat inspired by chromosome crossover, complex system optimization and design of software control systems is sometimes done via "genetic algorithms".

Different algorithms are tested, and the more successful ones have their parts swapped with other algorithms, until a well-performing algorithm emerges. This is not totally random, as you must define a comprehensive test and scoring strategy, and also represent the range of possible solutions in a way that can use this "mix and match" approach.
 

Offline alysdexia

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 121
  • Thanked: 3 times
    • View Profile
Re: Is evolution theory correct?
« Reply #19 on: 21/01/2016 10:06:41 »
Copying errors introduce a few mutations every time a cell divides. Cosmic rays and decay of radioactive elements in our bodies add more "random" mutations.

These mutations are not designed by water molecules. And these are not deterministic events, unless you are God.

Events sit on a spectrum between random, likely, and known.  Randomness where two events are not correlated should be the result of infinite terms, factors, exponents, and further operations that represent infinite states and bodies nonexistent in any real conditions.  The finitude should impose a cut-off in any power series, as well as discretize transcendental constants to radicals.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Broglie%E2%80%93Bohm_theory

indeterministic != contingent.

The Casimir and Scharnhorst effects should impose correction terms on Planck's constant and eventually break or flatten the wave function.
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Re: Is evolution theory correct?
« Reply #19 on: 21/01/2016 10:06:41 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums