[sim (OP)]

Hi There are a lot of people that rubbish Magister colin leslie dean for his views on mathematics and science Here for your interest are his views on biology natural selection

Biology not a science & evolution/natural selection meaningless

1) Biology is not a science

bear in mind we are told by science

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life

"Biology is the science concerned with the study of life."

but

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life

"There is currently no consensus regarding the definition of life"

so basically

without science knowing what life is

then dead and alive have no meaning

biology science dont even know what life is-how ironic they study life but dont know what life is

that is why biology is not a science

2) Natural selection-as Origin of species is invalid

1)Darwins book is called On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection ....

but

this paper shows natural selection is not the origin of new species Natural selection is not the origin of new species

"Natural selection does not generate new genes/species Natural selection adds no new genetic information as it only deals with the passing on of genes/traits already present and it will be pointed out genetics cannot account for the generation of new species/genes as it is claimed the generation of new genes [via mutation] is a random process due to radiation, viruses, chemicals etc and genetic cannot account for these process happening as they are out side the scope of genetics physics, chaos theory etc may give some explanation but genetics cant"

3) the notion of species/evolution of species ends in meaninglessness-not valid

Biologist cant tell us what a species is -without contradiction thus evolution theory ie evolving species is nonsense
http://.yellowgum.com/wp-content/uploads/BIOLOGISTS-DON.pdf


Biologists agree there is species hybridization
but that contradicts what a species is

thus

Biology not a science & evolution/natural selection meaningless


"[Deans] philosophy is the sickest, most paralyzing and most destructive thing that has ever originated from the brain of man."


"[Dean] lay waste to everything in its path... [It is ] a systematic work of destruction and demoralization... In the end it became nothing but an act of sacrilege."

[The Spoon]

Ah - another idiotic post claiming science is wrong...we get these a lot.

[chiralSPO]

Internet detective.jpg (131.69 kB . 750x1000 - viewed 7529 times)

[Kryptid]

You have literally made these exact same threads before. I would advise you to stop making duplicate posts and post in the threads that you have already made about these topics. Otherwise, we may need to take disciplinary action against you.

[sim (OP)]

It is shown by Magister colin leslie dean "THE REFUTATION EVOLUTIONARY THEORY: NATURAL SELECTION SHOWN TO BE WRONG "

Darwins book is called On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection

but it is shown natural selection[NS] does not create new species

1)the cambrian explosion as darwin saw invalidates his theory.http://www.genesispark.com/genpark/explo/explo.htm“No real progress has been made by evolutionists since Darwin’s day and "The Cambrian evolutionary explosion is still shrouded in mystery." (Eldredge, N., The Monkey Business, 1982, p. 46.)”-at the present time nothing has changed


2)NS is invalidated by the fact of speciation as NS only deals with traits already present and cant deal with the generation of new species genetics might be able to account for the generation of new species [ see below  where it is shown genetics cannot account for the generation of new species] but NS cant as the generation of new species it not part of its remit


 3) NS deals with the transmission of favorable traits  and the eradication of unfavorable traits so the fact that unfavorable traits ie the gene for breast cancer  are and can be transmitted and become common invalidates  NS out right Some argue that harmful genes can be transmitted and become common when accompanied by good genes but this makes natural selection wrong ie 4”natural selection, a process that causes helpful traits (those that increase the chance of survival and reproduction) to become more common in a population and causes harmful traits to become more rare”(Ref: Futuyma, Douglas Evolution 2005” seeing bad genes can become common this thus makes natural selection wrong which says bad genes should be come rare or less common

4) genetics cannot account for the generation of new species-ie the  cambrian  explosion  as  it  is  claimed  the  generation  of  new  genes  is  a  random  process  due  to  radiation,  viruses,  chemicals  etc and genetic cannot account for  these  process  happening  as  they are out side the scope of genetics physics chaos theory etc may give some explanation but genetics cant

[Bored chemist]

As usually happens with people saying "Evolution is wrong!", you have not understood  evolution.
A statement like this
"genetics cannot account for the generation of new species"
is easily refuted.
We have dog breeds that can't inter-mate.
Please feel free to make up your own punchlines about a chihuahua trying to mate with a great dane.

[xersanozgen]

Papa said that: "To refuse the evolution process is to refuse of God's  major force. "

[puppypower]

Random changes in genes, also makes no sense, in terms of the formation of new species. There are more things that can go wrong than can go right, if we use a random approach to changing the  genes.  The majority of cellular systems, in place, that already work, if subject to random change, will get worse and not better. The entire approach defies common sense.

In terms of bacteria and virus, a random assumption could work, in terms of selection, since these tiny entities can form billions of new units; offspring, in a very small time frame. So even if 99.999% of the offspring become defective, due to random approach, the tiny fraction that that randomly  improves, still has lot of units. This approach has a chance for improving the species. But once you get into multicellular species, that breed much slower in time, with far fewer units, this theory breaks down.

As an analogous experiment of the latter, have small children point, replace and swap the parts on a new automobile and motor and drive train. Small children do not know how everything works in a car, so their play and imaginations will create random changes. This approach will not improve the car or lead to anything new that will be selected. Detroit does not use this approach since it is nonsense.

The best way to improve the car and come up with new models; news species of cars, is via necessity. We target where change is needed. If it is not broke don't fix it. If emissions are not good enough, we target change there, that leads to this improvement. Detroit does not throw dice or darts at a wall to pick a new random component, and then throw darts at another wall, as to how to proceed. That would be dumb and superstitious. You can't depend on winning the lottery, although it is fun to imagine and pretend. 

The random or statistical approach for biology was disproven in the late 1950's, when it was demonstrated that proteins fold with exact folds. This was not expected, since statistical models had assumed that thermal vibrations, alone, would randomize protein folding. This observation implied a probability of 1.0, which had nothing to do with statistics.

Since the late 1950's, when it was proven that protein have exact folds, it has yet to be explained, after 60 years, with a statistical explanation.  Yet statistical assumptions persist. Who is in charge and could you explain why the horse and buggy is still around when the horseless carriage should have been developed 60 years ago? This is an example of unnatural selection, based on human politics.

[Bored chemist]

Random changes in genes, also makes no sense, in terms of the formation of new species. There are more things that can go wrong than can go right, if we use a random approach to changing the  genes.  The majority of cellular systems, in place, that already work, if subject to random change, will get worse and not better. The entire approach defies common sense.

It would only have to follow "common sense" if something with common sense designed it.

That's how we know there is no designer.

Detroit does not use this approach since it is nonsense.

Car design is a classic example of evolution.
https://blog.world-mysteries.com/science/127-years-of-modern-automobile-evolution/

We target where

Yes, we do, because we caan think.
But evolution can't so it doesn't.

It's absurd to compare the intentional action of  people with the evolution of nature.

If you don't understand that then...

As usually happens with people saying "Evolution is wrong!", you have not understood  evolution.

[puppypower]

Random changes in genes, also makes no sense, in terms of the formation of new species. There are more things that can go wrong than can go right, if we use a random approach to changing the  genes.  The majority of cellular systems, in place, that already work, if subject to random change, will get worse and not better. The entire approach defies common sense.

It would only have to follow "common sense" if something with common sense designed it.

That's how we know there is no designer.

Detroit does not use this approach since it is nonsense.

Car design is a classic example of evolution.
https://blog.world-mysteries.com/science/127-years-of-modern-automobile-evolution/

We target where

Yes, we do, because we caan think.
But evolution can't so it doesn't.

It's absurd to compare the intentional action of  people with the evolution of nature.

If you don't understand that then...

As usually happens with people saying "Evolution is wrong!", you have not understood  evolution.

I am not denying evolution. I am questioning the random assumption of genetic change, that is assumed to drive evolutionary change and the creation of new species. I have no problem with Darwin's theory from 1859, since natural selection is quite rational. The strong and the healthy surviving is logical and based on common sense. That is not rocket science. This theory would apply to humans and animals after Adam if you chose to start there.

Rather, I am questioning the statistical assumptions of genetic change, that were added in the 1950's when DNA was revealed. This statistical approach to life was disproven in the late 1950's, when it was observed that protein fold with exact folds. This repeatable observation of each folding of protein has yet to explain with a statistical explanation, 60 years later. Talk about a long term coverup and deception.

Random changes in the generic material will create more problems than solutions. More things can go wrong, than right, if we use a random model. I used the example of small children mutating a new model car by randomly rearranging, taking and giving parts.  It is doubtful that approach will ever create the car of the year or every car manufacturer would have day care centers in the development areas. It is more likely that car will not work, when they are done. Why does this nonsense persist in science? When I mention it, the first reaction is to call me a Creationists as a way to sweep this under the rug. This is naked science and the emperor of random has no clothes to defend this position.

Have you ever heard of Schrödinger's cat? It is a thought experiment, sometimes described as a paradox, devised by Austrian physicist Erwin Schrödinger in 1935, though the idea originated from Albert Einstein. It illustrates what he saw as the problem of the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics applied to everyday objects.

In this thought experiment a cat is locked in a sealed container with a vial of poison that can open at any time. According to the thought experiment the cat can be either alive or dead at any point in time. We cannot see in the container nor know the state of the poison vial, so either option has to be assumed possible. This is statistics in a nut shell. We place something in a blackbox, that we do not understand. Since the black box makes it hard to see, anything is possible, so we give it odds. This is what was done to the genetic material and evolution. They stuck it in the black box with Schrödinger's cat.

Say we change the thought experiment and give the container a window. Now since we can see in the container all bets are off. The imagination can no longer no pretend and add foolish theory as to what can be. Not everyone can win the lottery, if we can see. A window was added in the late 1950's. It had been assumed that protein folding was randomized due to the theory of the black box. Once the window was added the theory should have changed, but it did not. The change would have altered the status quo, so politics saved the day. I am here in behalf of science to set the record straight.

[Kryptid]

This statistical approach to life was disproven in the late 1950's, when it was observed that protein fold with exact folds.

You are equivocating two different things. Protein folding is not the same thing as genetic mutation. Protein folding not being random therefore doesn't mean that genetic mutations cannot be random. Genetic mutations are not entirely random anyway, as different parts of the genome have different mutation rates.

[Bored chemist]

This statistical approach to life was disproven in the late 1950's, when it was observed that protein fold with exact folds. This repeatable observation of each folding of protein has yet to explain with a statistical explanation, 60 years later. Talk about a long term coverup and deception.

Which is more plausible; A 60 year cover -up, or you have misunderstood?

[Kryptid]

I used the example of small children mutating a new model car by randomly rearranging, taking and giving parts.

This is a simplification of evolution. If evolution was only capable of rearranging existing parts (say, swapping the trachea and the esophagus) or duplicating or deleting certain parts, then mutation would be, as you say, exceedingly unlikely to create improvements.

Thankfully, evolution is not limited to such large-scale changes.

In order to be more accurately analogous to mutation, you should also make allowances for very minor changes, such as changing the wheel diameter by a couple of centimeters, altering the composition of structural alloys by increasing or decreasing nickel content by 3%, changing the wall thickness of pipes by a millimeter, etc. This method would be much more likely to create slight improvements in performance that would allow for selection.

[Bored chemist]

I used the example of small children mutating a new model car by randomly rearranging, taking and giving parts.

This is a simplification of evolution. If evolution was only capable of rearranging existing parts (say, swapping the trachea and the esophagus) or duplicating or deleting certain parts, then mutation would be, as you say, exceedingly unlikely to create improvements.

Thankfully, evolution is not limited to such large-scale changes.

In order to be more accurately analogous to mutation, you should also make allowances for very minor changes, such as changing the wheel diameter by a couple of centimeters, altering the composition of structural alloys by increasing or decreasing nickel content by 3%, changing the wall thickness of pipes by a millimeter, etc. This method would be much more likely to create slight improvements in performance that would allow for selection.

It's also essentially why we no longer drive model T Fords.

[puppypower]

I used the example of small children mutating a new model car by randomly rearranging, taking and giving parts.

This is a simplification of evolution. If evolution was only capable of rearranging existing parts (say, swapping the trachea and the esophagus) or duplicating or deleting certain parts, then mutation would be, as you say, exceedingly unlikely to create improvements.

Thankfully, evolution is not limited to such large-scale changes.

In order to be more accurately analogous to mutation, you should also make allowances for very minor changes, such as changing the wheel diameter by a couple of centimeters, altering the composition of structural alloys by increasing or decreasing nickel content by 3%, changing the wall thickness of pipes by a millimeter, etc. This method would be much more likely to create slight improvements in performance that would allow for selection.

If you use your minor change, such as making alloys, a random approach would also try all the available atoms on the periodic table, hoping to win the jackpot. This will make most of the metals less functional. The cat can be alive or dead in the black box of statistics. One will not know until they try or open the box.

Random would use the most common atoms, such as oxygen. which will enhance rust and corrosion. Improvements in metals is based on developing theory, for what does work, and then applying this for future changes. This is a logical approach. I am agree that small changes over long times will create larger changes, but a random approach has to no clue and like the lottery, this approach there generate plenty of hope, but most of the trials will lose their money.

I can see a random approach working for bacteria and virus since they make so many units in a short time that even a couple of lottery winners, is sufficient to make lots of new units. Larger animals, like humans, would not benefit by this approach, since random will destroy faster than it can restock. 

In terms of the Corona Virus,say we assume a random approach to mutations. Wouldn't all those  defects; people who play the lottery but lose, make it easier for animals to resist the virus as it evolves?  Say the virus made mostly weaker versions of itself during random mutations. These should be easier, in terms of an immune response, since they are less devastating.This will  allow the body more time to create an immune reaction. This, in turn, would allow some animals to build up anti-bodies, close to what will be needed, in terms of the smaller proportion of the improved virus.

Random mutations in virus should make both, worse and better versions of itself, since all six sides of the dice are equally likely. If not the dice are loaded by some logic. The result is most if not all virus will run their course, since defects will always win in the end. There are more defective sides to the dice.

[puppypower]

Let me approach evolution and creation from a different angle. The classification of life, into species, is a human construct. Species do not come with a microscopic name tag, that human see under a microscope and simply list. Species is a cataloging system from the human imagination. The origin of species is when human started to catalog them, not when they appeared on earth. DNA shows that insects share many genes with humans. Who decides where the line is?

Megalosaurus is believed to be the first dinosaur ever described scientifically. British fossil hunter William Buckland found some fossils in 1819, and he eventually described them and named them in 1824.

What this fun fact tells us is lions, tigers and bears were added to the manmade species catalog before the dinosaurs. Technically, dinosaurs can after the lions, in terms of the subjective line in the DNA sand. This subjective cataloging is not about a true of nature but convenience of humans.   Creationism has to do with the modern human mind and not place in subjective biology catalog. This modern human mind is what started to make catalogs of things, such as life, stars, minerals. etc. This began when civilization formed and then when writing was invented. That was the origin of the subjective cataloging called species. Species not a natural thing invented by nature.

In the species catalog, lions and tigers are considered two species even though they can mate and have offspring.  The mating line in the sand is not alway enforced. The catalog is subjective, so anything goes, if it serves the whims or politics of the caretakers. Remember, Pluto used to be planet and then one day on a whim, it changed pages in the catalog.

In terms of cataloging, the first catalogs of the universe were limited to what we could see with the naked eye. This was the original universe; heavens and earth.The rest of the modern universe, like the dinosaurs came later in the catalog. Creationism is consistent with the cataloging of nature in the the order of human perception. This tells me Creationism is about the evolution of the modern human mind, which likes to catalog and keep records. Tha mind can become full of itself and treats manmade cataloging as though this is natural truth.

[Bored chemist]

The origin of species is when human started to catalog them, not when they appeared on earth.

Whether people were here or not, cats couldn't mate with dogs.
People are actually a species.
So what you are saying is that people couldn't exist until people had existed long enough to define the idea of a species.

That seems unlikely.

What's obviously true is that, like much of biology, it's a bit more complicated than it first looks.
That doesn't undermine the fundamental idea of species. Cats are not the same as dogs.

In the species catalog, lions and tigers are considered two species even thought they can mate and have offspring. 

That's one of the complications I mentioned; they have to have fertile offspring to be the same species.

That hardly undermines the idea, does it?

[Bored chemist]

This will make most of the metals less functional.

Yes, and evolution depends on a lot of things dying (whether they be bacteria, animals or cars).
So? Did you think you had a point?

[Kryptid]

If you use your minor change, such as making alloys, a random approach would also try all the available atoms on the periodic table, hoping to win the jackpot.

Except that, in the case of biology, far from all of the available atoms on the periodic table are being used. The stock is limited to the amino acids (since an amino acid sequence is ultimately the way that DNA is expressed).

Larger animals, like humans, would not benefit by this approach, since random will destroy faster than it can restock.

That obviously depends on the mutation rate. If it was low enough, then the population could easily recover from negative mutations. Discard the failures, keep the successes.

The basic principle behind natural selection of random mutation has been found workable in computer simulations. Here's the first video in a series about one such example:

[puppypower]

If you use your minor change, such as making alloys, a random approach would also try all the available atoms on the periodic table, hoping to win the jackpot.

Except that, in the case of biology, far from all of the available atoms on the periodic table are being used. The stock is limited to the amino acids (since an amino acid sequence is ultimately the way that DNA is expressed).

Larger animals, like humans, would not benefit by this approach, since random will destroy faster than it can restock.

That obviously depends on the mutation rate. If it was low enough, then the population could easily recover from negative mutations. Discard the failures, keep the successes.

The basic principle behind natural selection of random mutation has been found workable in computer simulations. Here's the first video in a series about one such example:

One cannot depend on mathematic and computer simulation, since physics game engines use the same types of math/simulation and these allow us to have infinite lives. It is too easy to stack the deck by reverse engineering the needed self serving assumptions; ends justices the means.

The problem, as I see it, is connected to most people not knowing the difference between applied and pure science. I have done both and know there is a difference. Applied science is what industry uses. Pure science is only found in pockets in academia.

Applied science is all about getting results to create profit. Theory does not have to be pretty or pure as long as it works. Black box is often good enough. Numerical methods to solve simultaneous equations is not natural, but if it leads to practical results, it will be used in industry. 

Pure science is more about defining nature as it is. It is not concerned about productivity and profit.This is more difficult to do since simulation methods can be juiced. This may be OK in industry or industry seeking funding from bureaucrats; practical results. Pure is more restrictive. 

As an example of the contrast, the visible universe; planets sun and moon, was mapped out in the ancient times, using that theory, the god Helios riding his chariot, was responsible for the movement of the sun. In spite of this theory not being "PURE: science, it did not inhibit plotting the paths of the sun, planets and constellations. Those plots are based on empirical observation apart from the validity of the Helios theory. Applied science makes this possible, since the goal is practical results.  It does not have to pure to work. I can be a loose theory, as long as it leads to practical results.

The black box of statistic works the same way as the Helio theory. It is not pure science, as was shown with protein folding in the late 1950's. This observation disproved the assumptions of statistics. Medicine development is very expensive because development is done in black boxes with too many duds; dead cats. If the final retail price is high enough this can still be cost effective and appear to be pure science. This is where many people get confused.

For example, DNA will not work as a template without hydrating water. You cannot substitute any other solvent. Water forms hydrogen bonds with the DNA, and induces the needed configuration of the DNA, as well as provide surface free energy and finger printing, so the DNA can work as a template..This is "pure science".  This has been proven in the lab.

Applied science will nevertheless uses a Helios model of the DNA, with DNA still shown in a dehydrated state, in all textbooks, even though it has ben proven it will not function, as portrayed. This Helios model is compensated with the black box of statistics. This can fudge the water. It still allows one to still plot the stars with careful observations. Most people seem to confuse practical and pure and assume iff there are good results it has to be pure.

It is like saying Astrology charts, prove the existence of the gods of the constellations, since these charts plot the path of the constellations very well, and can make accurate predictions in terms of future location. This example is simple enough to see through, but with biology the irrational approach of statistics, weakens reason; black box, so this is harder to see. Then again the goal is making money so who cares if the template theory unrealistic, as long as there is profit.

Why is DNA not shown with its hydrating water in textbooks since DNA will not work without it? This is answer is critical to evolution and natural selection. If the answer is not reasonable, a Helios theory is suspected