[thebrain13 (OP)]

You mentioned a lot of things here Kryptid.

But let's not lose focus on what we are talking about here. The concept that my hypothesis is not real science because it isn't falsifiable is ironic to me because in my opinion my theory is magnitudes more falsifiable and precise than regular neo-evolution or whatever we want to call it.

I picked something that falsified my own theory that was simple and reasonable and had many other implications, but more importantly it was something that DIDN'T falsify normal evolution. It should give us pause when the opposite of what happens could also be justified by a theory.

If the universe evolved slow and steady over the whole 3.5 billion years the whole way that would contradict my theory, but not regular evolution.

If DNA was a hexagonal orb, that wouldn't contradict evolution because DNA could be stored on any shape.
For Universal Evolution, you can easily make the argument that optimal DNA should be exactly a double helix and ONLY a double helix. It can't just be anything. Why? Because there are only 3 natural shapes of E.M. waves and a circularly polarized wave would be the most structurally sound one. That makes the double helix the best and ONLY answer.  To me, it's quite obvious that DNA being the same shape as the only relevant force in physics is not a coincidence. But the rhetoric of evolution was set into stone a looooong time ago before the structure of DNA was discovered. We are just continuing that.

But you did ask a VERY good question.

What is the difference between fast pace change and slow paced change? How do you quantify this question mathematically?

Thinking about this really hard is how this whole theory started. When is "random" an acceptable explanation and when is it not?

I realized that I have never seen one time anybody try to define the chances of a "useful mutation" in mainstream science.

Of course, there is no way to calculate the odds perfectly, but if you don't do it at all, if you let anything fly, then you have an explanation for whatever you want AND whatever you don't want and that is the definition of unfalsifiable.

I used to be a poker player and always think in probabilities. It is my strong opinion that any realistic attempt to quantify the probability of useful mutations tells me the math is basically impossible to random chance.

Simplest cliff notes version. If there is a 1 in billion chance to mutate something specifically, say the heart. If you need just six things with these odds to mutate simultaneously to function usefully to create the cardiovascular system. The odds of this happening become 1:10^54 that this would truly accidentally happen, which vastly exceeds the opportunities it had to happen due to the amount of life that existed previously on earth.

I'm well aware that ANY mathematical argument I would try to create would be ridiculed. The detractors would say, "well it happened slowly over time so the math is wrong". But notice that they would never offer their own math and the reason is simple. If you actually create any reasonable estimate it forces you to realize the math of random chance makes no sense. Also if we are being realistic, I think even the simplest useful mutations are super complex and unlikely. Especially if you do not trivialize the difficulty of the quantum logistics of actually engineering basically anything like life does. How many physiological changes realistically need to happen engineering wise to change brown eyes to blue? Even a simple "mutation" like this is a lot if you really think about it.

Let's say the real odds of the C.V. system are actually 1:10^54. The earth may be big and old, but 10^54 is a way bigger number than the amount of bigger life on earth that could of made use of it.

BUT here is the key.

In my opinion this is a death nail to earth based evolution.

But this is not a problem for Universal Evolution only earth centric evolution, because the mutation could of rode in here with a rogue photon. Therefore, its no longer about how much life existed on earth, it's about how much life ever existed in the whole universe so the true amount of opportunities to mutate are dramatically higher. This causes complex physiologies no matter how unlikely, to become commonplace. The only true limit to the complexity is the size and age of the universe, which could be a lot bigger/older than we think, but is at least really really big.

One last thing, Universal Evolution can to some try to calculate the pace of evolution. Modern can not do anything like that.

For example I could propose an equation. Like any equation for evolution, it is overly idealized. But we could say that the general pace of evolution is going to correlate with physiology based upon my genetic theory.

Rate of change=Energy^2 times mass. C=ME^2

For starters, the number of photons created should scale with energy, that explains one of the E's. But it is also about the size of the creature because that increases the number of targets photons can hit. That explains one of the M's. The other E comes from the threshold theory. The higher the energy near each chromosome increases the odds the photon is able to take hold in the new chromosome, which creates the second E.

Yes, this is way over idealized, yes other things could come into play. But it is better than nothing. Evolution can't account for this at all.

We can apply this equation to life in the past, accounting for the Cambrian explosion with the appearance of higher energy and size animals like dinosaurs and mammals in addition to the higher energy plant explosion with deciduous plants.

We can also apply this to the pace of evolution in the present.

So, I'm going to make an analogy here.

Mammals are to lizards what Deciduous plants are to Conifers.

Mammal are idealized for high energy optimal environments compared to lizards whereas Deciduous is optimized for high energy optimal environments compared to Conifers.

Mammals put a lot of energy per offspring with live birth, lizards lay eggs. Deciduous has seeds, conifers have spores.
Mammals outnumber lizards in forests where food is plenty, lizards outnumber mammals in deserts where food is scarce. Deciduous outnumbers conifers near the equator, where the sun is strong, conifers outnumber deciduous up north where the sun is weak.

All of the aforementioned have sex. Yet, if you notice, the degree to which we can mutate these is dramatically higher in both cases in the higher energy group.

We could selectively breed any mammal to a way greater extent than we could any lizard. We could selectively breed any deciduous plant way faster than any conifer.
Look at what we've done with agriculture. What have we ever done with pine trees?

Look how dramatically we have changed the physiology of cows and dogs. What have we ever done with Lizards?

If evolution is truly random, we should not see these dramatic difference.

[Kryptid]

Simplest cliff notes version. If there is a 1 in billion chance to mutate something specifically, say the heart. If you need just six things with these odds to mutate simultaneously to function usefully to create the cardiovascular system. The odds of this happening become 1:10^54 that this would truly accidentally happen, which vastly exceeds the opportunities it had to happen due to the amount of life that existed previously on earth.

What's your source for those numbers?

If evolution is truly random,

It isn't.

[thebrain13 (OP)]

It is a billion multiplied six times over. (10^9)^6

I'd say you need at least six things to go right simultaneously to go from no cardiovascular system to a cardiovascular system.

A heart, Veins, Blood, Liver, Lungs, Throat.

Each of them must of occurred simultaneously because if you lacked any of them you would die. They could NOT happen slowly over time, and there is no reason to think that one is correlated with the other significantly.

Therefore we must multiply them together.

Before the C.V. and all the necessary creatures just absorb oxygen via osmosis through little pores. That is only useful for smaller creatures, so there must of been a significant jump here.

[Kryptid]

It is a billion multiplied six times over. (10^9)^6

And where did the billion come from?

Each of them must of occurred simultaneously because if you lacked any of them you would die.

That's not how evolution works. A human being might need all of those simultaneously in order to live, but that doesn't mean all ancestral forms had to have them all at the same time. Small, primitive aquatic creatures obviously wouldn't need lungs, and open circulatory systems don't need veins. Minor innovations over time allow for the colonization of new niches, increasing overall complexity and larger size.

[thebrain13 (OP)]

It is a billion multiplied six times over. (10^9)^6

And where did the billion come from?

Each of them must of occurred simultaneously because if you lacked any of them you would die.

That's not how evolution works. A human being might need all of those simultaneously in order to live, but that doesn't mean all ancestral forms had to have them all at the same time. Small, primitive aquatic creatures obviously wouldn't need lungs, and open circulatory systems don't need veins. Minor innovations over time allow for the colonization of new niches, increasing overall complexity and larger size.

Either propose the math that you would use to suggest the emergence of the cardiovascular system OR admit that the math of evolution doesn't exist, making evolution 100% un-falsifiable.

[Kryptid]

Either propose the math that you would use to suggest the emergence of the cardiovascular system OR admit that the math of evolution doesn't exist,

Math involved in evolution does indeed exist (Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium, for example), but I'm not aware of any way to reliably calculate the probability of the emergence of the cardiovascular system.

making evolution 100% un-falsifiable.

The math you ask for isn't needed to falsify evolution. I gave you some examples above of things that would falsify evolution. Other things that could have falsified evolution (but have since been passed) would have been the non-existence of mutations, the inability to pass mutations to the next generation, or the non-existence of beneficial mutations.

[thebrain13 (OP)]

Either propose the math that you would use to suggest the emergence of the cardiovascular system OR admit that the math of evolution doesn't exist,

Math involved in evolution does indeed exist (Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium, for example), but I'm not aware of any way to reliably calculate the probability of the emergence of the cardiovascular system.

making evolution 100% un-falsifiable.

The math you ask for isn't needed to falsify evolution. I gave you some examples above of things that would falsify evolution. Other things that could have falsified evolution (but have since been passed) would have been the non-existence of mutations, the inability to pass mutations to the next generation, or the non-existence of beneficial mutations.

You can not disprove any argument based on randomness anymore than you can "disprove" god if you refuse to define the parameters of your "randomness". If you can't see that, I don't know what to do for you. I don't even want to try to explain again how that actually means nothing, it's impossible.

But let's think about this though. If the math of randomness does not check out, it proves my theory because it is the only other option. Think about it.

Assume that the complexity and pace of evolution is too high seriously for this next post. Just entertain the idea that that COULD be the case. What other option is there than the one I proposed?

No ducking that last question, think about it!!!!

But one more note, even if the math of mutations (that doesn't exist) totally checks out and is completely possible. If it's possible to send genetics over space that would STILL be superior to random chance. The complexity of life that communicates would be way greater than life that  doesn't, giving it a huge advantage, so Universal Evolution would win out anyways. Whatever fish sharpened it's teeth over the course of evolving in oceans on 1000's of other planets over billions of years is going to eat the fish that just emerged with its "primitive" cardiovascular system. That's evolution.

[Kryptid]

You can not disprove any argument based on randomness

Who has an argument based on randomness?

If the math of randomness does not check out

Evolution isn't random, so I hope that's not what you're talking about.

it proves my theory because it is the only other option.

What other option is there than the one I proposed?

False dichotomy. There could always be another model (one that doesn't involve living organisms encoding genetic information in photons, for example) that explains the world better than either your model or contemporary evolution.

No ducking that last question, think about it!!!!

No need to yell about it.

that would STILL be superior to random chance.

I wish you'd quit implying that evolution is random chance. That's a straw-man argument.

[thebrain13 (OP)]

You can not disprove any argument based on randomness

Who has an argument based on randomness?

If the math of randomness does not check out

Evolution isn't random, so I hope that's not what you're talking about.

it proves my theory because it is the only other option.

What other option is there than the one I proposed?

False dichotomy. There could always be another model (one that doesn't involve living organisms encoding genetic information in photons, for example) that explains the world better than either your model or contemporary evolution.

No ducking that last question, think about it!!!!

No need to yell about it.

that would STILL be superior to random chance.

I wish you'd quit implying that evolution is random chance. That's a straw-man argument.

Sounds like you are ducking the question. You said it was a false dichotomy correct?
So what else is there besides my theory and your theory? There must be at least three. What is it? Or is that just an accidental paste from a previous argument against religion? (sorry being cheeky)

[Kryptid]

So what else is there besides my theory. There must be at least three. What is it?

There have probably been a lot of minor such theories (or better, hypotheses) posted in the various forums across the Internet like this one. For that reason, they are unlikely to have appeared in popular scientific publications and thus for me to know about them. Of course, you've always got intelligent design in its many forms (alien-based, simulation-based or God-based, usually). Rupert Sheldrake's "morphic fields" might also count.

[thebrain13 (OP)]

So what else is there besides my theory. There must be at least three. What is it?

There have probably been a lot of minor such theories (or better, hypotheses) posted in the various forums across the Internet like this one. For that reason, they are unlikely to have appeared in popular scientific publications and thus for me to know about them. Of course, you've always got intelligent design in its many forms (alien-based, simulation-based or God-based, usually). Rupert Sheldrake's "morphic fields" might also count.

Do you have any arguments against my theory besides what YOU consider the proper pace of evolution based on a mathematics you can't define? (not trying to be rude) I'm serious, I don't think anybody on this site has made a SINGLE point, I didn't address perfectly. I'm not exaggerating. Whereas I feel like all my strong ones were ducked, or glossed over with some form of "randomness explains it". Sorry, I don't think that is a strawman, I have no doubt there is a bunch more word salad predicated on not defining the odds of mutations but let's just agree to disagree there.

So, what is your best point, without using anything resembling what is or is not permissible with chance? Seriously, do your worst. Keep it scientific please. But what is your best idea that simultaneously proves me wrong that shows support of your theory? Evidence of huge jumps is totally dependent on YOUR concept of what is or is not a proper jump. But there are a ton of arguments that don't rely on that to differentiate the concepts. What is your point that makes you so confident?

[Kryptid]

Do you have any arguments against my theory besides what YOU consider the proper pace of evolution based on a mathematics you can't define?

I'd have to go back and read your concept more thoroughly in order to get a better understanding of it. At the moment, I don't think I quite get it.

Sorry, I don't think that is a strawman

Calling something random that isn't random is a straw-man. The odds of mutations can and have been roughly estimated, but mutations are only a part of what evolution is about. Natural selection is another important aspect, and it is anything but random.

So, what is your best point, without using anything resembling what is or is not permissible with chance? Seriously, do your worst. Keep it scientific please. But what is your best idea that simultaneously proves me wrong that shows support of your theory? Evidence of huge jumps is totally dependent on YOUR concept of what is or is not a proper jump. But there are a ton of arguments that don't rely on that to differentiate the concepts. What is your point that makes you so confident?

Again, I'd have go back and read your idea more thoroughly. One question that might help me answer your question would be: does your model predict common descent? Does it allow for humans and chimpanzees to have descended from a common ancestor? It's really late here, so I don't have time to get into it tonight. I'll come back to this tomorrow. I do want to give you a fair chance and actually address your model properly, so I may have more questions next time.

[thebrain13 (OP)]

Yes absolutely I think there is a common ancestor for people and chimpanzees. Whatever is the normal tree of life and lineage, I have no reason to doubt that.

I'm suggesting that there is another pressure that drives mutations though.

For instance, there is something called carcinization where basically a bunch of different crustaceans all turn into crabs. This is called convergent evolution. I'm suggesting phenomena like convergent evolution may be due to more factors than simply natural selection and environment, but by photons from crabs causing crab like mutations slowly over time.

There is still a lineage though. I think without this extra pressure evolution would be way slower than what it is to day.

[Bored chemist]

TheBrain seems to me muddling mutation (which is random) with evolution (which is not).

[Bored chemist]

Yes absolutely I think there is a common ancestor for people and chimpanzees. Whatever is the normal tree of life and lineage, I have no reason to doubt that.

So... you believe that the common ancestor evolved into humans and chimps, but you don't believe in evolution.

That's "special".

[Origin]

For instance, there is something called carcinization where basically a bunch of different crustaceans all turn into crabs. This is called convergent evolution. I'm suggesting phenomena like convergent evolution may be due to more factors than simply natural selection and environment, but by photons from crabs causing crab like mutations slowly over time.

We can certainly dismiss the idea that the cause is photons carrying genetic information.

[thebrain13 (OP)]

Yes absolutely I think there is a common ancestor for people and chimpanzees. Whatever is the normal tree of life and lineage, I have no reason to doubt that.

So... you believe that the common ancestor evolved into humans and chimps, but you don't believe in evolution.

That's "special".

Actually my theory is exactly evolution, just thought out better with modern physics that goes way over yours and origins heads. That's why I'm in silicon valley trying to secure more funding to build an experiment to cure cancer and you two are talking smack to somebody you don't know on an internet forum.

I'll respond to you two seriously the second you do, but I'm not wasting any more time on either of you until you return the favor respectfully.

[thebrain13 (OP)]

We can certainly dismiss the idea that the cause is photons carrying genetic information.

Explain to me exactly why that is impossible. Be specific. Because I already provided a smoking gun at pretty much every turn and can go into further and further detail if you'd like.

[Bored chemist]

Explain to me exactly why that is impossible.

Because science.
There just isn't a mechanism for it.
We can start with crabs not emitting photons except thermal radiation.
Since crabs are at pretty much the same temperature as their surroundings, they can only emit more or less the same photons as the rocks and seawater.

Do you realise that, by demanding an explanation for something that's obvious, you don't make yourself look "scientific", you make yourself look foolish?

[Kryptid]

Okay, knowing that this is the same as standard evolution but just with extra stuff added helps. Some more questions:

(1) Are the photons you propose generated by the latent heat in living organisms (i.e. are these thermal photons)?

(2) The photons emitted by living things typically have wavelengths on the order of hundreds of nanometers whereas nucleotides are less than one nanometer in length. How can a meaningful transfer of information occur when the size difference is so extreme?

(3) How much information is encoded per photon? Is it a single nucleotide or many? What is the mechanism that translates nucleotide sequences into photons and vice versa?

(4) How does the genetic machinery of the cell know where to insert these new mutations into the DNA without disrupting existing genes? Since there would be a wide array of photons being received with a variety of genetic information encoded on them, how does the cell distinguish between the genetic information that would be beneficial from that which is detrimental? Keep in mind that a gene that benefits one organism might do nothing for (or worse, even harm) another organism.