Blowing Up Darwin

[Fort Fun Indiana]

They even noted that light existed before stars, which holds with the current theory of expansion.

And the earth existed before light.

 

[pknopp]

Wrong again.

See? Pay attention. You will learn something.

Prove it.

 

[pknopp]

Wrong again.

See? Pay attention. You will learn something.

You haven't said anything yet.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Prove it.

What would that proof look like, to you?

Be specific. A few ideas.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

You haven't said anything yet.

I sure did. I said that if you add enough incremental changes, you will eventually get a different species.

You know, the fundamental tenet of evolution.

So if that is "nothing" to you, you shouldn't even be commenting on this topic, because you clearly know less than nothing about evolution

 

[pknopp]

What would that proof look like, to you?

Be specific. A few ideas.

You said I was wrong. You have to have the proof to state that.

No, you believe I am wrong.

 

[pknopp]

I sure did. I said that if you add enough incremental changes, you will eventually get a different species.

That's the theory. An unproven one but yes, the theory.

 

[scruffy]

That's the theory. An unproven one but yes, the theory.

The theory is being simulated in AI right now. It won't be but a few years till we can do it in real life.

 

[pknopp]

The theory is being simulated in AI right now. It won't be but a few years till we can do it in real life.

We can discuss it then.

 

[PoliticalChic]

But none of this is science.

Science is something you do.

Writing articles in a magazine is not science. Getting on TV with an opinion is not science.

I'll give you an example.

Darwin himself, coined the phrase "survival of the fittest". We now know, that this is not an accurate conclusion based on the data. Because, the term "fittest" is inaccurate.

The SCIENCE says there are niches, and any organism that fills a niche can survive. It has nothing to do with "fitness", rather, it has to do with the compatibility between the organism and the niche.

This is why a study of catastrophe theory is helpful, because the interaction between organisms and niches is formulated in terms of the branch of mathematics called "dynamics".

Simple dynamics are linear, for example you have a pendulum, or a mass on a spring, that kind of thing. We solve these using LaPlace's equation and etc (because fundamentally they obey "conservation laws").

But biological evolution is fundamentally nonlinear, the dynamics are more complicated. Catastrophe Theory is all about nonlinear dynamics. One of its biggest successes is solving chaotic systems, where for example "the butterfly flapping it's wings in Montana causes the typhoon in Malaysia".

Biological evolution is sometimes chaotic, because there are gazillions of interacting dynamics. Even a single nerve cell is highly nonlinear, and when you put hundreds of them together and try to describe the "system dynamics" you find that the collection can instantly transition from brain waves to an unsynchronized state and back again.

Such transitions are what is described by catastrophe theory. It is essentially "complex high dimensional dynamics".

You've probably heard of the computer "game of life", where you have foxes, chickens, and corn, and you try to predict what the biosphere looks like at some future time. This is a great and simple example of where catastrophe theory can be helpful . Because normally, you have a population "cycle", where the numbers of foxes and chickens varies smoothly depending on the food supply. But sometimes, you get a "cusp", where your system behavior kind of falls off a cliff, so to speak. It Tmight happen if you run out of corn one day because there are too many chickens - and then the chickens die because they can't eat, and then the foxes die because there's not enough chickens anymore.

So in this game, the chickens have a niche, and the foxes have a niche. It has nothing to do with "fitness", instead it has to do with the stability of the niches. When they become unstable, you get a catastrophe, which means "a sudden change in system dynamics".

The appearance of a new species, in biology, is "a sudden change in system dynamics".

The term "Scientist" today refers largely to bureaucrats in cahoots with Leftist/Democrats.

These are offered to the populace as "experts."


We learned that they simply provide whatever information the Democrats tell them to.


We learned that from "Covid." No group has lost more respect than the medical community.

This is what exists today:
Gould, who taught biology, paleontology, and geology at Harvard University, made the following statement: "Hegel's dialectical laws, translated into a materialist context, have become the official 'state philosophy' of many socialist nations. These laws of change are explicitly punctuational, as befits a theory of revolutionary transformation in human society. In the light of this official philosophy, it is not at all surprising that a punctuational view of speciation [the evolutionary process by which new species are formed] much like our own . . . has long been favored by many Russian paleontologists. It may also not be irrelevant to our personal preferences that one of us [Gould] learned his Marxism, literally at his daddy's knee."

One could nearly assume that Gould was telling the world he was indeed a Marxist. And by definition the theology of Marxism is atheism.

Two of Gould's fellow Harvard biological "revolutionaries" (Lewontin and Levin) co-authored a book on Marxist biology entitled The Dialectical Biologist, published by Harvard University Press in 1986. In a review of this textbook in Nature magazine, its author, David L. Hull, said, "Richard Levin and Richard Lewontin are two of the most knowledgeable and innovative evolutionary biologists working today. They also view themselves as Marxist revolutionaries. As Marxists, Levin and Lewontin insist that the economic substructure of a society strongly influences its ideational superstructure, including science"

Gould, along with Lewontin, Levin, Jonathan Beckwith, Ruth Hubbard, and Herb Fox, founded an organization entitled "Science for the People." Wikipedia begins its discussion of this organization as follows: "Science for the People is a leftwing organization that emerged from the antiwar culture of the United States in the 1970s." Harvard's E.O. Wilson labeled the organization "American Marxists." Not insignificantly, the cover of its magazine contains the Communist clinched fist!

In other words, nearly everything Gould touched over his lifetime would force most neutral onlookers to the conclusion that he was indeed a Marxist and by implication an atheist.





Some scientists admit that they make stories up to slander religion:

Professor Richard Lewontin, a geneticist (and self-proclaimed Marxist), is certainly one of the world’s leaders in evolutionary biology. He wrote this very revealing comment: “‘We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.” Lewontin explains why one must accept absurdities: “…we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.”

 

[Leo123]

Not true.

Synthetic life forms have been created in the lab since the early 2000's.

They continue to be created every day.

Many of them qualify as brand new species, never before seen and non-existent in nature.

We can also synthetically replicate organisms that already exist in nature.

Right now, we are at the stage of being able to create primitive single celled organisms (essentially bacteria). But the study of Hox and Tbox genes is one of the hottest topics in biological research right now. It won't be but a few years till we can start creating eukaryotes.

It is abundantly clear by now that engineering is the next phase of evolution. It'll probably happen within our lifetimes.

There have been 0 life forms created in a lab using only elements. 'Synthetic' is meaningless. They can synthesize from already existing life forms but they cannot make life from elements only in a sterile environment. I provided a link to Dr. Tour's analysis and you have provided nothing to support your assumptions. Provide a link, let's see exactly how these 'life forms' were created.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

You said I was wrong. You have to have the proof to state that.

I do. But apparently the evidence that has convinced the entire scientific community is just not good enough for you.

So compiling that and laying it at your feet would kind of be a waste of my time, no?

So, to show you aren't being a usless troll who is trying to waste my time, you can toss out a couple of ideas of what compelling evidence would look like.

 

[scruffy]

The term "Scientist" today refers largely to bureaucrats in cahoots with Leftist/Democrats.

These are offered to the populace as "experts."


We learned that they simply provide whatever information the Democrats tell them to.


We learned that from "Covid." No group has lost more respect than the medical community.

This is what exists today:
Gould, who taught biology, paleontology, and geology at Harvard University, made the following statement: "Hegel's dialectical laws, translated into a materialist context, have become the official 'state philosophy' of many socialist nations. These laws of change are explicitly punctuational, as befits a theory of revolutionary transformation in human society. In the light of this official philosophy, it is not at all surprising that a punctuational view of speciation [the evolutionary process by which new species are formed] much like our own . . . has long been favored by many Russian paleontologists. It may also not be irrelevant to our personal preferences that one of us [Gould] learned his Marxism, literally at his daddy's knee."

One could nearly assume that Gould was telling the world he was indeed a Marxist. And by definition the theology of Marxism is atheism.

Two of Gould's fellow Harvard biological "revolutionaries" (Lewontin and Levin) co-authored a book on Marxist biology entitled The Dialectical Biologist, published by Harvard University Press in 1986. In a review of this textbook in Nature magazine, its author, David L. Hull, said, "Richard Levin and Richard Lewontin are two of the most knowledgeable and innovative evolutionary biologists working today. They also view themselves as Marxist revolutionaries. As Marxists, Levin and Lewontin insist that the economic substructure of a society strongly influences its ideational superstructure, including science"

Gould, along with Lewontin, Levin, Jonathan Beckwith, Ruth Hubbard, and Herb Fox, founded an organization entitled "Science for the People." Wikipedia begins its discussion of this organization as follows: "Science for the People is a leftwing organization that emerged from the antiwar culture of the United States in the 1970s." Harvard's E.O. Wilson labeled the organization "American Marxists." Not insignificantly, the cover of its magazine contains the Communist clinched fist!

In other words, nearly everything Gould touched over his lifetime would force most neutral onlookers to the conclusion that he was indeed a Marxist and by implication an atheist.





Some scientists admit that they make stories up to slander religion:

Professor Richard Lewontin, a geneticist (and self-proclaimed Marxist), is certainly one of the world’s leaders in evolutionary biology. He wrote this very revealing comment: “‘We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.” Lewontin explains why one must accept absurdities: “…we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.”

I'll agree that there are many people masquerading as scientists.

And many scientists who exceed scope.

Scientists are allowed to have religious and political opinions, but it's wrong to try to pass them off as "part of the science".

Many scientists are like rock stars, they get lucky once and suddenly they get all kinds of adulation, and then they come to believe that their opinions matter. Actors are the same way, I call it the "Hollywood syndrome". The ego gets in the way of the accomplishments.

Gould is an interesting character. He studied the social behavior of bees, and then tried to generalize to the social behavior of humans. But it doesn't work that way, we're a long LONG way from understanding social behavior.

I study brains, neural networks. One of the interesting things is that our human brains have a specific area that processes faces. Human faces - which is a part of our social behavior. But monkey brains process monkey faces, and rat brains process rat faces. To generalize from one to the other is WAY beyond our current understanding.

So, some deluded scientists come to believe that their job is to generate theories. It's not! Their job is to perform experiments. Science is experimental, theories are worthless without experiments to back them up.

 

[Leo123]

I'll agree that there are many people masquerading as scientists.

And many scientists who exceed scope.

Scientists are allowed to have religious and political opinions, but it's wrong to try to pass them off as "part of the science".

Many scientists are like rock stars, they get lucky once and suddenly they get all kinds of adulation, and then they come to believe that their opinions matter. Actors are the same way, I call it the "Hollywood syndrome". The ego gets in the way of the accomplishments.

Gould is an interesting character. He studied the social behavior of bees, and then tried to generalize to the social behavior of humans. But it doesn't work that way, we're a long LONG way from understanding social behavior.

I study brains, neural networks. One of the interesting things is that our human brains have a specific area that processes faces. Human faces - which is a part of our social behavior. But monkey brains process monkey faces, and rat brains process rat faces. To generalize from one to the other is WAY beyond our current understanding.

So, some deluded scientists come to believe that their job is to generate theories. It's not! Their job is to perform experiments. Science is experimental, theories are worthless without experiments to back them up.

Let's see the experiment that creates life from only elements then. I asked you for a citation several times yet, so far, you only provide your opinion.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Let's see the experiment that creates life from only elements then.

A silly request.

We also don't have to create a volcano in a lab to understand that volcanos DO, indeed, form. Or to understand a lot about HOW they form.

Same for stars. And mountains.

 

[scruffy]

There have been 0 life forms created in a lab using only elements. 'Synthetic' is meaningless. They can synthesize from already existing life forms but they cannot make life from elements only in a sterile environment. I provided a link to Dr. Tour's analysis and you have provided nothing to support your assumptions. Provide a link, let's see exactly how these 'life forms' were created.

Oh come on.

Life "from elements" is a completely unreasonable expectation.

Sorry, homey don't play.

I'm not even going to argue that point, and I'm not willing to sit around for 4 billion years.

So far we have created synthetic life forms that eat oil, kill cancer cells, and move little bits of undegradable plastics from one place to another.

These are major accomplishments.

You should be more appreciative.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

There seem to be some people in this thread that don't understand something:

Abiogenesis is a FACT.

Once there was no life on Earth. Then there was.

Life formed.

If you want to genuflect and call it magic, knock yourself out. Just stay out of the way of those who have not taken that lazy offramp.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

What would that proof look like, to you?

Works every time. As designed.

 

[pknopp]

There seem to be some people in this thread that don't understand something:

Abiogenesis is a FACT.

Once there was no life on Earth. Then there was.

Life formed.

If you want to genuflect and call it magic, knock yourself out. Just stay out of the way of those who have not taken that lazy offramp.

Abiogenesis is the theory that life on Earth originated from non-living matter through natural processes.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Abiogenesis is the theory that life on Earth originated from non-living matter through natural processes.

Not well said.

Abiogenesis is not a theory. It's a word that has an actual meaning.

The word evolution has a meaning. The Theory of Evolution has a different meaning.

Abiogenesis simply means, "life from not life".

The Theory of Abiogenesis does indeed state that life formed in Earth from nonlife via natural process.