Darwin's Illusion

[Native]

Darwin's Illusion
Darwin believed that life can be explained by natural selection based on his expectation that organic life was exceedingly simple.

I don´t think Darwin claimed he could explain life itself, and even modern science can´t do that.
The RNA and DNA structure depends on which gaseous and "metallic" atoms and molecules are available, and this of course is a bit different on different geographical locations, thus creating a bit similar and different arts and species of all kinds.

The double winding helical DNA structure relates to the same dynamic structure of a current and it´s magnetic field, which is the basic formation method everywhere in micro- and macrocosm.

In this sense, LIFE is possible everywhere in the Universe where these basic DNA conditions and its generating E&M force is at place.

 

[sayak83]

Darwin's Illusion

Darwin believed that life can be explained by natural selection based on his expectation that organic life was exceedingly simple.
He lived in a time when people believed a brood of mice could suddenly appear in a basket of dirty clothes. In other words Darwin was under the illusion that life could appear spontaneously under the right conditions.
Based on this ignorance, he crafted an explanation for variation within a species, and formulated a theory explaining the process whereby life could arise from nonliving matter and mutate to the variety of living entities we see today.

It is postulated that this narrative has been overwhelmingly accepted in educated circles for more than a century even though the basic mechanisms of organic life remained a mystery until several decades ago- as a convenient alternative to belief in a creator.

After 1950 biochemistry has come to understand that living matters is more complex than Darwin could ever have dreamed of.

So, in view of this, what happened to Darwin allegedly elegant and simple idea ?
Although not a single sector of Darwinic evolution can offer uncontested proof that it is nothing more than a imaginative theory it is acclaimed by mainstream scientists as a science.

Lynn Margulis a distinguished University Professor of Biology puts it this way:
"History will ultimately judge neo-Darwinism as a minor twentieth-century religious sect within the sprawling religious persuasion of Anglo-Saxon biology"
She asks any molecular biologists to name a single, unambiguous example of the formation of a new species by the accumulation of mutations. Her challenge to date is still unmet.
She says " proponents of the standard theory [of evolution] wallow in their zoological, capitalistic, competitive, cost-benefit interpretation of Darwin..."

Did you (or somebody else? ) write the same thing in another thread a while back?

 

[wellwisher]

Is the aim of this discussion to suggest that because Darwin was wrong about some things that evolution as a hypothesis/theory is false?

I get the sense that Darwin is seen as a sort of divine being who all of biological science is hung upon on faith.

In my opinion, in terms of the theory of evolution, the Devil is in the details. The main component of life is water, yet modern biology does not do the water justice in terms of water's contribution to the statics and dynamics of all bio-materials. Instead, the water is averaged into the organics via a casino approach to science. The basic theory of Darwin is useful, but the extrapolation in biology is suspect.

The experiments that prove this were done back in the 1950's. Speculation, based on the casino approach to science, gave odds that life could appear in almost any solvent under the right conditions. This was part of the sci-fiction addendum to universe biology that resulted from the casino approach.

Experiments were done, which dehydrated single cells, and then added the many proposed solvents to demonstrate the hypothesis. What ended up happening was that no solvent could replace water and make life appear. In fact, to everyone's surprise nothing worked in the test cells, down to the individual enzymes. The dice assumption did not work.

One explanation is, life on earth evolved within water from day one. Water became the main source of natural selection at the nanoscale of molecules. All the things inside cells, evolved in water and are therefore tuned to the potentials of water in what appears to be in an all or nothing way; casual and not statistical. Here we are 70 years of so later, and life science did not learn anything, but continues to push the statistical illusion.

Statistics is a useful tool and has immense practical value. The practical nature of the tool and its utility, was mistaken for its reality within the natural world.

Science does not have its own money, but is beholden to others to provide. Statistics was useful, from the POV of the money people, in that it allow assembly line science, where all the cogs in the machine use the exact same experimental procedure, where thinking comes after the experiments, allowing the procedure to think for you.

The statistical approach became a self for-filling prophesy. It became a continuing tradition that should have been obsolete decades ago. However, is does makes money due to the assembly line approach it offers. It is also have use connected to the politics of health care and medicine, in that a statistical approach has built in fudge factors, that can make it more manipulative than rational theory.

In rational theory, like Einstein's theory of relativity; casual equations, one bad data point could have been kill the theory or require modifications. In statistics, all the data points can miss the theoretical curve. This does not matter, since the approach has built in fudge factors, that can allow such a theory to linger. This watered down approach can appease the insecurities of regulators who think doom and gloom.

As a recent example, the COVID virus, very early in the pandemic, showed very distinct preferences in terms of the demographics; function of infection and mortality. The elderly with certain pre-existing conditions were the main target from day one. Children were not impacted the same way from day one.

This seemed rational. However, biology and politics took the statistical approach due to the fudge factoring of statistics, telling us we are all at risk. Risk is one of those buzz words of statistic that only need one out of a million data points to spook people, since it appears to correlate based on built in fudge. While the same one in a million is enough to kill a rational theory that turned out correct.

The original assessment of a target, was left on the side lines, since a few bad data points were seen. However, the original cause and affect, remained steady from the beginning to the present. But it was overridden in favor of subjectivity stemming from rolling dice for one in million. This is the game being played with evolution, by the sciences of dice and cards. They have so much built in fudge, they assume they have to be right since cause and affect are not in affect. It has become a religion of gamblers where the house is designed to win. Until the life science get past the 1950's, do not buy that farm.

Maybe someone can explain why statistical based theory allows more bad data than rational theory and can still be called correct?

 

[WonderingWorrier]

The environment doesn’t change traits, mutation does.

Im not educated on the subject but perhaps there is something in the Lamarckian theory of evolution.

It does make sense to pass things onto the next generation so they are better prepared for the environment they will be born into, if its possible.

I remember seeing a documentary on identical twins.
Something about even though they had exactly the same genes, they were different in the way gene switching had turned on/off different genes because of their different lifestyles (environment). They were happy to know they were in fact different people (genetically).

So I'm wondering if its possible that the gene switching could have something to do with determining a specific direction for mutations rather than random mutation.

Therefore turning environmental information (lifestyle) into genetic information (gene switching) that passes onto the offspring for a possible mutation in a direction that might benefit them.

 

[Sheldon]

Darwin's Illusion

Darwin believed that life can be explained by natural selection based on his expectation that organic life was exceedingly simple.
He lived in a time when people believed a brood of mice could suddenly appear in a basket of dirty clothes. In other words Darwin was under the illusion that life could appear spontaneously under the right conditions.
Based on this ignorance, he crafted an explanation for variation within a species, and formulated a theory explaining the process whereby life could arise from nonliving matter and mutate to the variety of living entities we see today.

It is postulated that this narrative has been overwhelmingly accepted in educated circles for more than a century even though the basic mechanisms of organic life remained a mystery until several decades ago- as a convenient alternative to belief in a creator.

After 1950 biochemistry has come to understand that living matters is more complex than Darwin could ever have dreamed of.

So, in view of this, what happened to Darwin allegedly elegant and simple idea ?
Although not a single sector of Darwinic evolution can offer uncontested proof that it is nothing more than a imaginative theory it is acclaimed by mainstream scientists as a science.

Lynn Margulis a distinguished University Professor of Biology puts it this way:
"History will ultimately judge neo-Darwinism as a minor twentieth-century religious sect within the sprawling religious persuasion of Anglo-Saxon biology"
She asks any molecular biologists to name a single, unambiguous example of the formation of a new species by the accumulation of mutations. Her challenge to date is still unmet.
She says " proponents of the standard theory [of evolution] wallow in their zoological, capitalistic, competitive, cost-benefit interpretation of Darwin..."

You've quote mined something using Google haven't you, and not bothered to fact check anything, or have entirely misunderstood what it means or the context. Lynn Margulis was a secularist, she was married to Carl Sagan, as ardent an atheist even among scientists as one can imagine. She was an evolutionary biologist, who spent her entire career studying mechanisms she claimed better explained species evolution. here's a quote for you, to provide some context:

“The creationists,” she said, “are right about their criticism. It’s just that they’ve got nothing to offer but intelligent design or ‘God did it.’” She was convinced she had the answer: evolution was driven by cooperation more than competition, and great leaps happened through “symbiogenesis,” the merging of genomes of different species."

She was not remotely challenging species evolution, merely the natural mechanisms that drive it.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Hi,

The same way that you just missquoted me.
I never said he said it.
I said he believed it.

but it's jus my opinion

Then you don't know and are just making stuff up?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I'm trying to remember details of an experiment where they tied swallows under water to see if they hibernated in water during winter.

African or European swallows?

 

[Heyo]

Whaaa...?
Nothing in science is proven. Not the germ theory, not the round Earth theory, nothing. What science does is gather and test evidence. A scientific fact is not proven, it's just supported by a lot of strong evidence.
It's the Christians claiming life just sprang into existence, not science. Science is studying the mechanisms whereby life appeared gradually, by ordinary chemical means, through semi-life stages that included more and more lifelike features over time, selected for by known, testable mechanisms.
Goddidit is not a reasonable alternative. It's not a mechanism at all, and it explains nothing.

This shows again that creationists like @Neuropteron don't have a problem with evolution - they have a problem with science (or even further back, with logical thinking). That's why showing them how they are wrong about details of evolution won't convince them.

 

[Wandering Monk]

African or European swallows?

I don't know that!.....aaaaaahhhhhhh..... <thud>

 

[Segev Moran]

Darwin's Illusion

Darwin believed that life can be explained by natural selection based on his expectation that organic life was exceedingly simple.

His theory is true and can be demonstrated again and again.
The vast majority of our recent medical advancements are due to this theory.

He lived in a time when people believed a brood of mice could suddenly appear in a basket of dirty clothes. In other words Darwin was under the illusion that life could appear spontaneously under the right conditions.

That is not relevant to the evolution theory, and I am pretty sure it is not true regardless.

Based on this ignorance, he crafted an explanation for variation within a species, and formulated a theory explaining the process whereby life could arise from nonliving matter and mutate to the variety of living entities we see today.

Not he did not.
He based a theory that demonstrates how organic life forms are changing over time to adapt to their environment.
This is done mainly by mutations and heritage.
It seems you are missing a lot about what Darwin was actually suggesting.

It is postulated that this narrative has been overwhelmingly accepted in educated circles for more than a century even though the basic mechanisms of organic life remained a mystery until several decades ago- as a convenient alternative to belief in a creator.

After 1950 biochemistry has come to understand that living matters is more complex than Darwin could ever have dreamed of.

Indeed it is.

So, in view of this, what happened to Darwin allegedly elegant and simple idea ?

It is the base of what we call today "Evolution".
Darwin suggested something that was so contradicting to the idea of creation, that it took a long time until his thesis was considered a theory.

Although not a single sector of Darwinic evolution can offer uncontested proof that it is nothing more than a imaginative theory it is acclaimed by mainstream scientists as a science.
What are you talking about? The evolution theory is proven again and again almost on a daily basis.

Lynn Margulis a distinguished University Professor of Biology puts it this way:
"History will ultimately judge neo-Darwinism as a minor twentieth-century religious sect within the sprawling religious persuasion of Anglo-Saxon biology"
She asks any molecular biologists to name a single, unambiguous example of the formation of a new species by the accumulation of mutations. Her challenge to date is still unmet.
She says " proponents of the standard theory [of evolution] wallow in their zoological, capitalistic, competitive, cost-benefit interpretation of Darwin..."

Where did she say that?

Your entire argument is wrong as the most basic thing you claim is not accurate.
Darwin's evolution doesn't describe (or even tries to describe) the cause for the emergence of life.
Chemistry is the purview that deals with that question, and so far we have some vague ideas about what happened but nothing we can call a theory.
The evolution theory, which is backed up by tens of thousands of evidence, is what we today consider the most probable way life is evolving (not created!).
The process of changing one species to another, is a process that takes many generations, and obviously, can not be observed in a lab (at least not yet).
There, however, are many things we discover about evolution that are game-changer.
An example might be the fact we discovered that species can "absorb" other species' genes by eating them. this adds a new aspect to the idea of evolution, yet so far, all studies and measurements, seem to match the basic idea of evolution.

 

[Subduction Zone]

His theory is true and can be demonstrated again and again.
The vast majority of our recent medical advancements are due to this theory.

That is not relevant to the evolution theory, and I am pretty sure it is not true regardless.

Not he did not.
He based a theory that demonstrates how organic life forms are changing over time to adapt to their environment.
This is done mainly by mutations and heritage.
It seems you are missing a lot about what Darwin was actually suggesting.

Indeed it is.

It is the base of what we call today "Evolution".
Darwin suggested something that was so contradicting to the idea of creation, that it took a long time until his thesis was considered a theory.

Where did she say that?

The one thing that he got right was the quote of Lynn Margulis. But she did not oppose evolution. She opposed Darwin's natural selection and credited it to biological symbiosis instead. She was right in some things, but appears to have overrated her own discovery, as many people do at times.

 

[Valjean]

There are many drivers of evolution: natural selection, artificial selection, sexual selection, genetic drift, mutation, epigenetics, gene flow, coevolution, &c. Which was the primary driver of a particular change varies.

Darwin discovered and investigated one of these, which is usually the most obvious natural mechanism, and is usually also considered the primary factor in general.

Different biologists give different weight to these factors, within their particular field of study.

Margulis discovered and investigated a new driver of evolution, endosymbiosis. She got a lot of criticism, but she defended her theorem vigorously, and, in the process, tended to overemphasize, IMHO, it's weight within the broad field of evolution.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Darwin's Illusion

Darwin believed that life can be explained by natural selection based on his expectation that organic life was exceedingly simple.
He lived in a time when people believed a brood of mice could suddenly appear in a basket of dirty clothes. In other words Darwin was under the illusion that life could appear spontaneously under the right conditions.
Based on this ignorance, he crafted an explanation for variation within a species, and formulated a theory explaining the process whereby life could arise from nonliving matter and mutate to the variety of living entities we see today.

Really, you are TOO funny. You make an absurd -- and by the way totally false -- claim about people believing something ludicrous, and then -- in your own ignorance -- claim that Darwin made claims from ignorance.

Get an education -- it's less painful than you think.

 

[blü 2]

Darwin's Illusion

Darwin believed that life can be explained by natural selection based on his expectation that organic life was exceedingly simple.
He lived in a time when people believed a brood of mice could suddenly appear in a basket of dirty clothes. In other words Darwin was under the illusion that life could appear spontaneously under the right conditions.
Based on this ignorance, he crafted an explanation for variation within a species, and formulated a theory explaining the process whereby life could arise from nonliving matter and mutate to the variety of living entities we see today.

It is postulated that this narrative has been overwhelmingly accepted in educated circles for more than a century even though the basic mechanisms of organic life remained a mystery until several decades ago- as a convenient alternative to belief in a creator.

After 1950 biochemistry has come to understand that living matters is more complex than Darwin could ever have dreamed of.

So, in view of this, what happened to Darwin allegedly elegant and simple idea ?
Although not a single sector of Darwinic evolution can offer uncontested proof that it is nothing more than a imaginative theory it is acclaimed by mainstream scientists as a science.

Lynn Margulis a distinguished University Professor of Biology puts it this way:
"History will ultimately judge neo-Darwinism as a minor twentieth-century religious sect within the sprawling religious persuasion of Anglo-Saxon biology"
She asks any molecular biologists to name a single, unambiguous example of the formation of a new species by the accumulation of mutations. Her challenge to date is still unmet.
She says " proponents of the standard theory [of evolution] wallow in their zoological, capitalistic, competitive, cost-benefit interpretation of Darwin..."

Please clarify one point for me.

What exactly do the opponents of "neo-Darwinism" hope to replace "neo-Darwinism" with, in order to explain the origin of species?

 

[LIIA]

It does make sense to pass things onto the next generation so they are better prepared for the environment they will be born into, if its possible.

Making sense is not relevant to the claimed evolution process,
Evolution = random mutations + blind, purposeless natural selection.

So I'm wondering if its possible that the gene switching could have something to do with determining a specific direction for mutations rather than random mutation.

Therefore turning environmental information (lifestyle) into genetic information (gene switching) that passes onto the offspring for a possible mutation in a direction that might benefit them.

Gene switches provide a mechanism that regulates gene expression by controlling where, when, and to what degree a specific gene is activated. In other words, it regulates existing genes by turning specific existing genes on or off but it doesn't change the DNA sequence. Gene mutation/variant is a permanent change in the DNA sequence that allows new traits to pass on to offspring. Also it’s possible that mutation to the switches itself to pass to offspring

 

[LIIA]

I don´t think Darwin claimed he could explain life itself, and even modern science can´t do that.

True, neither Darwin nor modern science claimed to explain live

The RNA and DNA structure depends on which gaseous and "metallic" atoms and molecules are available

The DNA is made of a phosphate group, a sugar group and one of four types of nitrogen bases

and this of course is a bit different on different geographical locations, thus creating a bit similar and different arts and species of all kinds.

The nitrogen based molecules are the same in the DNA of all organisms, regardless, if you have access to all available nonliving matter on earth, in a controlled lab environment with all human knowledge, technology and intellectual power with the single goal to internationally make a living organism directly from nonliving matter, it will not be possible

The double winding helical DNA structure relates to the same dynamic structure of a current and it´s magnetic field, which is the basic formation method everywhere in micro- and macrocosm.

In this sense, LIFE is possible everywhere in the Universe where these basic DNA conditions and its generating E&M force is at place.

No magnetic field was detected for the whole structure of the DNA molecule. The DNA is not considered magnetic in natural weak fields. no life was ever found anywhere in the universe beyond earth.

 

[WonderingWorrier]

Making sense is not relevant to the claimed evolution process,
Evolution = random mutations + blind, purposeless natural selection.

Sometimes things are not blind, purposeless.
Just the reasons are not understood.

I know if I want to breed a horse I can choose whether the mare will have a male or female offspring.

Its not random.

If the mare is gaining weight at the time of conception then it will have a colt foal.
If the mare is losing weight at the time of conception then it will have a filly foal.
If I control the feed, I control the sex of the offspring. I am controlling the environment.

It makes sense.
It wants to give its genes the best chance of continuing at the best rate possible.

A male offspring can service multiple females in a single season. It is the best choice.
But if the mare is losing condition there are chances the male may be weak and not able to contend for females.
So in that case a mare is better to have a female offspring so the genes continue as a weak female has more chance of breeding rather than a weak male.


Perhaps it is the same with humans. I dont know.

 

[firedragon]

Im not educated on the subject but perhaps there is something in the Lamarckian theory of evolution.

As far as I know, Neo Lamarckianism is discussed today.

 

[Ella S.]

Hi,
I seems that if something can't be proven, then any claim to be scientific is unfounded.
Since life exists it has to come from somewhere, claiming that it just sprang into existence is even more ridiculous than saying that it was created by an almighty designer.

From my understanding of philosophy of science, the general idea seems to be the opposite.

Hypotheses are a part of science, but the catch is that they need to be testable and falsifiable.

Science is more of a collection of sustained and debunked hypotheses than it is about hard proofs. The more a hypothesis is sustained, and alternative explanations are debunked, the more likely that hypothesis is to represent objective truth.

This is because there may always be "unknown unknowns" out there, which are things that we do not even know we do not know. As such, science adapts to new information, always maintaining an air of what we call "epistemic humility;" the admission that it might be wrong.

It seems that a belief in absolute certain proof would be a very unscientific one to me unless it was in one of the "formal sciences" like logic and mathematics. The best we can do is approximate what is likely to be true given the data.

 

[Ella S.]

Really, you are TOO funny. You make an absurd -- and by the way totally false -- claim about people believing something ludicrous, and then -- in your own ignorance -- claim that Darwin made claims from ignorance.

Get an education -- it's less painful than you think.

It is a little painful on the wallet. Do you have any recommendations on where one can self-study for free?

There are some resources on MIT, Oxford, and Stanford, but not for everything, it seems, and many of them do not seem to include much of the studies mentioned in their lectures or papers.

I know that many studies can be accessed thanks to GoogleScholar, and there is a university library that I can use the computers of in order to gain access to more of them, but it can be difficult to know precisely where to even begin to understand some of the more technical language in higher-level studies.

I don't expect to become some sort of polymath, but I would like to improve upon my literacy on these topics.