[Graybeard]

From the Wiki ...

Evolution as theory and fact in the literature . This confusion between "fact" and "theory" in the study of evolution was explored in a well-known quote by Paleontologist Stephen J Gould: . Evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered. . Similarly, Neil Campbell writes in his 1990 biology textbook, Today, nearly all biologists acknowledge that evolution is a fact. The term theory is no longer appropriate except when referring to the various models that attempt to explain how life evolves... it is important to understand that the current questions about how life evolves in no way implies any disagreement over the fact of evolution.

Can evolution explain, (and have achieved) all that we see around us using no other mechanism than a random sequence of events? Using no other 'weighting' than the most successful will reproduce in greater numbers than the less successful and thereby dominate the gene pool.

cool bananas ... greg

[mkirkpatrick]

Evolution can be seen as a simple pulse of ever expanding consciousness,leading to and
eventually beyond the self aware stage we are now at.




regards michael.

[Graybeard]

Originally Posted by mkirkpatrick Evolution can be seen as a simple pulse of ever expanding consciousness,leading to and eventually beyond the self aware stage we are now at. regards michael.

Nice reply Michael .... but specifically in this thread I would like to establish which is the more current understanding of evolution:

1 .. Evolution is random (that is DNA is replicated with random mutations and passed on)

2 .. Evolution is Lamarckian. A now defunct theory but now slightly resurrected in the early 21st century.

From the WIKI

Lamarck based his theory on two observations, in his day considered to be generally true: Use and disuse – Individuals lose characteristics they do not require (or use) and develop characteristics that are useful. Inheritance of acquired traits – Individuals inherit the traits of their ancestors. Examples of Lamarckism would include: Giraffes stretching their necks to reach leaves high in trees (especially Acacias), strengthen and gradually lengthen their necks. These giraffes have offspring with slightly longer necks (also known as "soft inheritance"). A blacksmith, through his work, strengthens the muscles in his arms. His sons will have similar muscular development when they mature. With this in mind, Lamarck had developed two laws: In every animal which has not passed the limit of its development, a more frequent and continuous use of any organ gradually strengthens, develops and enlarges that organ, and gives it a power proportional to the length of time it has been so used; while the permanent disuse of any organ imperceptibly weakens and deteriorates it, and progressively diminishes its functional capacity, until it finally disappears. All the acquisitions or losses wrought by nature on individuals, through the influence of the environment in which their race has long been placed, and hence through the influence of the predominant use or permanent disuse of any organ; all these are preserved by reproduction to the new individuals which arise, provided that the acquired modifications are common to both sexes, or at least to the individuals which produce the young.

Charles Darwin (it appears ... citation needed) did not entirely rule out the idea of neo-lamarckianism ... which means that environmental influences can alter the state of our DNA.

cool bananas ... greg

[MJA]

Evolution is simply the changing motion of the universe.
It is neither fact or theory, it is the truth.

=
MJA

[Graybeard]

Originally Posted by MJA Evolution is simply the changing motion of the universe. It is neither fact or theory, it is the truth. = MJA

Yes ... I agree MJA. But the reason we know it for the truth is that it was deduced from observations over many many years. Deductions and observations were built into theories.

The point of this thread is to debate weather Lamarkian theory, undergoing a small comeback, can be considered valid. It has long be discarded.

If it can be proven, then everything we know about evolution will have to be reviewed and changed dramatically. Even your ideas on evolution MJA will have to be defined with a new equals.

It pays to have an open mind.

Thanks for your input ... Please read up on the latest on the Lamarckian issue. I myself am sceptical of it. But .... we'll have to wait and see.

cool bananas ... greg

[Tina]

Originally Posted by Graybeard 1 .. Evolution is random (that is DNA is replicated with random mutations and passed on) 2 .. Evolution is Lamarckian. A now defunct theory but now slightly resurrected in the early 21st century. From the WIKI Charles Darwin (it appears ... citation needed) did not entirely rule out the idea of neo-lamarckianism ... which means that environmental influences can alter the state of our DNA. cool bananas ... greg

Lamarch's theory, although it sounds primitive now, does represent an intuitive feeling that many have regarding the highly accomondating nature of so called "random mutations". Just think of Darwin's finches and all the varieties of beaks "seemingly customized" for their various environmental locations. It was these sort of observations that brought about Lamarchian ideas. But no more Lamarch! I will be arguing for the machanism of Design Intelligence based on current scientific research.

[Graybeard]

Originally Posted by Tina Lamarch's theory, although it sounds primitive now, does represent an intuitive feeling that many have regarding the highly accomondating nature of so called "random mutations".

Yes, I agree. It does have a really intuitive feeling. Much more so at first glance than random selection has.

Originally Posted by Tina I will be arguing for the machanism of Design Intelligence based on current scientific research.

Hmmmm...... Not sure what design Intelligence is. Are you referring to Prof. Edward J Steele, a controversial Australian molecular immunologist formerly with the University of Wollongong, now unemployed and commonly known as Ted Steele?

cool bananas ... Greg

[Tina]

Originally Posted by Graybeard Hmmmm...... Not sure what design Intelligence is. Wollongong,.... commonly known as Ted Steele? cool bananas ... Greg

No I was not aware of Dr Steele and I will enquire. But if his career was ruined because his ideas challenged Darwinian Theory then he is not alone.

Below are some quotes by 4 highly qualified accademic scientists:

"If you've questioned Darwinism - that's it - your career is over"
"Just questian Darwinism - you'll see how risky that is!"
"I was viewed as an intellectual terrorist"
"I was told to shut-up"

These quotes come from the documentary movie "Expelled" due for release Feb 2008. The movie challenges the stronghold of Darwinism over scientific
investigation and the lack of academic freedom related to ideas outside the Darwinian paradigm. Yes - Dr Steel - could be another statistic.

[Graybeard]

I have not heard of the movie 'expelled'. In Ted Steele's case he was 'expelled' for reasons other than his theories. The high court re-instated him and the Uni came to a financial agreement with him over the sack.

The problem with his results were that other labs could not get the same results when repeating his experiments. He publicly questioned, loudly and vociferously, the competancy of the independant labs. When they re-did the tests they got the same results. So he took their data and re-worked it to show them where they were wrong. This neither proved his point, nor made him very popular.

He is a bit of a loudmouth and I personally don't like him. But his intrepretation of the data has recieved some support from an entirely different experiment and consequently he has not been quelled.

However you will need to explain something about 'Design Intelligence' as opposed to 'Random Selection'

cool bananas ... greg

[Tina]

Originally Posted by Graybeard However you will need to explain something about 'Design Intelligence' as opposed to 'Random Selection' cool bananas ... greg

Design Intelligence is my own theory of evolution. Similar to Intelligent Design
in that it recognises that the complexity and behaviour of biological systems cannot be explained away by the idea of series of benificial mutations.

Design Intelligence says that the organism is autonomous in its own eveloutionary processes. It will bring obout what is "necessary" to survive in the environment it finds itself in. Take skin colour - the pigmentation of skin will show more pronounced melanin in humans closer to the tropics then it becomes weaker as move away towards the poles such as pale nordic peoples.

Darwinian theory basically explains this as only a product of successful mutation passed on within a closed racial group. But this does not address the underlying fact that our body had the autonomous the to produce melanin that is best suited for surviving in diverse climates. Does that make sense?