Darwin & 'the record of the rocks'

[Bogie]

Actually had to look up the M512.

Didn't realise you were talking Le Mans ... so OK ... in that case I would take the Porsche 962 over the M512.

I like ... greg

Greg, where is the "cool bananas" you usually end with? I was waiting to follow it with the quote "Evolution is great but I still like bananas".

[RascalPuff]

Darwin knew nothing about the relation between genes and phenotype or the relation between the genome as a whole and pathways of development.
He also did not understand different traits are indissociably controlled by Master genes—pleiotropism, meaning motion in many directions or the timing and intensity expression of genes controlled through gene regulatory networks. Also did not know about Development Modules—a unit that is highly integrated internally and relatively insensitive to context externally—different levels of organizations from gene regulation to networks of interacting genes to organ primordial. Also did not know about Epigenetics and Imprinting, Jumping genes and horizontal gene transfer, Interchangeability between reactions to external and internal perturbations, internal restraints regarding what can become the target of NS—also constraints from molecular interactions all the way up to phenotypes and canalized interactions across different kinds of internal organizations and the milieu with which they interact. He had no knowledge of the fourth dimension of living system, fractal one-quarter scaling laws, Non-genomic Nativism—a detailed anatomo-physiological analysis of the nervous system of the nematode, all the way up to the cortex of cats and monkeys—wiring minimizations observed at varying levels of the nervous system.

The brains gray and white matter—the segregation of the brain in gray and white matter has been shown by biophysicists to be a natural consequence of minimizing conduction delay in a highly connected neuronal network. A model relating the optimal brain design to the basic parameters of the network, such as the numbers of neurons and connections between them, as well as wire diameters, makes testable predictions all of which are confirmed by anatomical data on the mammalian neocortex and neostriatum, the avian telencephalon and the spinal cord in a variety of species (mammalian and birds) showing evolution seems to have achieved near optimal answers to questions that pose an enigma to Darwin’s theory. He also could not have known about scaling laws and invariations in animal locomotion—did the sub-harmonic equations become slowly encoded in canary genes by chance trials and selection or are we witnessing an instance of physical optimization constraints channeling genetic, developmental and behavioral traits??

Neo-Darwinists are keen to say that natural selection never optimizes, it only finds locally satisfactory solutions...but this book is full of studies showing there are instances of optimal solutions to problems in biology, so if natural selection cannot optimize then something else must be involved. That something else includes physics, chemistry, autocatalytic processes, dissipative structures and principles of self-organization and surely other factors that the progress of science will in due time reveal.
(What Darwin Got Wrong—Jerry Fodor and Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini)


This is just a short list of what Darwin got wrong. The rest of the book could take up afew pages…how could he make a theory of evolution without knowing all this?

Regards Mikal

********************************

Dear Mikal:
Please consider the following panoply of impressive informations - a series of responses to a questionable review...
www.guardian.co.uk/books/2010/feb/06/what-darwin-got-wrong

[Profpat]

Ladies and gentlemen;

I have decided not post on this thread anymore as I fear it is becoming too personal and apologize to any I may have offended.

Let me leave you with this quote from the man himself Charles Darwin from his autobiography:

When thus reflecting I feel compelled to look to a First Cause having an intelligent mind in some degree analogous to that of man; and I deserve to be called a Theist” – Charles Darwin Autobiography

Best to ALL,

Pat

[Mikal]

Darwin knew nothing about the relation between genes and phenotype or the relation between the genome as a whole and pathways of development.
He also did not understand different traits are indissociably controlled by Master genes—pleiotropism, meaning motion in many directions or the timing and intensity expression of genes controlled through gene regulatory networks. Also did not know about Development Modules—a unit that is highly integrated internally and relatively insensitive to context externally—different levels of organizations from gene regulation to networks of interacting genes to organ primordial. Also did not know about Epigenetics and Imprinting, Jumping genes and horizontal gene transfer, Interchangeability between reactions to external and internal perturbations, internal restraints regarding what can become the target of NS—also constraints from molecular interactions all the way up to phenotypes and canalized interactions across different kinds of internal organizations and the milieu with which they interact. He had no knowledge of the fourth dimension of living system, fractal one-quarter scaling laws, Non-genomic Nativism—a detailed anatomo-physiological analysis of the nervous system of the nematode, all the way up to the cortex of cats and monkeys—wiring minimizations observed at varying levels of the nervous system.

The brains gray and white matter—the segregation of the brain in gray and white matter has been shown by biophysicists to be a natural consequence of minimizing conduction delay in a highly connected neuronal network. A model relating the optimal brain design to the basic parameters of the network, such as the numbers of neurons and connections between them, as well as wire diameters, makes testable predictions all of which are confirmed by anatomical data on the mammalian neocortex and neostriatum, the avian telencephalon and the spinal cord in a variety of species (mammalian and birds) showing evolution seems to have achieved near optimal answers to questions that pose an enigma to Darwin’s theory. He also could not have known about scaling laws and invariations in animal locomotion—did the sub-harmonic equations become slowly encoded in canary genes by chance trials and selection or are we witnessing an instance of physical optimization constraints channeling genetic, developmental and behavioral traits??

Neo-Darwinists are keen to say that natural selection never optimizes, it only finds locally satisfactory solutions...but this book is full of studies showing there are instances of optimal solutions to problems in biology, so if natural selection cannot optimize then something else must be involved. That something else includes physics, chemistry, autocatalytic processes, dissipative structures and principles of self-organization and surely other factors that the progress of science will in due time reveal.
(What Darwin Got Wrong—Jerry Fodor and Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini)


This is just a short list of what Darwin got wrong. The rest of the book could take up afew pages…how could he make a theory of evolution without knowing all this?

Regards Mikal

********************************

Dear Mikal:
Please consider the following panoply of impressive informations - a series of responses to a questionable review...
www.guardian.co.uk/books/2010/feb/06/what-darwin-got-wrong

Thanks RP....I did get through the link and read the article. Then I read an article attacking Mary Midgely. I suspect these attacks will be ongoing as things are worked out through all these numerous scholars.

I have the book here and did not find Darwin's ideas misrepresented. I found them carefully explored and explained. Also must remember these authors claim staunch atheism and they are simply saying NS is fatally flawed and thats what they set out to expose.

I rather want a full examination of the issue from both sides....thats just me!


Regards Mikal

[Lloyd Gillespie]

If you can't explain use Lloyd's trick and make up some BS.[/B]Pat

741 pages+ of bs and counting. I never saw somone who knew so little__And you're a professor__No wonder America is in the dumper...

Pat, if you had brains, you'd realize you have no wit. Most without wit, have enough brains not to challenge wit...

[Lloyd Gillespie]

LOL I never declared godhood but I guess you are now. You really are an IDIOT Lloyd. But I have a feeling you are really aware of that. (BTW: that is what I call shouting). And I and (IMHO) God forgives you for your bigotry.

I really do pity you Lloyd that you don't know what Love God means.

IDIOT, Pat, God__You mean there's a diff...? Prove it or lose it...!

You really do think you own all the minds on ToeQuest__Don't you god...?

Someday, you'll realize your ego isn't god...

Religion belongs in the box with the phalic steeple on it... Still so hung up about sex, they have to advertise it to every town and city on Earth__Really intelligent, that faith and belief are...

Pat, you're losing it...

[labelwench]

Before the debate hits it's stride for the day, may I compliment you, Rascal, on your choice of topic and title.

'............& the record of the rocks'

I truly like that.

The evidence of my senses is what directs and motivates me.

Certainly, all of my interactions with others and society endeavor to place their 'spin' on my travel through life.

My humble effort is directed toward respect for all, as they harm none, which does not deny me the ability or responsibility to defend my own life and that of my loved ones.

My greatest respect, then, is reserved for the life force, as it manifests itself in grace through it's various forms expressed.

No religion, therefore, only a most simple belief system of being but a small part of the greater whole, the greater so vast that there is little purpose in contemplating it for long, lest one be overwhelmed by the sensations so invoked.

Just accepting that it is a large enough life force to forgive me my learning errors, as long as my intent was not to harm.

Intents to harm eventually boomerang and return multiplied.

Intents to help ripple outward, and multiply forward.

They do not need to return, because other ripples shall come in their place and restore the balance of energies, both to the individual and to the pattern.

That's about as clear as mud, lol, yet there are some who will comprehend.

Have a great day, all, and an interesting thread in the stirrings it reveals.......

[Mikal]

Now here is another quote that caught my attention…

“Science has proposed many methods of geochronometry—meaning the earth’s age—all of which are subject to some uncertainties. But of these many methods, only one technique—that of the radioactive decay of uranium and similar elements—yield an age for the earth of billions of years. And it is this one method that has been enthusiastically promoted by Darwinists and uniformitarian geologists, while all other methods have been neglected. So successful has this promotional campaign been that today almost everyone, including scientists working in other fields, has been led to believe that radioactive dating is the only method of geochronometry worth considering, and that is well nigh unassailable because of the universal constancy of radioactive decay. In fact none of these widely held beliefs is supported by the evidence.”
(R. Milton, Shattering the myths of Darwinism)

Also….

“It turns out that what has been dated by radioactive decay methods is not the sedimentary rocks or fossils themselves, but the isolated intrusion into them of igneous or primary rocks, usually as volcanic material. This has been a rare and purely fortuitous process and one that is unreliable—so rare and so unreliable that the Institute of Geological Sciences thinks it unlikely ever to replace or even rival fossils as a method of dating. Nor is this all, for the method depends in turn on a further chain of inference. For the geological column of von Eysinga is nowhere to be found in nature. It is an imaginary structure that has been synthesized from comparing a stratum of rock in one part of the world with a similar looking stratum in another part of the world.”
(Milton, Shattering the Myth of Darwinism)


It just seems to me RP….that research facts just keep piling up and pointing out previous flawed assumptions rather than facts…

Regards Mikal

[labelwench]

It just seems to me RP….that research facts just keep piling up and pointing out previous flawed assumptions rather than facts…

Regards Mikal

Our understanding of all that has gone before, and our suppositions of whatever may lay ahead, is ever changing in perspective.

Ever-changing may well be the only observable state......I hesitate to call anything a fact.

Thanks for the update on the status of geochronometry.

[Mikal]

Thanks LW...here when using the word "fact" I was referring to information used as evidence which theorists say is their evidence to a theory or a report or whatever....

I agree ever-changing is probably a state...but whether we grow from it or develop from it may be more about the Law of Flexibility and what happens when the condition is inflexibility....may be two kinds of growth from change and situations of expansion/contraction in the life force...

Regards Mikal