August 26, 2006 at 11:56 pm #5583
This is my hypothesis. I thought I’d run it by this forum to see what happens. Personally I believe that neodarwinism is a hoax. And the reason I think this is because they are afraid of real science. The fact is they are afraid of the truth. They are afraid to test animals….and they’re afraid to test nature. Instead they hide behind test tubes and DNA — two subjects most people don’t understand and could care less about.
So why is it that evolutionist scientists don’t try taking a few rabbits or dogs to two climatically (is that a word?) different parts of the world (maybe one set to the Arctic circle, the other set to the Outback) to see what happens during the course of their lifetimes — AND also to their offspring? Where are those controlled tests? ARe they afraid of what they might see? Are they that afraid of saltationism? Are they afraid and trembling at the notion Lamarckism? Are they afraid that new traits might quickly materialize regardless of mutations or genes? Are they afraid the coat color of the offspring will change? Limb length might grow or shrink? Body structure? Behavior? I believe they’re afraid of what might happen. I’m not a biologist or a scientist of any type, but I have my own theory — here it is: (sorry it’s kind of long)
Molecular biology has learned it is not the genetic code that accounts for the difference between the mouse and the fly or between a virus and a chicken. This, evidently has been known for quite a while:
Biochemical changes do not seem to be a main driving force in the diversification of living organisms…It is not biochemical novelty that generated diversification of organisms…What distinguishes a butterfly from a lion, a hen from a fly, or a worm from a whale is much less a difference in chemical constitutes than in the organization and the distribution of these constituents.” Francois Jacob, a founding father of biochemical genetics, 1977.
The researchers who cracked the genetic code immediately realized that it was universal. Sermonti
In 1989, Hox genes (clusters of genes) were discovered in mice and worms. Soon after, it was realized that every creature on earth was constructed with the same clusters of genes. However these universal gene clusters manifested themselves in different animals, and thus, were responsible for different regions.
For example, the same gene that’s responsible for the tail of the mouse, as well is responsible for the rear extremities of the grasshopper. Sermonti
So what is it that makes a mouse a mouse, a fly a fly? The fact is, no one knows….and from what I understand they will never know. One thing that is known, however, is that DNA is not the dictator of life that was once thought. It no longer assumes the role as life’s grand generator of genetic information.
It is not the genes that elicit nascent form, but the nascent form that selects the genes and recruits them for its program Sermonti
It’s clear to me that contemporary science has only one eye open to how nature really works. Instead of natural observations, science, instead has an obsession to dig below the surface and focus on genetics. It’s a bizarre fixation on the flask and test tube. But there’s a reason for this odd diversion…and it’s because nature – as it truly operates – shatters theTheory of Evolution. Thus, the truth about how nature operates is very difficult to find.
But it is true that every individual animal on earth is at one with his environment. It’s the REAL way things “evolve.” – individually. And it starts at the moment of conception, when a mental and physical “agreement” of sorts forms — and the animal melts and molds himself into his surroundings. This is when traits are passed from mother to daughter and/or formed by its habitat. It has nothing to do with genetics. Instead, specific traits are but responses to external stimuli that act on hormones.
Very early on in the development of the embryo, the unformed organism begins a miraculous swirl of unexplainable self-organization. It also immediately starts receiving feedback. This feedback not only stems from its immediate surroundings, but from the external world as well — through parental hormones. It’s the beginning of a lifelong relationship. No doubt when we were developing in our mother’s womb, we learned to recognize our mother and father’s voices. Thus our minds began to be imprinted by their loving presence. In fact, the mind begins the process of receiving all kinds of stimuli…and this stimuli not only helps form mental and emotional traits, but physical traits as well. It’s the marvelous beginning of a relationship between a new life and the outside world.
The developing embryo responds with little shocks and shivers as these discharges go about shaping the body. Sermonti
The mind and the world arise together. Fransico Varela
Morphogenesis is a process that depends on stresses and relaxations . Lev Belousso
The soul is that excitable little something that awakens when the sperm and egg embrace In the early embryo, forces are activated that evoke the form of the body, bringing it into relationship with the outside world. Sermonti
And my hypothesis is the smaller the creature, the more quickly adaptive it is. Likewise, animals that are more “liquid” (i.e. octopus, fish, etc) are very quickly adaptive. Thus a lion will be slower to adapt than adapt than a dog. A full-sized human is less adaptive than a baby. A bear is less adaptive than a fox. And this is proven by the fact that lots of smaller arctic animals can change fur color over the seasons (the hare, fox, weasel, squirrel, etc)…while deer and bears generally take longer – years possibly. But it can and does happen. I suggest every animal on earth has this ability, just in varying degrees and varying timeframes.
http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/natbltn/700-799/nb706.htm COLOR CHANGES IN FISH, FROGS AND LIZARDS
Life is made up of countless, unexpressed designs for life. Goethe
But like I say, the smaller the creature, the more flexible it is. So is it any wonder that our lives started out in microscopic and in liquid form?…it’s when we were at our most adaptive state….it’s when we are not yet formed, yet have the ability to generate multiple forms based on internal signals and external stimuli. These signals start the process of transformation. This is partly how our destiny is decided, as proven here:
http://www.sicb.org/meetings/2003/sympo … icity.php3
I submit that every animal develops different traits like the butterfly. And this is because all animals have consciousness and inherent intelligence in their genomes – and this intelligence works off external cues, which, for example, can help a lizard change colors or re-grow a lost limb or tail. The idea that the body can do this without the mind or internal intelligence is absurd. There could be no regeneration of the tail if there’s not some sort of consciousness, thought, or intelligence behind it.
The fact is, countless creatures can quickly change color – or emerge in a different color — in response to an environmental change. There is no genetic change, it’s simply the result of a psychological phenomenon during development – or even later in life. I believe peppered moths are a perfect example. Of course you will never read this at a neo-darwin website because the reality of morphological plasticity is often withheld in such places. But like mammals, fish, lizards, frogs and other insects, moths have the ability to quickly change colors without a long genetic journey or death to a large segment of their population. Mind over matter…not matter over mind. That’s how our world was Created.
http://ourfcs.friendscentral.org/moths/ … nism1.html
But Darwin’s theory of evolution suggests that it’s matter over mind – and that animals change so they can become something different….I however, suggest that every animal changes so they can stay who they are…it’s the mind in action that keeps nature steady. It’s much like when my kids first learned to walk. There was lots of wobbling from side-to-side going on, but it was all that wobbling that allowed them to stay on their feet. It’s no different with animals….animals wobble back and forth physically so they can avoid falling over (extinction). And since scientists cannot find even ONE airtight intermediate fossil, then I suggest that this is all there is to so-called “evolution.” Ultimately, very little is left to chance…Nature does not operate by flipping coins.
Things are as they are because they were as they were. Rupert Sheldrake
Darwinists may try to claim that these abilities were evolved. But the problem lies here: DNA can no more create evolutionary change in animals than a single, unfertilized egg can create a baby: –(the following quote is very important)
One of the fundamental principles of molecular biology (now enshrined as Central Dogma) assigned to DNA the role of absolute governor of the life and inheritance for the cell, and consequently for the organism. The Central Dogma proclaimed: DNA reproduces itself and produces proteins; proteins do not reproduce themselves and are unable to modify the DNA that encoded them. In other words, the information proceeds from DNA to DNA and from DNA to proteins, but it never makes the return journey from proteins to DNA……The egg makes the hen; the hen doesn’t really make the egg – she merely lays eggs that derive directly form the egg that made her. In the new molecular version, DNA was the egg and proteins the hen….. Sermonti
….DNA is not the primary container of genetic information. Sermonti
So what does this mean? It means that since DNA is neither the starting point, nor the ending point. And it could not have played the role in evolution as Darwinists claim. DNA is merely a part of the never-ending circle of life. It’s merely a spoke in the genetic wheel; a curve in the spiral of life.
And the reason evolutionists don’t admit that information makes a round trip within the body is because they do not want to admit that acquired characteristics can be inherited….which is what this would indicate. I believe this is why evolutionists have long shouted-down larmarcksim — which basically says the mechanism of inheritance (the genes contained in our sexual cells) can be effected by the external environment. This is a mortal blow to their theory. Thus, they insist that the genetic system is a one-way street. Information can go out…but it can’t come back in, and it certainly cannot be passed on and/or used to alter the characteristics of a future offspring. Evolutionists insist on chance. And this is the anti-chance in action. Yet…cracks are starting to form:
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/lif … etics.html
Mendelian inheritance, the central tenet of genetics, is under attack from a few scrawny weeds that have not read the textbooks. The weeds are somehow inheriting DNA sequences from their grandparents that neither of their parents possessed – which is supposed to be impossible. (quote from above link)
See, with acquired characteristics, my thought is the following: Traits such as muscle-building, cutting off the tails of mice, or any other physically acquired trait is probably not able to be acquired. However, traits that are stimulated by hormones could very possibly be acquired. If this were found to be true, the inexplicable circle of life would be undeniable:
God is a circle whose center is everywhere and whose circumference is nowhere. Empedocles
According to these observations, genetic information is not like a ward where babies are born but rather like a registry office where citizens can check their vital statistics and make them complete again if any have been lost. Sermonti
And as it turns out, traits such as color, pigmentation, eye color, hair color, etc are often modified by only one gene, one nucleotide of over 5 billion. This would require only a simple mutation or a signal in the developing embryo to change the organism:
There are several different kinds of variations of the phenotype that can be induced by the environment, and many of them can lead to long-term changes in a population….there are some variations in the phenotype that can result from changes in the DNA sequence…….The mutations I am calling for are those that show evidence of being nonrandom in that they are triggered by the environment. Some of them have been seen to be adaptive. These mutations could lead to observed evolution. These mutations act as switches triggered by the environment that switch the genome to one of preexisting set of potential states to produce an adaptive phenotype. (slightly shortned/paraphrased) Spetner
In the model of the heritable switch, a change in the environment sends a signal to each member of the population. This signal activates a genetic command in each individual to call up a preprogrammed subroutine, If the new environment does not last long, the population will revert to its previous state. But if the new environment persists for a long enough time, then even after the environment changes, the population will remain in its new state. The new state is carried into future generations, and to this extent is heritable. The heritability is, however not absolute. A different cue can make the population change again. But the longer the environmental cue lasts, the more nearly heritable the effect appears. Spetner.
But like I said before, today’s science seems to be obsessed on genes, while turning a blind eye on real nature. And the reason for this is because a few lingering scientists are holding out faith that by studying mere genes they can somehow/someday learn to construct a new species of animal. But this is proving to be impossible. And the reason it’s impossible is because even though there are such thing as “blue eye genes” and “dark skin genes,” there are no such things as “mouse genes” or “cat genes.” And that’s because the greatest differences in life are not dictated by genes. Instead, genes are dictated by life’s differences. The sun is not orbiting the earth, the earth is orbiting the sun. Science is has turned a blind eye to half of the story.
Thus, ultimately it seems in order for a fish to evolve into a reptile, the invisible internal program that dictates the genes for a fish, must somehow evolve into a program that dictates the genes for a reptile. This, of course, is absurd and defies all rationality. Thus, evolution, at least as neo-darwinists define it, is no longer breathing.
The potential for adaptivity to the environment already exists in the genome. The environment just triggers it. Spetner
Lee Spetner, Not By Chance
Giuseppe Sermonti Why is a Fly not a Horse?
August 27, 2006 at 1:07 am #53931
wow is that a lot to read. Cant answer as yet cause I have to print out and read later. 🙂 (I hate reading too much on the computer screen)
August 27, 2006 at 11:10 am #53942
The only thing I have to say is that I just read all of that. Also, I disagree.
August 27, 2006 at 11:50 pm #53965
care to say why you disagree?
August 28, 2006 at 1:45 am #53967
You are basically saying that modern genetics is all wrong, is it not obvious?
August 28, 2006 at 5:39 pm #53999
but I’ve backed up my assertions. The fact is Lamarckism is not yet dead…as proven by these links:
http://www.salon.com/health/log/1999/11 … index.html
https://notes.utk.edu/Bio/greenberg.nsf … enDocument
I say we’ve been lied to by the talking heads of science for decades…but that’s just my personal opinion.
Care to debate anymore about my post other than that? Do you disagree that animals are shaped and molded during their development and that genetics has virtually nothing to do with form?
The fact is, biology — even the atheist version — is changing — and evolutionists are scurring to save face and find new mechanisms:
http://evolutionlist.blogspot.com/2006/ … ction.html
This process, called genetic accommodation , is part of the new science of evo-devo, which renders much of the classical "evolutionary synthesis" obsolete,
August 28, 2006 at 11:37 pm #54017quote :
come on I think DNA anaylisis is the way to help find the truth once and for all.quote :
That argument wont work because they will get around it by saying it took millions of years.
August 29, 2006 at 12:35 am #54020quote supersport:
Are you saying that an embryo of one organism, eg a small mammal, when placed into the womb of a surrogate mother of a different species would turn into another species , ie that of the surrogate?
Also, three links doesn’t mean lamarckism isn’t dead. How many links can you find on natural selection? 🙄
August 29, 2006 at 12:52 pm #54041
That does make sense 🙂
September 6, 2006 at 1:23 am #54374damien jamesParticipant
Wow, I feel like I am back in 1700’s after reading supersports post, haha.
Time to take some genetic classes my friend and learn how things really work instead of taking evolutionary biology classes from salon.com.
September 10, 2006 at 9:46 pm #54630
Actually you may want to go back and re-read your genetics….becuase they’re changing. neodarwinism is out — lamarckism is in.
Those in one litter were dirty blondes, while those in the other were, well, mousy brown. Yet the mice’s genes for coat color were identical, down to the last A, T, C and G that make up the twisting strands of DNA.
The reason some animals were yellow and some were brown lay deep in their fetal past, biologists at Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C., reported this month: Some of the mothers consumed supplements high in very simple molecular compounds that zip around the genome turning off genes. One silenced gene was for yellow fur; when it is turned off, the mouse’s fur color defaults to brown. For the mice, it wasn’t just that "you are what you eat," but that you are what your mother ate, too.
uh oh…..I thought darwinists said that genes live in isolation? I thought the environment couldn’t cause a mutation? I thought individual traits had to arise spontaneously?
September 13, 2006 at 12:56 am #54795damien jamesParticipantquote supersport:
You seem to miss so much when regarding genetics. Who said environment couldn’t cause mutation? And gene living in isolation? How would that even be possible?
Like I said, it is important to learn basis of genetics before jumping to conclusion.
October 1, 2006 at 12:44 am #55722
I don’t think you know your evolutionary theory:
Ernst Mayr: Genes cannot be modified by the environment. “What Evolution Is” pg 91
"Mutation is not systematically biased in the direction of adaptive improvement, and no mechanism is known (to put it mildly) that could guide mutation in directions that are non-random in this sense. Mutation is random with respect to adaptive advantage, although it is non-random in all sorts of other respects. It is selection, and only selection, that directs evolution in directions that are non-random with respect to advantage."
October 1, 2006 at 3:03 pm #55756
October 16, 2006 at 12:26 am #56721Skeletor RinpocheParticipant
So you are saying that nuclear-radiated frogs won’t produce genetically mutated offspring? You want there to be tests on dogs and rabbits and compound mammals because bacteria, HIV and pretty much all domesticated dogs aren’t good enough. I think in the time from when Darwin proposed his ideas there have been enough tests to support it. Hey, he didn’t even know about DNA and the causes of random mutations when he proposed them. And i think after 100+ years there have been enough observations, experiments, and evidence to support darwinism. So to say its dead would disprove every single thing that has been going on for 100+ years. I’m probably not going to read your feed back im always in zoology.
November 23, 2006 at 11:49 am #60949rob3Participant
I havent read your whole post (as it is a bit long), but have read the introduction. You have admitted that you are not a scientist, then you critisice genetisists for "Hiding behind their test tubes". I think you need to learn the fundamentals of genetics before you can make such a direct claim. Of course there are some examples of lamarckism "working" but these are few and far between, and are by no means universal.
There are far too many critisisms of scientific theory by people who obviouly have not bothered to look into the long lines of research that lead up to them. I am not necessarily saying this is one of them, as I have not read your whole post, however I will read it all and get back to you shortly.
November 23, 2006 at 4:10 pm #60969rob3Participant
I have read your "hypothesis", my opinion still stands; you even seem to have contradicted yourself in a few places, as well as relying on one man for a lot of yor quotations. I have a university interview next week, so will not be able to post a full reply until after then.
February 27, 2007 at 2:24 pm #69508The 0-LogickParticipant
I’ve been wondering about this as well. Darwinism is a good theory, but some fine-tuning might be required.
It seems that neo-darwinism hasn’t taken epigenetics into account that much yet.
Then there’s this interesting article by Barbara E. Wright found from the Journal of Bacteriology, June 2000, p. 2993-3001, Vol. 182, No. 11
You should be able to find that by googling ‘nonrandom mutation’
So basically if gene control determines up to an extent what genes will go through mutation, then a mechanism for directing evolution is provided. How random is a directed random occurence? It wouldn’t mean that gene control would determine the course of evolution, that’s just silly, but it would mean that a lot of the randomness when discussing mutations isn’t as random as the basic textbooks might let you understand.
March 3, 2007 at 3:26 am #69633DarbyParticipant
"Your reasoning is excellent; it’s just your premise that’s wrong."
It always amazes me how people (and this includes a lot of science people) want simplistic answers.
If darwinian theory can’t answer some questions, it must all be wrong. If neo-darwinism goes too far, well then none of it really applies.
I won’t say that the molecular geneticists don’t go too far in tying every single mechanism to allele frequencies, but there are legitimate mechanisms in population genetics.
Are Hox genes universal? Sort of. Are they the only genes at work in organisms? Not at all, and the other ones show a great deal of diversity – just not as much as you might expect. But remember, neo-darwinism also works with differential expression – locality effects, duplications, pathway modifications, etc.
I don’t see Lamarck as much of a boogeyman – the man was no dummy, but he was working with limited knowledge about inheritance. Epigenetics is reviving some of his mechanisms, as well as some very strange bacterial behaviors.
I just wish that his belief about the Big Picture – evolution as a progressive movement toward some ideal goal – didn’t have the legs it seems to have developed.
March 3, 2007 at 10:27 am #69642
Good post Darby.
March 5, 2007 at 10:15 pm #69743The 0-LogickParticipantquote Darby:
But there is a progressive movement towards some ideal goal: survival. Of course saying this might be seen as redundant, but as far as I remember, this is what Dawkins’ Selfish Gene was about.
There wouldn’t be life without homeostasis and self-propagation. Both of these are progressive in the sense that when environment changes, the regulation of these have to change or else the organism will not survive. And any organism that hasn’t had the capacity for enough variability in their gene sequences have gone extinct. To have the ability to ensure that there will be enough variability in an organisms DNA sequence offers a clear evolutionary advantage as sure as any mechanism that increases the chance to survive.
March 7, 2007 at 2:28 pm #69794AstusAleatorParticipant
Forgive me if I’m mistaken in interpreting what you’re saying but:
There is no "progression" toward an "ideal goal".
Extinction is just as much a function of evolution as survival is.
If every species on earth were to go extinct, the process of evolution would not have "failed"
April 23, 2007 at 6:25 pm #71434
I will have to read the long informative post here again, but I get a sense that (maybe)…. physics of fluids overides genetics as the creator of this universe’s living forms.
My interest is the aesthetics of self organizing liquids, and I am intrigued by ideas and insights related to patterns and formations in liquids.
April 23, 2007 at 11:23 pm #71438kotoreruParticipantquote robertkernodle:
What on Earth did you just say?
(I actually have an inkling I know what you speak of, though I won’t admit it until Im sure you know what you are talking about)
April 24, 2007 at 7:52 pm #71467
Well kotoreru,… I realize such a brief statement might seem a bit out of the blue in a specific forum such as this, but think about it:
Is there a fundamental point of view that might override the genetic point of view at some point down the historical road? Is there a system of thought that might INCLUDE the genetic point of view as a specific rough estimate of the way things really are?
Am I still blowing your mind? Sorry.
What I’m getting at is possibly a method of very complex, nonlinear modeling that might involve fluid dynmic equations calculated on really futuristic (quantum?) computers.
I’m very underinformed in the area of genetics, but I’m just throwing a thought out there that might cull some very specific expert opinion, proving either that I don’t know what the h*** I’m talking about (as you hint) OR that I might be planting a seed for some constructive discussion.
April 25, 2007 at 3:16 pm #71505kotoreruParticipant
Robert, I did not hint that you did not know what you were talking about. Sorry if you thought that.
I merely thought that you either said something very strange, or that you were talking about something that your most recent post has confirmed to my mind that you were not.
What you say is interesting. And no, you are not blowing my mind.
April 25, 2007 at 7:24 pm #71521
I tend to play with slight shades of meaning or implication (real or imagined) to add color sometimes, so don’t feel too sensitive about qualifying your terms. Consisitency will reveal the truth of any particular poster, so fly free "grasshoppa".
I need to do a little basic genetic homework, I guess, in order to better integrate my ideas along these lines.
Maybe I will and pick up where I left off later.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.