Unsatisfactory Scientific Explanations?

[whois]

re:
https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpres...the-modern-theory-of-evolution-is-in-tatters/
And so he constructs a case that not only is the Modern Synthesis wrong, because all its tenets have been disproven, but that his own “Nobleian Synthesis” leaves a central place for physiology. What a mitzvah!
-ibid.

in the article i posted, noble doesn't push any of his pet theories.
also, noble is not the only scientist that has said "all major tenets of the Modern Synthesis are, if not outright overturned, replaced by a new and incomparably more complex vision of the key aspects of evolution"

 

[Loudmouth]

The irony is that whois refuses to accept the modern theory that replaced the old synthesis.

 

[whois]

Do you have evidence for that? I'm skeptical; isn't it more likely that they had no evidence for it, so they didn't address it? suggesting that the thousands of contributors over so many decades had that 'direct intention' in common, sounds a bit like a conspiracy theory...

i disagree.
lamarkism was known in darwins time.
to say they didn't have evidence of it is questionable.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

..as for "accumulating change", endosymbiosis can hardly be called an accumulating change.

Do you think mitochondria and chloroplasts were just floating around ready to be engulfed by a cell that just happened to have all the chemistry ready for them - or is it more likely that endosymbiosis developed incrementally after an initial engulfment that both creatures fortuitously survived, and that mitochondria and chloroplasts are now obligate endosymbiotes and the containing organisms are wholly dependent on them?

...surely you would want people to know the truth about evolution, right?
so, with that in mind, what exactly IS the truth?

I couldn't say; scientifically speaking, it's all provisional. The best we can do is gain a consensus on what the most reliable evidence is, then try to generate testable explanations for it. Form where I stand, the evidence seems overwhelmingly in favour of selection of heritable variations leading to a tree of ancestral lineages of common descent. I haven't seen any better theories (i.e. with more explanatory & predictive power). By all means point me to them.

you need to ask noble, he is the one that said it.

I'm discussing it with you, not Noble. If you're going to bolster your argument with quotes, you should at least be able to make a stab at defending them.

do you have any evidence that demonstrates this renegade angle?

R.I.P. Lynn Margulis, Biological Rebel.

the problem here is, i'm not in a position to call noble a liar.

I'm not asking you to call him a liar, I'm asking if he lived up to the standards he expected of others in this context.

i am presenting my evidence, but you do not seem to be addressing it very well with data.

You have been presenting opinion - that you seem unprepared or unable to defend. Opinion isn't evidence. What you mean by addressing evidence with data isn't clear to me; data isn't an argument.

like noble said, with all the processes of evolution, you need to prove which one is responsible, not assume something because theory requires it.

The current theory was constructed to explain the available evidence. Now new evidence shows that it isn't the whole story, it is being changed. If someone thinks the theory is plain wrong, the burden is on them to falsify it; if they think they have a better one, the burden is on them to present it.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

i disagree.
lamarkism was known in darwins time.
to say they didn't have evidence of it is questionable.

Lamarckism was wrong then and is wrong now; there was, and is, no plausible evidence for it. Epigenetics isn't Lamarckism. They are both in the same explanatory class (inheritance of acquired characteristics) but quite different in proposed mechanism and effects.

 

[whois]

Do you think mitochondria and chloroplasts were just floating around ready to be engulfed by a cell that just happened to have all the chemistry ready for them - or is it more likely that endosymbiosis developed incrementally after an initial engulfment that both creatures fortuitously survived, and that mitochondria and chloroplasts are now obligate endosymbiotes and the containing organisms are wholly dependent on them?

i mentioned this because endosymbiosis is the proposed method of prokaroyte to eukoroyte transition.
this apparently happened in one fell swoop.
also, there is mounting evidence that evolution in general is not a gradualistic paradigm.
as a matter of fact, gradualism has been one of the tenets that has been replaced with a more complex version.

I couldn't say; scientifically speaking, it's all provisional. The best we can do is gain a consensus on what the most reliable evidence is, then try to generate testable explanations for it. Form where I stand, the evidence seems overwhelmingly in favour of selection of heritable variations leading to a tree of ancestral lineages of common descent. I haven't seen any better theories (i.e. with more explanatory & predictive power). By all means point me to them.

HGT for one.
what noble and margulis say are 2 more.
and we have this:
Even systematics has had to abandon many strictures that were part of the Modern Synthesis. If species are the durable unit of biology, and if natural selection quickly molds genes to current utility, then most genes should diverge at the time of speciation events, given views like Mayr's. Here again, analyses of newly abundant sequence data in the late 20th Century showed that rather than a highly congruent coalescence of genes at the times of speciation events, the coalescence times of alleles among species are highly variable. As such, species trees and gene trees often cannot be equated [15,16].
-The new biology beyond the Modern Synthesis.htm

I'm discussing it with you, not Noble. If you're going to bolster your argument with quotes, you should at least be able to make a stab at defending them.

noble isn't the only one that say evolutionists use examples that haven't been proven.
boyce, in his NY times article, flat out says the horse transitional fossils aren't correct.

R.I.P. Lynn Margulis, Biological Rebel

thanks for the article.
a couple of quotes i find interesting:
she argued that conventional Darwinian mechanisms could not account for the stops and starts observed in the fossil record. Symbiosis, she suggested, could explain why species appear so suddenly and why they persist so long without changing.
-ibid.
this seems to support what eldridge states in the NY times upload, the infamous gaps in the record.
it's all too apparent that these gaps are real, they aren't a case of unfound or missing fossils.
concepts such as the molecular clock theory of gene mutation seems to discount "fast gradual change".

Ultra-Darwinians, by focusing on the gene as the unit of selection, had failed to explain how speciation occurs. Only a much broader theory that incorporates symbiosis and higher-level selection could account for the diversity of the fossil record and of life today, according to Margulis.
-ibid.
and this is EXACTLY what modern research is finding.
genes ARE NOT the units of evolution

and finally, she comments on being regarded as a "renegade":
"It's kind of dismissive, not serious," she replied. "I mean, you wouldn't do this to a serious scientist, would you?" She stared at me, and I finally realized her question was not rhetorical; she really wanted an answer. I agreed that the descriptions seemed somewhat condescending."Yeah, that's right," she mused. Such criticism did not bother her, she insisted. "Anyone who makes this kind of ad hominem criticism exposes himself, doesn't he?
-ibid.

I'm not asking you to call him a liar, I'm asking if he lived up to the standards he expected of others in this context.

these other mechanisms are the direct cause for the emerging biology.
i fail to understand how you might think they don't exist.
i'm sure you realize that DNA is not a gene library.
this, in itself, implies either darwinism is flatout wrong, or there are other processes involved.

You have been presenting opinion - that you seem unprepared or unable to defend. Opinion isn't evidence. What you mean by addressing evidence with data isn't clear to me; data isn't an argument.

yes, some of what i present is opinion but there is a consensus for it.
the emerging new biology is one of those opinions, and it has a LOT of support.

The current theory was constructed to explain the available evidence. Now new evidence shows that it isn't the whole story, it is being changed. If someone thinks the theory is plain wrong, the burden is on them to falsify it; if they think they have a better one, the burden is on them to present it.

some parts of the theory are indeed plain wrong.
a gradualistic, adationist, progressive paradigm with natural selection as the primary driver is one of them.

 

[whois]

noble: So my argument for saying this is a matter of replacement rather than extension is simply that it was a direct intention of those who formulated the modern synthesis to exclude the inheritance of acquired characteristics.

frumious; Do you have evidence for that? I'm skeptical; isn't it more likely that they had no evidence for it, so they didn't address it? suggesting that the thousands of contributors over so many decades had that 'direct intention' in common, sounds a bit like a conspiracy theory...

whois: i disagree.
lamarkism was known in darwins time.
to say they didn't have evidence of it is questionable.

frumious: Lamarckism was wrong then and is wrong now; there was, and is, no plausible evidence for it. Epigenetics isn't Lamarckism. They are both in the same explanatory class (inheritance of acquired characteristics) but quite different in proposed mechanism and effects.

the fact still remains that there was evidence for this stuff when the modern synthesis was formulated.

another important issue was transposons.
even though there was solid evidence for it, the science establishment refused to accepted it.
these are the primary reasons i say science, in regards to evolution, tries to make the evidence fit the theory.
this is also the major reason a non gradual approach is being hotly resisted, because the theory requires it (gradualism).

another major reason for this resistance is that whenever this type of debate happens, it is invariably assumed you are either trying to disprove or discredit evolution.

i've come to the conclusion that there is nothing that disproves a unique origin for each group of organisms.
some scientists are starting to question the single cell hypothesis in regards to abiogenesis and instead propose that life arose from a pool of them.
so, there are valid reasons for my conclusion.
and most evolutionists would be loath to admit it.
why do you suppose that is?
as ridiculous as it sounds, the concept of god HAS NOT been ruled out, that's why.
furthermore, when has "ridiculous" been any kind of proof, or even evidence for that matter.
quantum physics puts forth conjectures that are insane.
you don't see physicists at each others throats the way evolutionists are

 

[[serious]]

i mentioned this because endosymbiosis is the proposed method of prokaroyte to eukoroyte transition.
this apparently happened in one fell swoop.
also, there is mounting evidence that evolution in general is not a gradualistic paradigm.
as a matter of fact, gradualism has been one of the tenets that has been replaced with a more complex version.

HGT for one.
what noble and margulis say are 2 more.
and we have this:
Even systematics has had to abandon many strictures that were part of the Modern Synthesis. If species are the durable unit of biology, and if natural selection quickly molds genes to current utility, then most genes should diverge at the time of speciation events, given views like Mayr's. Here again, analyses of newly abundant sequence data in the late 20th Century showed that rather than a highly congruent coalescence of genes at the times of speciation events, the coalescence times of alleles among species are highly variable. As such, species trees and gene trees often cannot be equated [15,16].
-The new biology beyond the Modern Synthesis.htm

noble isn't the only one that say evolutionists use examples that haven't been proven.
boyce, in his NY times article, flat out says the horse transitional fossils aren't correct.
thanks for the article.
a couple of quotes i find interesting:
she argued that conventional Darwinian mechanisms could not account for the stops and starts observed in the fossil record. Symbiosis, she suggested, could explain why species appear so suddenly and why they persist so long without changing.
-ibid.
this seems to support what eldridge states in the NY times upload, the infamous gaps in the record.
it's all too apparent that these gaps are real, they aren't a case of unfound or missing fossils.
concepts such as the molecular clock theory of gene mutation seems to discount "fast gradual change".

Ultra-Darwinians, by focusing on the gene as the unit of selection, had failed to explain how speciation occurs. Only a much broader theory that incorporates symbiosis and higher-level selection could account for the diversity of the fossil record and of life today, according to Margulis.
-ibid.
and this is EXACTLY what modern research is finding.
genes ARE NOT the units of evolution

and finally, she comments on being regarded as a "renegade":
"It's kind of dismissive, not serious," she replied. "I mean, you wouldn't do this to a serious scientist, would you?" She stared at me, and I finally realized her question was not rhetorical; she really wanted an answer. I agreed that the descriptions seemed somewhat condescending."Yeah, that's right," she mused. Such criticism did not bother her, she insisted. "Anyone who makes this kind of ad hominem criticism exposes himself, doesn't he?
-ibid.

these other mechanisms are the direct cause for the emerging biology.
i fail to understand how you might think they don't exist.
i'm sure you realize that DNA is not a gene library.
this, in itself, implies either darwinism is flatout wrong, or there are other processes involved.

yes, some of what i present is opinion but there is a consensus for it.
the emerging new biology is one of those opinions, and it has a LOT of support.

some parts of the theory is indeed plain wrong.
a gradualistic, adationist, progressive paradigm with natural selection as the primary driver is one of them.

Why must it be in one fell swoop? It could have started out as a relatively benign intracellular parasite, picked up some minorly beneficial trait for the host (perhaps metabolizing something the host couldn't) and slowly became more essential with time.

There are certainly traits that spring up relatively suddenly; nylonase, some types of antibiotic resistance, and so on; but I don't see why we would assume this trait would.

 

[[serious]]

Perhaps we are focusing on the wrong things. Perhaps we can build some common ground to work from.

Some things I think we all agree with:
DNA exists
DNA is the origin of most if not all proteins in the cell
DNA is subject to mutation
Mutations can alter the form of the proteins produced
Transcription factors exist within the DNA that can switch a segment on or off in response to certain stimuli
Some heritable elements exist apart from DNA

Please let me know if any of those are things you don't agree with.

The more I'm reading, the more I think this is primarily a case of us using terms differently rather than actually having deep-seated differences of opinion.

 

[[serious]]

i've come to the conclusion that there is nothing that disproves a unique origin for each group of organisms.
some scientists are starting to question the single cell hypothesis in regards to abiogenesis and instead propose that life arose from a pool of them.

Perhaps, what fundamental groups do you propose? Given the susceptibility of bacteria to lateral gene transfer, we certainly couldn't rule out multiple independent lines establishing the base of the tree. We would need a source for multiple lines though. It's a question of how rapidly self replicating units could arise in the pre and early biotic ages. If they arose readily, it's possible multiple competing strains arose before any single system became dominant. If they arose slower, it would be improbable that a second reproducer would arise before some variant of the first became too dominant.

Another possibility would be an element of panspermia being at play later on, but this would require a more deterministic model of that nucleotides were settled on.

As with any model, it needs to produce testable predictions to be of any real value.

 

[whois]

Why must it be in one fell swoop? It could have started out as a relatively benign intracellular parasite, picked up some minorly beneficial trait for the host (perhaps metabolizing something the host couldn't) and slowly became more essential with time.

because there is other evidence that support a nonm gradual paradigm in regards to evolution.
HGT is a primary example, and that is what endosymbiosis basically is.
HGT is incorporated into the germline immediately, not by some gradual process.
HGT also isn't confined to one gene but can include an entire sequence.
this type of addition cannot be possibly called "gradual", even in the broadest sense.
also, there is no barrier to HGT in higher organisms

There are certainly traits that spring up relatively suddenly; nylonase, some types of antibiotic resistance, and so on; but I don't see why we would assume this trait would.

the way i understand this is, modern cells have a nucleus, and its this nucleus that is thought to be of prokyrote origin.
this nucleus was not acquired gradually.
even if it was, it would still necessarily be HGT, which isn't gradual.

 

[[serious]]

because there is other evidence that support a nonm gradual paradigm in regards to evolution.
HGT is a primary example, and that is what endosymbiosis basically is.
HGT is incorporated into the germline immediately, not by some gradual process.
HGT also isn't confined to one gene but can include an entire sequence.
this type of addition cannot be possibly called "gradual", even in the broadest sense.
also, there is no barrier to HGT in higher organisms

the way i understand this is, modern cells have a nucleus, and its this nucleus that is thought to be of prokyrote origin.
this nucleus was not acquired gradually.
even if it was, it would still necessarily be HGT, which isn't gradual.

I think you misread my post. I quite readily accept that some changes are non gradual and gave examples. My point was that the presence of non gradual changes does not preclude gradual changes. changes CAN be sudden, but aren't REQUIRED to be.

 

[whois]

I think you misread my post. I quite readily accept that some changes are non gradual and gave examples. My point was that the presence of non gradual changes does not preclude gradual changes. changes CAN be sudden, but aren't REQUIRED to be.

i am so glad frumious include the link about margulis (i'll get back to this)
there is no doubt there is such a thing as "gradual" evolution.
the variations within a species is typical.
it's when we talk about macro evolution is where the non gradual part comes in.
judging from my understanding about evolution, it seems transposons are responsible for the changes we see in species.
it's HGT that is responsible for macro evolution.
in other words, accumulating mutations do not equate nor result in macro evolution.
now, back to margulis.
margulis seems to support that hypothesis.
apparently i'm not the moron most would like for you to believe.

now, if all of the above is correct, which there is a good chance it is, then when it comes to macro evolution gradual changes do not accumulate.
the next question is, does this invalidate evolution.
not necessarily.
i believe gould had it right with his spandrels concept, but he applied it incorrectly.
instead of a "structural framework" concept, its a "molecular configuration" concept.
transposons are responsible for these configurations, while HGT are the events that catalyze them into a different species.
IOW, there is no "accumulating" of anything.
i know what i want to say, but i don't think i did a very good job of it.

 

[stevevw]

People say a lot of silly things. In physics, an observer is anything that makes a measurement. A measurement is any interaction with the system under consideration. So a particle that interacts with a system is an observer. This must be distinguished from the everyday idea of a conscious observer, which is something else. In quantum theory, this distinction was made clear around 70-80 years ago.

Then why do so many scientists say that there is more to reality than what we see. This notion seems to come from the effects they see in quantum physics. But even mainstream scientists allude to reality being something that is not real by suggesting things like hologram worlds where reality maybe just a 2D hologram. There are many other ideas they present which have stemmed from quantum physics that suggest that there are other dimensions or that our reality is not what it seems.

The only influence consciousness has on the outcome is in setting up the conditions for the observation, although it's worth bearing in mind that the outcome of the measurement must spread out into the environment, including any conscious observers (so they come to know what happened). This spreading is called decoherence, and delineates the observational boundary between quantum and classical probabilistic behaviour. However, as a consequence, conscious observers will become part of the modified system, which may be relevant to the particular interpretation of the quantum formalism you feel most comfortable with.

Yes and a couple of interesting experiments suggest that either a future measurement can affect a past state which is very weird. Another experiment states that the closer you put the measuring device to the quantum particles the more of an effect it has on changing the state from waves to particles. Its like there is a field of influence.

The Many Worlds interpretation takes this mathematical description literally, eschews the notion of an arbitrary unexplained wave function 'collapse', and instead, accepts that the conscious observer is now in a superposition of having observed both a spin up result and a spin down result. By the time decoherence has occurred (the superposition has spread into the immediate environment) the superposed states can no longer influence each other, they are effectively totally independent, and in 'separate universes' - so the superposed observers are also effectively in separate universes, one where the outcome was spin up, one where it was spin down.

But those who believe in this many worlds interpretation dont just think there is one other parallel world. As with quantum physics in that there can be many possibilities they believe there are many parallel worlds where alternative outcomes can spin off into many states of existence and all happen at the same time.

This is all a somewhat parochial view of wave function evolution, because it's just looking at local aspects of the evolution of the global wave function of the universe in Hilbert space, and one could say that, in a sense, the universe doesn't really 'split' each time this happens, because the superposition was really there all along, but the separate 'leaves' of the universe were otherwise identical.

Check out Sean Carroll's 'Why Many Worlds is Probably Correct' and 'Wrong Objections to Many Worlds'.
Appealing to ideas 'beyond the logical realms' is not science. QM behaves predictably, according to logical mathematical rules; they are just strange and unfamiliar rules.

Yes I have been reading up on this a lot and its doing my head in. Here another from Max Tegmark who seems to be quite famous for his views on stuff like this.
http://space.mit.edu/home/tegmark/crazy.html
But if all this is just imaginative stuff then why do so many scientists including prominent ones support it. Why do they talk about it and believe in it. To me this is the same sort of stuff as saying our conscience is a separate thing to the material world and reality may not exist and that there are other dimensions to life.

There is no point where something comes from nothing. As Lawrence Krauss says, when physicists talk of something coming from 'nothing', they mean empty spacetime (i.e. with no particles or non-zero fields [apart from the Higgs field]). They don't literally mean nothing as in the absence of anything (because that is just a conceptual abstraction of negation). Empty spacetime is subject to quantum fluctuations, which means virtual particles, and so-on.

Yes I understand this and its funny that they actually dont mean nothing but really something when they talk about nothing. But the weirdness of existence starts with the quantum world which acts differently to our large scale reality. This is something they are trying to unite with quantum physics and relativity. Hense the theory of everything and Stephen Hawkins calls it the mind of God (but not in the literal sense). When we discover what ever that theory is it will be something that is pretty amazing and all inclusive. But I am not sure they will ever find it. IMO no one can know the mind of God. They may come up with some ideas like string theory but I think it will always fall short and have unanswered aspects to it.

There's a significant difference between pseudoscience & quantum woo, and multiverses, holographic universe, string theory, black holes, worm holes, etc. The latter are reasoned extrapolations based on the possible implications of the mathematics behind well-tested theories, the former are not.

No really, I think some of the better ideas of mind and consciousnesses which has been regarded as quantum woo is based on some maths as well. They are pretty smart scientists who are behind this. One in particular is Lanza. I know many say its all woo but he does have some good points. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Lanza
But its pretty similar to what many others are saying even some mainstream scientists.Here are some famous scientists who think along these lines.
Gerard ’t Hooft and Leonard Susskin believes that our reality is like a projection similar to a hologram.
“I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulating consciousness.” – Max Planck
N. David Mermin, Roger Penrose,

We already know that brains are - like everything else - connected to the quantum world, because they're constructed out of it. We also know that it's possible that they may make use of some interesting quantum optimizations at the neural or sub-neural level - although there's no evidence that this is the case. But we equally know that quantum field theory tells us that there are no particles, fields, or forces that operate at human scales that could mediate mind over matter, or any other paranormal or supernatural phenomena. It's basically electromagnetism or nothing. It's disappointing, I know, but there it is. When you invoke quantum mechanics or any other field of science, you can't choose to accept only the bits you want and reject everything else in favor of wishful thinking.

Yet so many intelligent scientists are thinking along these lines. They say that consciousness is the new frontier of study as genetics was or the universe was. It just seems that there is more to our minds then some physical wiring and chemical reactions. The ability to have an awareness of self and think abstractly. To have this connection with something beyond what we see seems like there is something out there that we can connect with. Our consciousness seems to have a dimension all of its own that is more than material and physical. There seems to be a sixth sense that we have and deep down people know that there is more to things than we see.

I know some say its all in our heads pun intended. But it seems there is more to it then imagination, coincidence, deluded thought. There are some pretty amazing things that have occurred that defy rational explanations and it all cant have some logical explanation. I think there are two camps and this is based on a fundamental belief. Those who are open to something beyond the material and those who have strict parameters of only believing what can be seen only.

 

[Loudmouth]

whois has me on ignore, so everyone should feel free to plagiarize my posts in their responses to whois.

Even systematics has had to abandon many strictures that were part of the Modern Synthesis.

Modified, not abandonded. Just because HGT occurs does not mean that VGT (vertical genetic transfer) does not occur. The rarity of HGT in eukaryotes means that there is an overwhelming signal from VGT which we can and do use to determine common ancestry.

If species are the durable unit of biology, and if natural selection quickly molds genes to current utility,

The Modern Synthesis has never made the claim that natural selection will quickly mold genes.

then most genes should diverge at the time of speciation events, given views like Mayr's. Here again, analyses of newly abundant sequence data in the late 20th Century showed that rather than a highly congruent coalescence of genes at the times of speciation events, the coalescence times of alleles among species are highly variable. As such, species trees and gene trees often cannot be equated [15,16].
-The new biology beyond the Modern Synthesis.htm

That's why we use whole genomes which limits the effects of things like incomplete lineage sorting. Also, these effects only blur the line between closely related branches. This does not cause genes from humans and jellyfish to be more alike than human and chimp genes.

Again, this is just a modification of the modern synthesis.

noble isn't the only one that say evolutionists use examples that haven't been proven.
boyce, in his NY times article, flat out says the horse transitional fossils aren't correct.

Funny how whois never shows us what the correct horse phylogeny is.

she argued that conventional Darwinian mechanisms could not account for the stops and starts observed in the fossil record. Symbiosis, she suggested, could explain why species appear so suddenly and why they persist so long without changing.
-ibid.
this seems to support what eldridge states in the NY times upload, the infamous gaps in the record.
it's all too apparent that these gaps are real, they aren't a case of unfound or missing fossils.
concepts such as the molecular clock theory of gene mutation seems to discount "fast gradual change".

Eldridge never stated that the gaps in the fossil record were caused by endosymbiosis.

Ultra-Darwinians, by focusing on the gene as the unit of selection, had failed to explain how speciation occurs. Only a much broader theory that incorporates symbiosis and higher-level selection could account for the diversity of the fossil record and of life today, according to Margulis.

That doesn't mean that every change is caused by endosymbiosis.

these other mechanisms are the direct cause for the emerging biology.
i fail to understand how you might think they don't exist.

We are still waiting to here why whois thinks vertical genetic transfer does not exist.

 

[whois]

But those who believe in this many worlds interpretation dont just think there is one other parallel world. As with quantum physics in that there can be many possibilities they believe there are many parallel worlds where alternative outcomes can spin off into many states of existence and all happen at the same time.

some scientists have even put forth a multiverse scenario for abiogenesis.
whether it's being seriously considered is questionable.

But if all this is just imaginative stuff then why do so many scientists including prominent ones support it.

well, suggesting it and discussing it, doesn't mean they support it.
this is where physicists have an advantage over evolutionists.
physicists can discuss their field without other physicists getting all stupid about it.

Yes I understand this and its funny that they actually dont mean nothing but really something when they talk about nothing.

this sort of argument happens far too often in evolution circles.
people are continuously accused of misrepresentation, misunderstanding, and outright lying in evolution debates.
not only that, this sort of thing happens hatefully.

But the weirdness of existence starts with the quantum world which acts differently to our large scale reality. This is something they are trying to unite with quantum physics and relativity. Hense the theory of everything and Stephen Hawkins calls it the mind of God (but not in the literal sense).

there is one thing you need to remember, einstien questioned quantum physics til his dying day.
he thought it was either outright wrong, or at the very least incomplete.
it's very likely it's the latter.
the question now becomes, what are we missing.
i've said this before, and i'm almost sure of it, the grand unification theory must include the life sciences.
IOW, once we figure out one, it will solve the other.

 

[Michael]

well, suggesting it and discussing it, doesn't mean they support it.
this is where physicists have an advantage over evolutionists.
physicists can discuss their field without other physicists getting all stupid about it.

They do however show the same emotional attachment to their beliefs, and to being "right" as any theist might have toward YEC, even without empirical validation.

there is one thing you need to remember, einstien questioned quantum physics til his dying day.
he thought it was either outright wrong, or at the very least incomplete.
it's very likely it's the latter.
the question now becomes, what are we missing.
i've said this before, and i'm almost sure of it, the grand unification theory must include the life sciences.
IOW, once we figure out one, it will solve the other.

If and when that day comes, I'm pretty sure it's going to be based on EM theory, including the strong nuclear force and explain gravity via QM interactions between objects with mass and the EM field.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

...

OK; this is going nowhere. I was hoping to discuss the reasons why each of us holds the views we do. All I seem to get is cherry picked quotes, assertions, misinterpretations, and non-sequiturs. I've given reasoned arguments for what I think is mistaken (i.e. most of it), but instead of reasoned arguments in response, I'm getting the same copy-pasta again. I'm not interested in argument by proxy or argument from (questionable) authority; Noble & Margulis, etc., are interesting, if fringe, views in this field; but I want to hear your reasoning - how & why you think your assertions make sense, how they work, how they account for the available evidence; just broad-brush outlines, nothing too detailed.

If you can't explain in your own words, why you hold the views you do, and are unable or unwilling to argue your own corner and explain or defend your own views when they're questioned, I have to seriously doubt your understanding of them.

Incidentally, it's generally considered impolite to tell people what they might or might not think. Better to ask, if you think it's important or relevant, or say nothing if it isn't.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Then why do so many scientists say that there is more to reality than what we see. This notion seems to come from the effects they see in quantum physics. But even mainstream scientists allude to reality being something that is not real by suggesting things like hologram worlds where reality maybe just a 2D hologram.

You need to ask just what they mean by 'more to reality than we see'. You already know there are atoms, radiation, gravity, etc., but you don't see them. The holographic universe idea is based on a mathematical equivalence; the information in a 3D volume can be holographically encoded onto a proportional 2D surface; two mathematical ways of looking at the same thing. Assuming that this is relevant to our universe, asking which is 'real' is like asking whether length is really made up of yards or metres.

There are many other ideas they present which have stemmed from quantum physics that suggest that there are other dimensions or that our reality is not what it seems. Yes and a couple of interesting experiments suggest that either a future measurement can affect a past state which is very weird. Another experiment states that the closer you put the measuring device to the quantum particles the more of an effect it has on changing the state from waves to particles. Its like there is a field of influence.

Yes, it can seem very confusing; rest assured that so far, causality appears inviolate - at macro scales, at least.

But those who believe in this many worlds interpretation dont just think there is one other parallel world. As with quantum physics in that there can be many possibilities they believe there are many parallel worlds where alternative outcomes can spin off into many states of existence and all happen at the same time.

Yes, Everettian Many Worlds is variety of 'everything that can happen does happen'. But each observer only sees one version, so it has no everyday relevance or consequence.

But if all this is just imaginative stuff then why do so many scientists including prominent ones support it. Why do they talk about it and believe in it. To me this is the same sort of stuff as saying our conscience is a separate thing to the material world and reality may not exist and that there are other dimensions to life.

It's not 'just imaginative stuff'; QM stipulates what outcomes you can expect from certain experiments, and with what probabilities. The interpretations are attempts to explain the formalism in real-world terms with the fewest assumptions (such as 'collapse of the wavefunction'). But the same theory tells us what our everyday world is made up of and how it behaves; and it rules out those paranormal and supernatural phenomena. It doesn't rule out parallel universes, or multiverses; if anything, it implies they should exist, but in the vast majority of formulations, they cannot interact, and in the few where they might, it would be on a cosmological scale.

Hense the theory of everything and Stephen Hawkins calls it the mind of God (but not in the literal sense). When we discover what ever that theory is it will be something that is pretty amazing and all inclusive. But I am not sure they will ever find it. IMO no one can know the mind of God. They may come up with some ideas like string theory but I think it will always fall short and have unanswered aspects to it.

I think you're probably right - how can we ever know that we know all there is to know? there will always be the unknown unknowns [/Rumsfeld]

...It just seems that there is more to our minds then some physical wiring and chemical reactions. The ability to have an awareness of self and think abstractly. To have this connection with something beyond what we see seems like there is something out there that we can connect with. Our consciousness seems to have a dimension all of its own that is more than material and physical. There seems to be a sixth sense that we have and deep down people know that there is more to things than we see.

As you already know, things aren't always how they seem.

I know some say its all in our heads pun intended. But it seems there is more to it then imagination, coincidence, deluded thought. There are some pretty amazing things that have occurred that defy rational explanations and it all cant have some logical explanation.

Why not? We know the rational explanations for many of these things; when they're investigated in depth there's almost always a plausible mundane explanation for them. But people don't like mundane explanations, they like mysteries; and they find it hard to acknowledge that their perceptions and memories are unreliable.

I think there are two camps and this is based on a fundamental belief. Those who are open to something beyond the material and those who have strict parameters of only believing what can be seen only.

False dichotomy. As someone said, "it's important to have an open mind, but not so open your brains fall out".

 

[[serious]]

i am so glad frumious include the link about margulis (i'll get back to this)
there is no doubt there is such a thing as "gradual" evolution.
the variations within a species is typical.
it's when we talk about macro evolution is where the non gradual part comes in.
judging from my understanding about evolution, it seems transposons are responsible for the changes we see in species.
it's HGT that is responsible for macro evolution.
in other words, accumulating mutations do not equate nor result in macro evolution.
now, back to margulis.
margulis seems to support that hypothesis.
apparently i'm not the moron most would like for you to believe.

now, if all of the above is correct, which there is a good chance it is, then when it comes to macro evolution gradual changes do not accumulate.
the next question is, does this invalidate evolution.
not necessarily.
i believe gould had it right with his spandrels concept, but he applied it incorrectly.
instead of a "structural framework" concept, its a "molecular configuration" concept.
transposons are responsible for these configurations, while HGT are the events that catalyze them into a different species.
IOW, there is no "accumulating" of anything.
i know what i want to say, but i don't think i did a very good job of it.

If I thought you were a moron, I wouldn't be talking to you to begin with. I think you are intelligent which is why I'm in this discussion. I do think you haven't had the formal education in these issues some of us have benefitted from, but with legitimate interest and access to good sources, I think you can self educate to a great degree.

Now, we seem to agree on this part:
Both gradual and sudden changes can occur.

Where we differ is here:
"HGT that is responsible for macro evolution."
which leads you to another conclusion I disagree with,
"when it comes to macro evolution gradual changes do not accumulate."

There are a couple problems actually:
1. The logic does not follow. Even is HGT is responsible for speciation level changes, that does not mean that gradual changes must not accumulate.
2. HGT, while common in bacteria, is fairly rare in eukaryotes. (though it can by no means be ignored) Most long term evolution projects actually control for HGT by strictly isolating the population (E coli citrate experiment, various fruit fly experiments) Likewise, I'm unaware of any evidence of horizontal gene transfer during observed wild speciation events of animals.
3. No mechanism for a reversal of gradual change is proposed, nor examples of observation of reversals cited

To ensure we are not running into a definitional issue, let me briefly define some terms:
HGT: Transfer of heritable genetic traits from one individual to another apart from reproduction
Epigenetic: heritable traits in an individual that are DNA sequence independent
Gradual Change: small iterative phenotypic changes over the course of many generations due to the introduction and eventual fixation of minor genetic changes.

If you are using any of these terms differently, please give the definition you are working with so I can read your posts as intended.