|
Author
|
Topic: Peter Borger: Genetic Redundancy: The Ultimate Evidence of the Design of Life
|
adhitthana
Member
Member # 2020
|
posted 19. November 2006 19:07
quote:
Let mainstream science spin it's wheels - asking the wrong questions and coming to the wrong conclusions. Quit trying to become part of their camp. Start your own camp.
Why alienate yourselves. The methodology of science has proven so helpful and useful to all men.
Peter Borgers paper is an example how one can use the actula results of actual science to show the shortfalls of the theory as it currently stands.
Naturally those who have a strong emotional connection to Darwinism will resist, particularly older folk.
But young minds are not so biased, their views are not so inflexible. we should have confidence in them that they will be able to see the truth of the matter. Whatever that may be.
Let them refute the details of Peters paper, if they are able.
If they do , then we are all winners, as we will all learn from it.
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 19. November 2006 23:58
One of the most significant recent books is William Wright's "Born That Way" (1998). It summarizes the findings on separated monozygotic twins which were reunited later in life. These studies were initiated to evaluate the effects of different environments on human development. What makes them so significant is the unexpected result that there is little evidnece that the environment has any effect at all. The battle between the proponents of Nature versus Nurture has been one by the Nature camp hands down.
While physical characteristics were similar as expected, what came as a surprise was that psychological features also proved to be very similar. Belief or not in a Creator, feelings about capital punishment, politics, abortion and other sociological questions showed high degrees of correlation as do tastes in clothing, beverages, pets, spouses, toothpaste, jewelry, etc, etc, as well. It seems that when monozygotic twins are separated they follow their genetic destiny uninfluenced by the presence of their twin with whom they typically establish differences partly at least to establish their own identities.
The question we should be asking seems to be - What features in our lives are NOT predetermined in our DNA?
These unexpected discoveries were cearly anticipated by Gilbert and Sullivan in their 1883 production of Iolanthe -
"Every boy and every girl,
That is born into the world alive,
Is either a little liberal,
Or else a little conservative."
More recently Einstein claimed the same thing in even more emphatic terms -
"Our actions should be based on the ever-present awareness that human beings in their THINKING, FEELING, AND ACTING are not free but are just as causally bound as the stars in their motion."
my emphasis.
I was delighted with this book because it supported my own views as summarized in the Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis (PEH).
The cold hard facts indicate that the environment plays a minor role in both ontogeny and phylogeny both of which have proceeded largely on the basis of "internal factors."
If the environment had played a part in determining evolution, then why has it stopped, which in my opinion it most certainly has? Just as our individual lives have been largely predetermined even in detail, so it seems also has been our evolution. I still await a demonstration of a more recent mammal species to appear than ourselves. I am now convinced that the whole scenario was planned from the beginning and we are now in its terminal stages, a view certainly not new with me as it is implicit in the the works of Robert Broom, Julian Huxley and Pierre Grasse as well.
It should surprise no one that, like Einstein, I am a convinced determinist. The facts all point in that direction!
Darwinism remains an unsubstantiated myth without a shred of evidence beyond its capacity to produce intraspecific varieties none of which are incipient species in any event. Just as ontogeny terminates with the death of the individual so has evolution nearly always terminated with the extinction of the species which is all that we presently witness. We see around us not evolution in action but the products of a long past evolution of which we are the terminal and planned result. I will continue with that perspective until it is proven to be in error.
"Facts can be very stubborn things,"
anonymous
EVERYTHING is determined... by forces over which we have no control."
Albert Einstein, my emphasis
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution udemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
Martin
Member
Member # 2001
|
posted 20. November 2006 03:20
"Every boy and every girl,
That is born into the world alive,
Is either a little liberal,
Or else a little conservative."
These poem seems to me to be somehow strict. I would say that to accept it depends on society where a reader lives. In USA there were no such political turbulences as in Central Europe say last 100 years. In USA there was always possibility to express opinion and if problem arouses than "go west". In Central Europe you have no chance "go west" and if during 100 years we have to change monarchy, fascism, communism and democracy of western type I would say that political opinions are no predetermined (in spite of religions opinion that I suppose are, but not by DNA but by supernatural Will) - we know people that was yesterday communists and nowadays are strong democrats.
It might be that these phenomenon have to do more with mimicry in Nietzsches view - anyway in Central Europe there is no stability in political opinions and they are changed dramatically say every 30 years on average.
We should be aware that social darwinism is also weird idea while darwinism itself is "socialized" Nature - darwinists put into Nature their view how human society function. If they see in society struggle for profit (early capitalism) they put this idea and princip into Nature as struggle for survival. I suppose that as consequnce of modern information boom and internet development there will be also shift of these paradigma from 19 century - it might be that "Symbiotic planet" from Margulis and others conceptions are first that reflect changes.
It is also noteworthy to mention that comparing internet network to biological networks might be attemt to hold darwinism alive. Internet is random system - everybody put his page whenever he want - and so finding parallels between internet and biological networks ( as scale-free topology) can produce some similarities but only on superficial level I dare say. No wonder that such articles are often publicized in Nature and on cover page.
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 20. November 2006 06:45
Very good Martin. I am only following my nose. I also happen to be a great fan of Albert Einstein. If reason could really prevail, Darwinism would have died shortly after its inception when Mivart asked that simple question - How can natural selection be involved with a structure which has not yet appeared?
I also believe that a desire for freedom is universal for all humans. It is just that the individual concept of freedom is not universally the same.
I really don't expect others to agree with me anyhow. It wouldn't be any fun you know. Also I don't even trust my own views and I have always tried to prove I am wrong but with little success. What we each think means nothing in any event. What counts is what is true and that is completely independent of the human condition. There are some that believe that mathematics is a human invention. I don't believe that for a millisecond. Mathematics was always there just waiting to be discovered. The same can be said for all of science. Two great frontiers that remain unsolved are ontogeny and phylogeny and that is all that I am currently interested in. Everything else pales by comparison in my narrow little world. I hope you can forgive me but if you can't that is allright too.
"Science commits suicide when she adopts a creed."
Thomas Henry Huxley
Darwinism is the slowest yet surest form of suicide ever invented by the human imagination.
"Ascertainable truth is partial, piecemeal, uncertain and difficult."
Bertrand Russell
Nevertheless, it IS ascertainable. I firmly believe in absolute unvarnished truth: naughty me!
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
Melvin H. Fox
Member
Member # 1684
|
posted 20. November 2006 08:19
It is not necessary that a valid system of mathematics be connected to physical reality in any way what so ever. For this reason, I would say mathematics is a human invention; a virtual reality so to speak.
-Mel
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 20. November 2006 10:20
Mel
Do I take that to mean that you deny the validity of Euclidean geometry upon which all of Newtonian mechanics is based? Was that a human invention? Was Einstein's equation relating mass and energy a human invention? How about Mendeleef's table? Surely you cannot seriously question the reality of these fundamental truths. A mathematics which cannot be related to the real world is mystical fiction.
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 20. November 2006 10:28
Martin
You are making perfect fools of the "groupthinkers" over at After The Bar Closes, Elsberry's inner sanctum. Thank you very much. I recommmend all view that demonstration of a closed union shop. It is a beautiful thing to behold.
I love it so!
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
adhitthana
Member
Member # 2020
|
posted 20. November 2006 17:25
quote:
The question we should be asking seems to be - What features in our lives are NOT predetermined in our DNA?
A quite fascinating recent book which touches on this is "The Biology of Belief" by Bruce Lipton.
Winner of the best science book at the best book awards 2006.
Bruce Lipton
[ 20. November 2006, 17:26: Message edited by: adhitthana ]
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 20. November 2006 18:56
Martin
Please read your private mail.
IP: Logged
|
|
Melvin H. Fox
Member
Member # 1684
|
posted 20. November 2006 20:39
John,
Euclidian geometry is a mathematical model. It just so happens that fairly accurate predictions can be made with respect to physical observation using this model. However, this model was found inadequate by your good buddy Einstein as a predictor of the curvature in his newly discovered space time continuum. A different geometric model was necessary. This is not to mention the modern cutting edge of theoretical physics which reports that the geometric model varies from point to point in space time. But all of this is unnecessary to prove my point.
What I would like you to do is go to your lab and find me a circle; any circle will do as long as it is actually a circle. What? You say you can’t. Of course you can’t. This geometric object is an abstract human invention. We can talk about the concept of a circle. We can find objects that are circular in shape. But no one has ever seen a circle and even if they did it would be impossible for them to actually verify that it was indeed a circle. It is possible that circles physically exist and are yet to be found but it is indisputable that man invented one in his mind first.
-Mel
IP: Logged
|
|
Bruce Fast
Member
Member # 924
|
posted 20. November 2006 22:44
Melvin H. Fox:
quote:
It is not necessary that a valid system of mathematics be connected to physical reality in any way what so ever. For this reason, I would say mathematics is a human invention; a virtual reality so to speak.
I challenge that mathematics is a discovery, not an invention. You state the premise, "It is not necessary that a valid system of mathematics be connected to physical reality in any way what so ever." And draw the conclusion, "For this reason, I would say mathematics is a human invention". Your implied supporting premise is that anything that is not connected physical reality is "invention".
However, mathematics has one feature that must be addressed, which is that it must be internally consistent. Further, I would suggest that the simple concept of "one" can be actually, and fully, found in physical reality. Once you have "one" and you make a consistent system, I believe you will be forced to discover mathematics as we know it.
IOW, if alien societies exist, though they may not have settled on a base 10 system, it will be very likely, a near certainty, that they will have the same mathematical structures that we have -- trigonometry, statistics and calculus included. If so, then mathematics is a discovery, not an invention.
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 20. November 2006 23:02
Mel
You are one of those who believes mathematics is an invention of the human mind. Sorry but that is not my style. Let's not waste any more of our time.
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
peter borger
Member
Member # 722
|
posted 21. November 2006 06:37
Martin says:"It means anyway that there are always few centers present that hitting on them simultaneously will destroy all web."
This is also true for some biological nodes, for instance p53. It is a crucial node that, when hit by a debilitating mutation will crumble down the complete system (=organism). However, most biological systems have back up.
peebee
IP: Logged
|
|
peter borger
Member
Member # 722
|
posted 21. November 2006 06:46
Davison says: "We don't even know how many Creators there must have been, when, how many times, or where they did their creating and their front-loading, but that there were one or more is no longer a matter of conjecture if you ask me and no one is likely to!"
Judging from the one canonical genetic code there must have been one source.
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 21. November 2006 08:01
George Gamov, a physicist, predicted the triplet code long before it was demonstrated. It is the simplest conceivable way to specify all the amino acids. The fact that it is universal does not mean a single creation by any means.
A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic