Step aside Darwinism, say hello to "Dissipation-driven adaptive organization"

originally posted by: PhotonEffect

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
But that's not true, the theory of natural selection DOESN'T say that there is a sentient, driving force propagating genes. It actually DOES say that it is being driven by natural laws of mechanics and biology. That is why this hypothesis merely fills in the blanks as opposed to overwrites the idea of natural selection.

Natural selection says what now?

Please explain.

Explain how? How is that confusing? Evolution is driven by natural forces. Why else do you think the word "natural" shows up in the phrase "natural selection"? Again, scientists use strict definitions of words for a reason.

You are going to have to be a bit clearer on where you are misunderstanding, I'm not going to sit and explain the entire process of evolution to you in this thread, especially since this isn't a thread to discuss that topic.

a reply to: ScepticScot

Hes not saying it replaces the theory of evolution, I'm not saying it does either. It simply supercedes their explanations of the underlying processes!

The implications of this theory & hypothesis are clearly a lot harder to accept for most people than I would have thought.

What is different about this theory is that it explains the uniform patterns we see in both animate and inanimate structures.

Characteristics traditional darwinian evolutionary theory could not deal with or explain. Not only that, Darwinian theory also fails to explain the meaning / purpose of evolutionary processes unlike DDAO. And it is a theory as well as a hypothesis because the theory can already be backed up by a lot of evidence whereas the hypothesis about organisms requires probably a lot more research to be fully explained.

originally posted by: PhotonEffect
How about the Neo-Darwinist- which you clearly are. You know what he meant- so let's stop picking the low lying fruit here.

Stop making stuff up. Neo-Darwinist is just as derogatory as Darwinist and no, the term is not synonymous for "evolutionary biologist" or "one who agrees with science". No scientists calls him or herself a neo-darwinist. Sorry for your confusion. It is extremely rare that you will find anybody calling themselves a Darwinist, it is just a creationist term used to paint evolution into a religion. It is not relevant in 2014, just like "Darwinist". Evolution isn't about just Darwin anymore. Get out of the 1800s.

Just to be clear: No one is saying this theory goes against the Darwinian concept of evolution!

What is being said is it goes against many of the other Darwinian concepts that have been used over the years in an attempt to explain the how's and why's of evolution.

Edit to add: This should have been in your face obvious to anyone who had bothered to actually read either the Opening Post or the article!

originally posted by: funkadeliaaaa
Just to be clear: No one is saying this theory goes against the Darwinian concept of evolution!

Again it's a hypothesis not a theory.

What is being said is it goes against many of the other Darwinian concepts that have been used over the years in an attempt to explain the how's and why's of evolution.

The article YOU posted said otherwise. I posted the snippet from the article that explained this on page 1.

Edit to add: This should have been in your face obvious to anyone who had bothered to actually read either the Opening Post or the article!

Says the guy ignoring the very same article that said that it doesn't supplant any part of the theory of evolution and just fills in the blanks. Here I'll post it again.

England’s theory is meant to underlie, rather than replace, Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection, which provides a powerful description of life at the level of genes and populations. “I am certainly not saying that Darwinian ideas are wrong,” he explained. “On the contrary, I am just saying that from the perspective of the physics, you might call Darwinian evolution a special case of a more general phenomenon.”

a reply to: Barcs

Darwin's ideas paved the way for modern biologists. However, basing their research around his ideas has led toma limited understanding in many cases rather than an enriched on, as is explained in the article!

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I dont think you understand quite how convoluted that passage is.. It will replace natural selection IMO, just wait and see.

originally posted by: funkadeliaaaa
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I dont think you understand quite how convoluted that passage is.. It will replace natural selection IMO, just wait and see.

I think you are trying to say that the theory of evolution talks about more than it talks about. All the theory of evolution discusses is how life changes over time. That's it. It has nothing to do with inorganic developments. That is why England said that evolution would be a specific case of a general phenomenon.

In set theory, evolution would be a subset of the larger set Dissipation-driven adaptive organization.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I read through some of his paper last night at least what I could. I have been trying to figure a way to explain it in layman terms.

If we think of evolution as a engine, natural selection would be the valves and DDAO would be the timing.

It doesn't replace evolution or natural selection it just explains some of those gaps creationists are always complaining about. I still think the hypothesis is a bit rough but if it is pursued they may be able to smooth those bits out.

My analogy is a bit rough as well. Even after resting.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

In set theory, evolution would be a subset of the larger set Dissipation-driven adaptive organization.

Exactly. And my hypothesis is that it would contribute a lot more to the understanding of evolution than its predecessor's, ie Darwinian theory, and therefore will integrate with them at first and then ultimately replace them.

a reply to: Grimpachi

Makes sense to me, but I may not be the best judge. I already had a good idea of how the hypothesis worked from the article.

originally posted by: funkadeliaaaa
a reply to: Krazysh0t

In set theory, evolution would be a subset of the larger set Dissipation-driven adaptive organization.

Exactly. And my hypothesis is that it would contribute a lot more to the understanding of evolution than its predecessor's, ie Darwinian theory, and therefore will integrate with them at first and then ultimately replace them.

Well it has to become a theory first. For now it is a hypothesis. Like I said, it makes a lot of sense to me and I think it could be a valid explanation for things. Science works in small steps. Let's get it to theory level first. And for that we need much retesting and peer review to substantiate England's data and claims.

a reply to: funkadeliaaaa

Do you have to be so combative and insulting about everything? Almost every post you make takes shots at other users or addresses them in a condescending manner. If you disagree with what I said, then show me why instead of getting so offended. Let's have an adult conversation about this instead of getting upset and belittling anybody that asks questions about it.

All I can say is bring it. This theory stands for itself and I've got nothing to loose by taking trolls who refuse to think to town.

Bring what? It's not a theory, it's an unproven hypothesis, so no, it doesn't stand on it's own yet. I'm not a troll, I'm a critical thinker. I'm trying to reconcile this idea with evolution, but it seems you are already set in your ways that evolution is wrong and will accept nothing less.

Maybe i should learn chinese on this forum. Is this a chinese forum? Are we all speaking chinese? "IT" you mean DDAO would not be anything. It either is or isnt. Dont use the word creature here either, its too specific.

You need to post less filler, and more substance. I shouldn't have to read through 4 lines of condescending drivel just to get to your point. I'll use the word creature if I see fit. Of course I know it could apply to all life and all matter. The point was it won't REPLACE natural selection, it will work alongside of it. The article even says exactly that.

They adapt according to this theory not due to Darwinian concepts of natural selection, but due to entropy based dissipation theory.

Why couldn't it be both?

Weaker does not necessarily mean less well adapted, and no one is saying any such nonsensical thing.

You don't need to correct me on evolution. I understand it, extensively. Well adapted is temporary and doesn't necessarily mean physically more muscular than another. I put in the word weaker to shorten the sentence. If you would actually address my concerns instead of nitpicking my terminology, we might get somewhere with this discussion.

Let's discuss instead of accusing me of not thinking, insulting my intelligence and claiming I didn't read it. You clearly posted this thread with a bone to pick, I'm just not sure why.

Also, you said that you were going to change the thread title, but it hasn't happened yet. Trust me, if you don't want the entire pro evolution crowd in here, all you have to do is remove Darwinism from the title. Hopefully it's not too late.

DDAO refutes that by saying it is survival of the most dissipation driven adaptive organism

Please explain the last part of this statement in layman's terms. What exactly does that mean? Without the insults this time, please.

Thanks.

Characteristics traditional darwinian evolutionary theory could not deal with or explain. Not only that, Darwinian theory also fails to explain the meaning / purpose of evolutionary processes unlike DDAO. And it is a theory as well as a hypothesis because the theory can already be backed up by a lot of evidence whereas the hypothesis about organisms requires probably a lot more research to be fully explained.

The meaning or purpose might not exist. Saying that evolution (NOT DARWINIAN THEORY, NO SUCH THING) FAILS to explain a purpose, is silly, because it doesn't need to. That isn't a shortcoming of the theory, it actually has nothing to do with this. The process the hypothesis is based on is not confirmed, therefor it's not a theory. It can't be both. Theories can contain hypotheses that are actively being tested, but last I checked this wasn't confirmed.

a reply to: funkadeliaaaa

As Barcs likes to say, "this isn't the 1800's". Biologists base their research around the countless experiments that have been conducted over the past 150 years, not the (comparatively) crude insights of one man over a century and a half ago.

In science, the data drives conclusions, not the other way around.

originally posted by: funkadeliaaaa
Just to be clear: No one is saying this theory goes against the Darwinian concept of evolution!

What is being said is it goes against many of the other Darwinian concepts that have been used over the years in an attempt to explain the how's and why's of evolution.

Edit to add: This should have been in your face obvious to anyone who had bothered to actually read either the Opening Post or the article!

If what you say is true, then remove "step aside darwinism" from your title like you said you were going to.

You say it should have been in your face obvious, but you put it right in the thread title.

I have no beef whatsoever with this hypothesis, just the way that it has been presented and the way that people asking questions are being treated like children.

a reply to: GetHyped

This is the most pants on head stupid analysis of terminology I think I've ever seen. Really dude, really?

Hello GetHyped:

I appreciate your opinion and constructive criticism, really. But I wonder if you actually know the history of natural selection under Darwin, and how he actually conceived of the idea in the first place? I know it doesn't matter to you but it's important to note. Anyway, feel free to get back to me on that and then perhaps we can revisit what I said, and have a conversation.

In the meantime Ill keep my pants right where they belong.

Cheers

a reply to: GetHyped

Are you a Neo-Einsteinist? Or are you just making ad hominem attacks because you have no argument?

Im not familiar with the term neo-einsteinist, but suspect you’re only trying to make a innocent point. Maybe you aren’t aware of what neo-darwinism actually means? If you did, you would know it refers to any adherent to the modern synthesis - i.e. evolution by natural selection acting on genetic variation. You can look it up in the dictionary if you'd like, although I'd wager some bitcoins that your term doesn't exist.

As for your last statement - if there’s anyone here making ad hominem attacks in lieu of an actual argument, it is most definitely you my friend. You only needed two short posts to prove that point. Very efficient I must say. I'm sure ATS appreciates your ability to drive home points without wasting too much bandwidth. keep it

Cheers

God is easier to spell.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Do you have any evidence to show that it isn't?

Hello Krazysh0t:

That I can tell, beyond the actual words used to describe natural selection, it has no real causal efficacy whatsoever. I’ve tried to reconcile how natural selection can cause actual physiological or behavioral changes as the theory suggests, but nothing that I’ve read has been all that convincing. It’s just a bunch of just so story telling. In fact I might ask you what is the evidence that natural selection actually “causes” changes in anything, let alone full on evolution into new species.

[snip] this post is acting buggy, con't below

a reply to: Krazysh0t

What does that have to do with anything? Laymen have loose definitions of words (that's why everyone confuses the definition of theory). Scientists have STRICT definitions of words, so if a scientist uses a word to describe an event, he is being very specific in his wording.

I was referring to your question relating to natural selection being anthropomorphic. Thats what this has to do with.

I'm not concerned about the laymen’s usage of terms, which is why I specifically referenced biologists, and the way they use these terms so loosely. So loosely in fact that no one seems to (care) notice that there’s nothing physical underlying those terms.

But okay, you seem very certain of things, so lets play a quick game of taboo:

What is the STRICT definition of natural selection? If you could please explain what it is or how it “operates” on organisms without relying on its typical metaphorical constituents [i.e select, selected for, favored, mechanism, process or force] that would be most appreciated here.

This should be easy for you since I gather you know what you’re talking about.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Explain how? How is that confusing? Evolution is driven by natural forces. Why else do you think the word "natural" shows up in the phrase "natural selection"?

I'm sorry, maybe I wasn't clear.
You said: “It [natural selection] actually DOES say that it [evolution?] is being driven by natural laws of mechanics and biology”

I asked you to explain this since the theory of natural selection says no such thing that I’m aware of. At least not in those words.

I don’t need you to explain evolution to me, just asking that you please clarify your post so I can gauge what you actually know about evolution.

This thread references “Darwinism” which is evolution by natural selection, so everything I've said so far or may continue to say here re: natural selection is very much on topic. But why not let the mods decide from here on out, this way we can focus on having a debate.