It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

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

page: 8
18
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 14 2014 @ 03:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: Serdgiam

originally posted by: TzarChasm
three, this isn't PHILOSOPHY. this is SCIENCE. learn the difference.


To be fair, there is very little science happening on ATS. It's not like you, TC, are going out between responses to check your experiments pertaining to the topic. Correct me if I am wrong on that!

I agree though, it is an important distinction to make, but I see very little actual science taking place. It's more philosophy about other people's experimental findings than ATS members setting up experiments of their own and discussing the results. At best, most just Google stuff.

I also think the title was in error, but not because of any insult to dogma. I think findings like this have much, much larger repercussions than one area of study.

The title generally defines the thread, especially because that is all most will read. Even if further posts are read, it tends to be skewed by the initial perception created by the title.


no, because highly qualified and trained people did the experiments for me. i just post the results, as does everyone else. doesnt stop it being science though. science gave it to us.

can we skip the semantic bullcrap already?
edit on 14-12-2014 by TzarChasm because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 14 2014 @ 03:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: TzarChasm
no, because highly qualified and trained people did the experiments for me. i just post the results, as does everyone else. doesnt stop it being science though. science gave it to us.


Yes, that is what I said. I just make a different distinction between those performing the experiments and those who discuss it without actually participating in scientific endeavors. I simply don't feel the two activities are one and the same, with the latter trending to philosophy more than science.

It doesn't really matter, obviously.


can we skip the semantic bullcrap already?


I felt I gave ample opportunity to do so in my post, but you elected to focus on the semantic differences.

I'd love to wax philosophical about the larger implications of such a hypothesis rather than spend post after post "debating" a false divide.

If applied to say, social or economic systems, can you see use for such ideas?



posted on Dec, 14 2014 @ 04:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: funkadeliaaaa
a reply to: Barcs

Simply put natural selection is too simple.


How? I've been asking for details on how it replaces natural selection since page 1 and you've been dancing around the question. Genetic mutations are real. Increased survival chances for better adapted organisms is real. Am I wrong in assuming that you are familiar with this hypothesis and you aren't just another creationist parroting an idea that supposedly conflicts with evolution? Why, precisely, are they mutually exclusive?


Look, firstly I'm not a creationist. I'm a Buddhist. We simply beleive creation is what it is. Science. And how we perceive that creation is influenced by our mind.


This hypothesis is not saying genetic mutations are not real, its not saying that increased survival chances for better adapted organisms is not real. It saying the genetic mutations occur due to the all pervading second law of thermodynamics. I cant explain any further detail, thats up to the scientists to work out through research by testing this hypothesis against research data which we don't have yet, at least not publically at this stage. So in the meantime I see no harm in being philisophical about what the results might be.

Oneimportant thing to note is that one point made in the article assumes the second d law of thermodynamics at least on the purely physical level does directly influence, along with other forces including gravity, the way matter forms and that matter influeced by energy dissipation, is transformed by it and that transfromation affects the efociency of the energy dissipation.....



posted on Dec, 14 2014 @ 06:52 PM
link   
a reply to: flyingfish

Oh good grief. How on earth did you come to the conclusion I'm a creationist?!? I'm not. My shtick is anti-eugenics and promoting epigenetics as a science. Feel free to check out my various threads and posts on the topics.






edit on 14/12/14 by soficrow because: (no reason given)

edit on 14/12/14 by soficrow because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 14 2014 @ 07:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: soficrow
a reply to: flyingfish

Oh good grief. How on earth did you come to the conclusion I'm a creationist?!? I'm not. My shtick is anti-eugenics and promoting epigenetics as a science. Feel free to check out my various threads and posts on the topics.







I'm not seeing how epigenetics is a useful topic here or how that has relevance to your "Neo-Darwinism" links . By definition, epigenetics does not involve changes to gene sequences, so it cannot explain why animals whose phenotypic differences are due to differences in gene sequences. Also, if I wanted to debate epigenetics with you I would have already.



posted on Dec, 14 2014 @ 08:48 PM
link   
a reply to: soficrow


My shtick is anti-eugenics and promoting epigenetics as a science.

You forgot the ebola scaremongering of which you are so proud.

Eepigenetics doesn't need you to promote it as a science — it's doing fine in that department — and your attempts to hawk it as a replacement for evolution by natural selection do it no favours at all.

There are users of science and abusers of science — people who twist science to fit the narrative they personally favour. The latter are far, far worse enemies of truth than any merely ignorant conspiracy theorist.



posted on Dec, 14 2014 @ 08:53 PM
link   
a reply to: funkadeliaaaa

You still haven't explained why the differential effect of relative density and gravity on the motion of objects in a fluid medium is not natural selection.

When the same method is used to separate a mixture of objects of different densities (such as pepper and sand), is that not artificial selection?

If the same thing happens in nature, how is it not natural selection?

I urge you to consider the question carefully.


edit on 14/12/14 by Astyanax because: everybody here is an expert on advanced physics, but they seem to know nothing about the simple stuff.



posted on Dec, 14 2014 @ 09:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: funkadeliaaaa

You still haven't explained why the differential effect of relative density and gravity on the motion of objects in a fluid medium is not natural selection.

When the same method is used to separate a mixture of objects of different densities (such as pepper and sand), is that not artificial selection?

If the same thing happens in nature, how is it not natural selection?

I urge you to consider the question carefully.



Fine, I will consider it very carefully.
(2 seconds later)
Heres wheres you wrong:

The process does not involve selection, it involves organization.
Nothing is selected out of some anthropomorphic value system to react to the forces of nature in the way they do. They simply react to those forces and are organized accordingly.
Unless you believe in a creator who literally selected all the primordial ingredients of matter beforehand and wrote the laws before hand, then hey ive got nothing against you if that's what you believe, cool theory, but it would be hard to prove scientifically.
edit on 14 12 14 by funkadeliaaaa because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 14 2014 @ 10:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: funkadeliaaaa

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: funkadeliaaaa

You still haven't explained why the differential effect of relative density and gravity on the motion of objects in a fluid medium is not natural selection.

When the same method is used to separate a mixture of objects of different densities (such as pepper and sand), is that not artificial selection?

If the same thing happens in nature, how is it not natural selection?

I urge you to consider the question carefully.



Fine, I will consider it very carefully.
(2 seconds later)
Heres wheres you wrong:

The process does not involve selection, it involves organization.
Nothing is selected out of some anthropomorphic value system to react to the forces of nature in the way they do. They simply react to those forces and are organized accordingly.
Unless you believe in a creator who literally selected all the primordial ingredients of matter beforehand and wrote the laws before hand, then hey ive got nothing against you if that's what you believe, cool theory, but it would be hard to prove scientifically.


Don't want to step on Astyanax's toes, I know he will be along to set things straight.

But, me thinks your simply dancing around semantics. The thing is that life is organized at a number of different scales, molecular, cellular, organismal, population, ecosystem, and so on, and things that happen at each scale are partially driven by mechanisms that operate uniquely to that particular scale. The side effects of these mechanisms reverberate up and down the scale, so that neither small-scale "chemical" nor large-scale "ecological" viewpoints can never tell the whole story.

I could argued that chemical processes are what drive ecological processes. An example, gazelles run fast because the chemistry of the muscles and bones is suitable for fast running. But.. it could just as plausibly be argued that the need to run fast "ecological scale" drove the chemistry of the bones and muscles to allow fast running over evolutionary time. It's that whole survival thing..

The whole point of natural selection is that life results from more than just chemical reactions, it results from a complex action of abstract imperatives on a chemical substrate. So, we can say that, at the end of the day, we are what those imperatives forced our chemistry to become.



posted on Dec, 15 2014 @ 12:44 AM
link   
a reply to: flyingfish

The thing is that life is organized at a number of different scales, molecular, cellular, organismal, population, ecosystem, and so on, and things that happen at each scale are partially driven by mechanisms that operate uniquely to that particular scale.

It doesn't matter. Whatever happens at each scale, they are all affected by entropy.


The side effects of these mechanisms reverberate up and down the scale, so that neither small-scale "chemical" nor large-scale "ecological" viewpoints can never tell the whole story.

I could argued that chemical processes are what drive ecological processes. An example, gazelles run fast because the chemistry of the muscles and bones is suitable for fast running. But.. it could just as plausibly be argued that the need to run fast "ecological scale" drove the chemistry of the bones and muscles to allow fast running over evolutionary time. It's that whole survival thing.


The whole point of natural selection is that life results from more than just chemical reactions, it results from a complex action of abstract imperatives on a chemical substrate. So, we can say that, at the end of the day, we are what those imperatives forced our chemistry to become.

What you have not understood is that in order to run fast animals need food, and that food is used and burned by the legs in order to run. The animals eat plants as food, and the plants need the energy of the sun in order to grow. The implications are, to cut to the chase, the needs of an individual animal or species, are not paramount to a system driven by entropy. Neither are they insignificant. The most important thing however is the continuation of that system as a whole, so we are driven to replicate (reproduce). Replication is the fundamental driving force of evolution. The imperative actions are not too abstract, and neither do they have to be talked about as being complicated either. Simplicity is the key to passing on valuable information. Replication is one of those imperatives. Yes, and it occurs from the micro to the macro, including both non-living and living matter. This new theory is saying that the driving force of that imperative is the second law of thermodynamics, and that it causes replication and adaptation due to entropy at every level / stage of adaptation.
edit on 15 12 14 by funkadeliaaaa because: (no reason given)

edit on 15 12 14 by funkadeliaaaa because: (no reason given)

edit on 15 12 14 by funkadeliaaaa because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 15 2014 @ 07:03 AM
link   
a reply to: funkadeliaaaa


Fine, I will consider it very carefully.
(2 seconds later)
Heres wheres you wrong:

What did you do, bounce it round the inside of your skull and listen for the echoes?

(See, anybody can be a smart alec, not just you.)

Now, let's get serious, shall we?


Nothing is selected out of some anthropomorphic value system to react to the forces of nature in the way they do.

Where does an anthropomorphic value system come into in the theory of evolution by natural selection?


The process does not involve selection, it involves organization.

How can you organize things without selecting them? I'm curious — to say the least.


Unless you believe in a creator who literally selected all the primordial ingredients of matter beforehand and wrote the laws before hand, then hey ive got nothing against you if that's what you believe, cool theory, but it would be hard to prove scientifically.

Thanks for that, it was very illuminating. Your argument is based on a misunderstanding of what natural selection is and how it is supposed to work. Precisely the same misunderstanding, as it happens, that PhotonEffect laboured under earlier: the belief that evolution is a teleological process, and that selective fitness is some kind of unchanging, absolute state rather than a flexible, environmentally modulated one.

Better get the fundamentals right before venturing an opinion on the high-flown stuff would be my advice to you.


edit on 15/12/14 by Astyanax because: of the fundamental stuff.



posted on Dec, 15 2014 @ 08:03 AM
link   
a reply to: flyingfish

I'm not seeing how epigenetics is a useful topic here or how that has relevance to your "Neo-Darwinism" links .


"Dissipation-driven adaptive organization" likely has a whole lot to do with epigenetic "adaptive developmental plasticity." As far as "my" neo-darwinism links, you asked for them specifically.

FYF:


Adaptive developmental plasticity: Compartmentalized responses to environmental cues and corresponding internal signals provide phenotypic flexibility

The environmental regulation of development can result in the production of distinct phenotypes from the same genotype, and provide the means for organisms to cope with environmental heterogeneity. ...

...Our results unravel the integration of different aspects of the adult phenotype into developmental and functional units which both reflect and impact evolutionary change. Importantly, our findings underscore the complexity of the interactions between environment and physiology in shaping the development of different body parts.



posted on Dec, 15 2014 @ 08:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: soficrow


My shtick is anti-eugenics and promoting epigenetics as a science.

You forgot the ebola scaremongering of which you are so proud.


Huh? ...I flagged MSF's pleas for help when the epidemic first started - and pulled out when the political hacks here started milking the issue for the election. No scaremongering, and regarding my being "proud" - where the heck did you get that bit of smear?



Eepigenetics doesn't need you to promote it as a science — it's doing fine in that department — and your attempts to hawk it as a replacement for evolution by natural selection do it no favours at all.


I said I was anti-eugenics and pro-epigenetic in response to the assumption that I am a creationist. As far as your logic goes regarding my need to keep silent, if you apply it universally then no one has a right to discuss anything.



posted on Dec, 15 2014 @ 11:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: funkadeliaaaa
This hypothesis is not saying genetic mutations are not real, its not saying that increased survival chances for better adapted organisms is not real. It saying the genetic mutations occur due to the all pervading second law of thermodynamics. I cant explain any further detail, thats up to the scientists to work out through research by testing this hypothesis against research data which we don't have yet, at least not publically at this stage. So in the meantime I see no harm in being philisophical about what the results might be.


The genetic mutations are not natural selection, though. Natural selection is about how better adapted creatures survive over others. If you want to say that DDAO is responsible for some of the genetic mutations, then that's fine, but you wouldn't have to replace ANY evolutionary concepts because evolution is about genetic mutations sorted by natural selection. You said that natural selection will be replaced, and evolution will be rewritten if this is true, but nothing has changed except we have found another cause for the mutations. Why can't evolution be the mechanism in which DDAO is achieved on earth?
edit on 15-12-2014 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 15 2014 @ 11:48 AM
link   
a reply to: Barcs

Why cant DDAO be the mechanism through which evolution is achieved on this planet?



posted on Dec, 15 2014 @ 11:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: TechniXcality
a reply to: Barcs

Incorrect. Earth is a closed system, it is not an isolated system and once again can be interpreted as both open or closed depending on the context and leasure of language.First, The earth is a closed system where materials cycle fron the lithosphere, the atmosphere,hyrdosphere,and biosphere. The strict defintion of a closed system is energy enters and leaves but matter dose not. Since space rocks adding material are not an everyday occurance,and the material added is extremely small, the earth is,considered a closed system. Im on a cell so id live to link some edu resources but unfortunatly i cannot. In the same way we are arguing about open and closed systems,this is the arugment applying to biology can entropy effect epigenetics? Im interested in this and will continue reading. Thanks brother


I'm not trying to beat the dead horse here, but:


An open system is a system that has external interactions. Such interactions can take the form of information, energy, or material transfers into or out of the system boundary, depending on the discipline which defines the concept. An open system is contrasted with the concept of an isolated system which exchanges neither energy, matter, nor information with its environment. Open system is also known as constant volume system and flow system


This is the textbook definition of an open system. The earth fits and the context we are talking about is evolution, which is directly affected by the sun. Many genetic mutations are caused by solar radiation not to mention life wouldn't exist without it.

Also, the earth has exchanged matter with the external environment numerous times. Every big impact event has ejected matter into space. The moon is a prime example. Even in the strict thermodynamics sense, the earth is not a closed system because of this. The sun ejects matter as well that affects the earth with solar flares and the likes, so it's not strictly energy.

Anyways the entropy calculations are different for closed, open and isolated systems. In an isolated system the rate never decreases but in open and closed systems it does because of the exchange of energy or matter. I see the argument that in some senses they could say the earth is closed, but not in the evolutionary sense that we are talking about.
edit on 15-12-2014 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 15 2014 @ 12:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: funkadeliaaaa
a reply to: Barcs

Why cant DDAO be the mechanism through which evolution is achieved on this planet?


Because DDAO is all encompassing according to the hypothesis. It includes all matter, so evolution would be a mechanism of DDAO rather than the opposite. If not, you are suggesting the DDAO is a result of evolution which wouldn't make sense since evolution only applies to biological life and not all matter.

I'm saying that DDAO could cause evolution (or just the genetic mutations aspect of it). Evolution can't cause DDAO.


this hypothesis essentially posits that the complexity of both animate (living) and inanimate (non-living) forms in the known universe is driven by the second law of thermodynamics (dissipation). This means complexity emerges and continually evolves over time to become and more efficient at the spreading out of heat / source energy.


Again, why can't evolution be the method in which this happens on earth? Reversing the question to me doesn't answer it. You said it would replace natural selection. You were incorrect in this assumption and apparently aren't familiar enough with the theory to even guess at that or say something like "I predict this will be proven".
edit on 15-12-2014 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 15 2014 @ 12:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: funkadeliaaaa


Fine, I will consider it very carefully.
(2 seconds later)
Heres wheres you wrong:

What did you do, bounce it round the inside of your skull and listen for the echoes?
No, actually i considered it very carefully as you requested for a few moments, and realized i am not an idiot, and your ideas are wrong.


(See, anybody can be a smart alec, not just you.)

Now, let's get serious, shall we?

(quote: Nothing is selected out of some anthropomorphic value system to react to the forces of nature in the way they do./quote)

Where does an anthropomorphic value system come into in the theory of evolution by natural selection?
Exactly where i described.

(quote: The process does not involve selection, it involves organization./quote)
How can you organize things without selecting them? I'm curious — to say the least.
Another hint of anthropomorphism?

To answer the question. By principles. The universe is organised by mathematical constants that bring order and harmony to the universe, and the laws of physics are what govern the behavior of matter in the universe, not natural selection as you claim.


"""Unless you believe in a creator who literally selected all the primordial ingredients of matter beforehand and wrote the laws before hand, then hey ive got nothing against you if that's what you believe, cool theory, but it would be hard to prove scientifically."""
Thanks for that, it was very illuminating. Your argument is based on a misunderstanding of what natural selection is and how it is supposed to work. Precisely the same misunderstanding, as it happens, that PhotonEffect laboured under earlier: the belief that evolution is a teleological process, and that selective fitness is some kind of unchanging, absolute state rather than a flexible, environmentally modulated one.
I am not arguing that selective (dissipation driven) fitness (adaptability) is unchanging. I am saying that the mechanism behind that drives that dissipation and adaptability is unchanging and universal. The misunderstanding lies with you



posted on Dec, 15 2014 @ 12:46 PM
link   
a reply to: Barcs
A principle of the hypothesis is actually that evolution can and does facilitate DDAO. And yes, according to abiogenesus, evolution can also pply to non-biological matter. So, according to the modern synthesis and a new synthesis with DDAO hypotehsis (if proven), non-biological evolution, could be seen to be not a cause exactly but a component of the DDAO mechanism.



posted on Dec, 15 2014 @ 01:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: funkadeliaaaa
a reply to: Barcs
A principle of the hypothesis is actually that evolution can and does facilitate DDAO. And yes, according to abiogenesus, evolution can also pply to non-biological matter. So, according to the modern synthesis and a new synthesis with DDAO hypotehsis (if proven), non-biological evolution, could be seen to be not a cause exactly but a component of the DDAO mechanism.


Abiogenesis is not evolution. It is a hypothesis separate from evolution. It seems many of your misconceptions stem from you not understanding what evolution actually is. Modern synthesis is about genetic mutations and natural selection causing the DIVERSITY of life on earth. It is impossible to have a genetic mutation with no genes therefor modern synthesis does not apply to abiogenesis. This is why I originally said that DDAO hypothesis is more about the origin of life than evolution itself.
edit on 15-12-2014 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
18
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join