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: 9
18
<< 6  7  8    10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 15 2014 @ 02:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: Barcs

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.


I understand evolution perfectly well... It is you who has misconceptions and they stem from your inability to comprehend what DDAO is.

Allow me to correct you on something you said:

Modern synthesis is about genetic mutations and natural selection causing the DIVERSITY of life on earth

Actually modern syntehsis is about genetic ADAPTATION and natural selection causing the increased chances of SURVIVAL (as well as the diversity) of life on this planet.


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.

It is also impossible to have a genetic transformation without replication. In abiogenesis, non-biological evolutionary principles do apply. Namely self replication, and adapting to the environment. Therefore, DDAO is very much bout evolution, even if it doesn't apply to the strict definitions of evolution in modern synthesis. Essentially Abiogenesis, and the fundamental PROCESSES in the modern synthesis model, are according to the DDAO driven by the same underlying universal principle of mechanics, the second law of thermodynamic radiation.




posted on Dec, 15 2014 @ 02:19 PM
link   
I agree with this but I would also say that although the majority of laypeople use English very loosely, not all clearly spoken and understandable people are scientists. I for one am not much for "blurry" communication, being a layman myself. Generally though, those with greater skills with language are usually talking with others of the same level or somewhere near the same.


originally posted by: Krazysh0tWhat 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.

edit on 15-12-2014 by Asynchrony because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 15 2014 @ 03:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: funkadeliaaaa
I understand evolution perfectly well... It is you who has misconceptions and they stem from your inability to comprehend what DDAO is.

Sorry, but anybody that claims abiogenesis is part of evolution, does not understand evolution. I have corrected you on numerous misunderstandings of natural selection and evolution.



Actually modern syntehsis is about genetic ADAPTATION and natural selection causing the increased chances of SURVIVAL (as well as the diversity) of life on this planet.

No offense, but you aren't correcting anything I said, you are just rewording it with metaphors. They mean the same thing. Unless you deny that radiation causes genetic mutations? Is radiation leading to a genetic mutation a method of adaptation? Of course not, so the 2 concepts are not mutually exclusive.




In abiogenesis, non-biological evolutionary principles do apply. Namely self replication, and adapting to the environment. Therefore, DDAO is very much bout evolution, even if it doesn't apply to the strict definitions of evolution in modern synthesis. Essentially Abiogenesis, and the fundamental PROCESSES in the modern synthesis model, are according to the DDAO driven by the same underlying universal principle of mechanics, the second law of thermodynamic radiation.


There is no non-biological evolutionary principles when referencing modern synthesis. If you are not talking about genetic mutations sorted by natural selection, you aren't talking about modern synthesis, you are simply talking about the layman's definition of the word "evolution" which can also mean simply change over time and can apply to almost anything. It isn't the same as biological evolution and cannot be compared. Abiogenesis has absolutely zero to do with modern synthesis, and none of its principles apply to abiogenesis. It is only your misunderstanding of it that leads you to believe this.
edit on 15-12-2014 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 15 2014 @ 03:14 PM
link   
a reply to: Barcs

There isn't a SINGLE principle of modern synthesis that applies to inorganic matter.


Well, the hypothesis in the OP is trying to create one. This has been pointed out to the OP multiple times in the thread already though, starting with me on page 1.



posted on Dec, 15 2014 @ 04:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: funkadeliaaaa
I understand evolution perfectly well... It is you who has misconceptions and they stem from your inability to comprehend what DDAO is.

Sorry, but anybody that claims abiogenesis is part of evolution, does not understand evolution. I have corrected you on numerous misunderstandings of natural selection and evolution.


It is also impossible to have a genetic transformation (evolution) without replication. In abiogenesis, non-biological the same evolutionary principles do apply. Namely self replication, and adapting to the environment. Therefore, Abiogenesis is very much bout evolution, even if it doesn't apply to the biological definitions of evolution in modern synthesis. -- Did you notice how im having to paraphrase my own words from just one post ago?



"""Actually modern syntehsis is about genetic ADAPTATION and natural selection causing the increased chances of SURVIVAL (as well as the diversity) of life on this planet."""
No offense, but you aren't correcting anything I said, you are just rewording it with metaphors.
Thank you, but I am pointing out corrections. Mutation and Adaptation different concepts. Adaptation refers to the causality, mutation implies a the adaptation is unpredictable and random... this is bad science, based on a lack of insight about the epigenetic processes behind every genetic adaptation.

They mean the same thing.
They reaally don't mean the same thing... i dont know about you, but the last time i checked a dictionary the words adaptation and mutation were not synonymous.

Unless you deny that radiation causes genetic mutations? Is radiation leading to a genetic mutation a method of adaptation? Of course not, so the 2 concepts are not mutually exclusive.
So now youre saying theyre not synonymous? To answer the question anyway, Actually yes, all organisms including single celled amoeba have "skin". This adapts to the radiation levels in the environment, in order to protect the organism. I wouldnt call it mutation because of reasons i just explained. In terms of the first single organisms adaptation to the radiation of the environment It is based on the principle of protecting the nucleus that contains the genetic code that psses it on for survival... the drive to replicate seen in both biological and non biologicaal matter is what leads to this adaptation to the suns rays, not random mutation as you call it... there's no such thing... its a pseudo-scientific word parading as science. the reality of change in the universe is adaptation through and through.




"""In abiogenesis, non-biological evolutionary principles do apply. Namely self replication, and adapting to the environment. Therefore, DDAO is very much bout evolution, even if it doesn't apply to the strict definitions of evolution in modern synthesis. Essentially Abiogenesis, and the fundamental PROCESSES in the modern synthesis model, are according to the DDAO driven by the same underlying universal principle of mechanics, the second law of thermodynamic radiation."""
There is no non-biological evolutionary principles when referencing modern synthesis. If you are not talking about genetic mutations sorted by natural selection, you aren't talking about modern synthesis, you are simply talking about the layman's definition of the word "evolution" which can also mean simply change over time and can apply to almost anything. It isn't the same as biological evolution and cannot be compared. Abiogenesis has absolutely zero to do with modern synthesis, and none of its principles apply to abiogenesis. It is only your misunderstanding of it that leads you to believe this.

Well, now youre just turning into a very bad liar which is below par. I know, and can name two principles that apply to both modern synthesis & abiogenesis, adaptation, and replication
edit on 15 12 14 by funkadeliaaaa because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 15 2014 @ 04:38 PM
link   
a reply to: funkadeliaaaa

Could you maybe fix the tags on that reply to Barcs so that some sort of sense can be made of it? It would be really helpful in assisting me in differentiating what you're trying to say from what you're paraphrasing and misquoting from Barcs. That way I can give you a proper rebuttal and education in Modern Evolutionary Synthesis and demonstrate just how off the Rez you actually are. Its an interesting hypothesis and pretty typical for a physicist to attempt to unify multiple concepts for what its worth but that's all this is, a hypothesis. The more extraordinary the claim, the more extraordinary the supporting evidence you need and I'm not seeing that present. Which is likely why the article is in Business Insider and not American Journal of Physics. im not unfamiliar with England and his work as he's been working on this for some time now. I know some people who think he's hot S# but I'm inclined to be more cautious as I think its highly speculative thus far. Fr me, the only redeeming factor if it is that it hinges on the second law of thermodynamics and demonstrates that evolutionary theory clearly doesn't violate it, but that isn't new news and its unnecessary for MES to be valid.



posted on Dec, 15 2014 @ 05:14 PM
link   
a reply to: peter vlar
Tell me specifically what you want me to explain better and i will do my best.



posted on Dec, 15 2014 @ 05:26 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Is that good enough for you?

Your explanation does just fine in capturing the underlying meaning of natural selection as it’s accepted today, which was no surprise. I knew you could articulate it. But it only highlights its inadequacies as an actual causal force behind evolution.

What you've described, and really what natural selection has more to do with, is population dynamics. In any population, and for any number of reasons, there will be those that survive and those that don't. This is an ubiquitous truth of life. It seems rather self evident that generally a better fit organism will out survive a less fit one. But this is certainly not the law of the jungle, not even close. Natural selection merely identifying this as "differential survival and reproduction rate" doesn't actually explain anything about what the causal mechanisms of evolution really are.

It’s a catch all phrase and people are seeing it everywhere now. Well, in explaining everything, it explains nothing. I think it was Lewontin who said that.

You said:

Mutations are either benign, harmful, or helpful in helping that organism survive.

Which is generally what’s accepted. We already know that most mutations are either deleterious or neutral, which would leave only a small percentage to provide the so-called "grist for the mill of natural selection." Not to mention the modern synthesis (MS) wants us to keep in mind that these mutations are random. I can't help but ask myself: how is this an adequate explanation for all the extremely useful and detailed adaptations out there? How did organisms survive this long with that kind of luck of the draw?

It's no wonder that natural selection requires extremely long time scales to “operate”. Yet this does nothing to satisfy the need for an explanatory cause of saltatory events, which I suspect occur more often than people like to believe. And I know you're a fan of punctuated equilibrium too. I fail to see how natural selection is a causal force behind this event. From my perspective, it makes more sense that natural selection, if we must refer to it, only maintains stasis and preserves (rather than is the cause of) adaptations.

You point out:

If that gene happens to help it survive better, the chances of the gene being passed down increase. This can appear like it is being selected, but that isn't true

First: So why bother with the term selected at all then? It's used in the majority of references to natural selection.

Second: Is it ever just one gene that contributes to an organism's propensity to survive? I don't think so. There have to be a number of genes that come into play. This is where natural selection gets into trouble because who is to decide which gene gets selected for according to the modern synthesis? How does anyone determine that without engaging in conjecture? You can't, that's why I always laugh at these just so explanations. You people all love telling these narratives of how things became what they are.

Listen to the drivel in this video. It's one of many examples found around the web of a nice, evolutionary just-so story. This one explains how long legs can become fixed in a human population... and this is what is being taught to people as being the end-all explanation behind everything we see in life. Pure hogwash. Yet no one seems to care; Why? Maybe they're content, or too pre-occupied with what creationists are chirping about...

So yeah, the OP is right I think. Natural selection will soon meet it’s demise and will be replaced by theories with actual explanatory substance.
edit on 15-12-2014 by PhotonEffect because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 15 2014 @ 05:32 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

The OP made a mistake in calling it Darwinism, that is outdated. We aren't trying to discuss that theory because it has already been replaced with modern evolutionary synthesis. But in any case, I wasn't the one talking about you calling it Darwinism, but it sounds like you are trying to argue semantics here. Why pursue a useless conversation?


HArdly a useless argument. The entirety of natural selection resides on a shaky foundation of pure metaphor.

And speaking of outdated terms, is it not ironic that Darwinism is no longer considered a viable term, yet its underlying principle of natural selection is? What a farce.
edit on 15-12-2014 by PhotonEffect because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 15 2014 @ 05:38 PM
link   
a reply to: Astyanax

Hi Astyanax:
Always nice to hear from you.

You state:


I just want people to know that you're arguing from premises that have been demonstrated to you to be false.


Was this demonstrated to be false by you? I don't recall that-- oh wait- I do remember your example of the palm trees being washed away by a tidal wave, and your claim that the ones that remained standing did so because they were blessed with deep roots and thus, will pass this advantage down... I seem to recall poking holes in that just so story but of course you just dismissed it... How about this- if you don't want to rehash an old argument then perhaps you can refrain from directing your baseless claims towards me.

Cheers,
edit on 15-12-2014 by PhotonEffect because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 15 2014 @ 05:44 PM
link   
a reply to: GetHyped

Hi GetHyped,

I trust you're equipped with a device that has access to google. Unless you're in China, or some such country that censors internet use, you should be able to find this stuff for yourself.

Here are two that may or may not help answer your question:
Lecture on Neo-Darwinism by Richard Dawkins
old.richarddawkins.net...

Stephen Jay Gould's take on it:
tannerlectures.utah.edu...
(This is one is pretty interesting)

edit on 15-12-2014 by PhotonEffect because: gramma



posted on Dec, 15 2014 @ 05:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Barcs

It's not that big of a deal and there's no real need to refer to neo-darwinism as a derogatory or insulting term. It means nothing other than to identify someone who adheres to the modern synthesis and its perspective of evolution. Which you seemingly do, judging by your writings on the subject. Im not at all interested in the creationist debate since it has no place in an evolutionary discussion. Which I know we can agree on at least that.



The term darwinist or darwinism is an immediate red flag that you are dealing with a scientifically illiterate science denier, in the large majority of cases

Well maybe to you I guess. But not everyone who disagrees with the "darwinian" view, as subsumed by the MS, is a creationist thinker. You would be severely misguided to think that.



There is nothing metaphorical about better adapted organisms being more likely to survive a given environment. You are getting hung up on the terminology, not the actual meaning.


There is nothing explanatory about it either. It's the same as saying that generally a faster runner will have a better chance at crossing the finish line first, thus winning the race according to the law of winning races. Where's the explanatory power in that? Or is Astyanax going to tell us all that the winner of the race was naturally selected to win. Pfffft, please

And yes, I am absolutely hung up with the usage of terminology. Probably obvious by now
edit on 15-12-2014 by PhotonEffect because: more bad gramma



posted on Dec, 15 2014 @ 06:29 PM
link   
a reply to: Barcs




If you are not talking about genetic mutations sorted by natural selection, you aren't talking about modern synthesis,


And if you are talking about genetic mutations sorted by natural selection, while you may be talking about modern synthesis, you are not talking about real evolution.



posted on Dec, 15 2014 @ 06:32 PM
link   
a reply to: PhotonEffect

Lol what is the meaning of survival?



posted on Dec, 15 2014 @ 07:46 PM
link   
a reply to: soficrow


I flagged MSF's pleas for help when the epidemic first started

You also did you best to convince people that ebola was airborne, or about to become airbone, that there would be half a million victims by January 2015 (according to a report which never seems to have appeared) and much more besides. There are literally dozens of scaremongering ebola threads on your profile.

You can say what you like, but the truth is right here on ATS and you can't change it.


regarding my being "proud" - where the heck did you get that bit of smear?

From your signature, which (at this time) references several of those threads, with titles like 'Ebola Epidemic Could Become Global Crisis'. Why put them in your signature if you're not proud of them?



posted on Dec, 15 2014 @ 08:31 PM
link   
a reply to: funkadeliaaaa


i... realized i am not an idiot

Well done. I never said you were, by the way.


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


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


funkadeliaaaa
Exactly where i described.

If I'm reading this right, you don't understand how evolution by natural selection works. It works by killing — sometimes on the spot, at other times pre-emptively, in that the organism never has a chance to get born. What does the killing? Accident, disiease, predators, conspecifics — ultimately, the environment. What's left? Over time, organisms better adapted to that particular environment. Not necessarily stronger, faster, smarter or anything judged as 'better' in a human value system. Just horses for courses. How is that not selection?

A bacterium that lives in the gills of a clam and changes material filtered out of the water into food the clam can eat doesn't need to be strong, fast or smart. It just needs to be good at symbiosis, and producing edible stuff from its anus.


funkadeliaaaa
The process does not involve selection, it involves organization.


funkadeliaaaa
Another hint of anthropomorphism?

I have no idea. Enlighten me. Are you saying all organization and selection must be artificial? Or that organization is artificial but selection is not? Explain to me how this statement makes any sense in context.

Natural selection is a filter. Darwin called it the 'winnow of nature', but he might better have called it a sieve. What do you think happens when seals in a harem only mate (or only get to mate) with the head bull and the few sneaky beggars who are fast enough and sly enough to get a quick one in while the big boy's back is turned? Is that selection or organization? Who or what is doing the selecting (or organizing)?


I am saying that the mechanism behind that drives that dissipation and adaptability is unchanging and universal. The misunderstanding lies with you

If that was all you were saying there would be no misunderstanding. However, you have completely missed the point both of the article you referenced and of the resulting discussion.

'Dissipation-driven adaptive organization' is natural selection, no more and no less. It is natural selection applied to inanimate matter. Here's what you're not getting: some matter is selected to form organized aggregations, while the rest is rejected. Every local increase in organization results in greater disorganization elsewhere.

Organic natural selection is simply a concentrated form of the same thing. Successful organisms dissipate more energy than unsuccessful ones over time, because they live longer and have offspring. Dissipation-driven adaptive organization continues — not for any mystical reason but because the natural laws that determine the behaviour of matter have it as a result. It is not, as Barcs and you are conceiving it, a factor in natural selection. It is natural selection.



posted on Dec, 15 2014 @ 08:42 PM
link   
a reply to: Astyanax

Ok you win.



posted on Dec, 15 2014 @ 10:11 PM
link   
a reply to: Astyanax
Ok, allow me to get philisophical now about this then.

I started off by saying surivival is not a component of the DDAO model, but i think later i changed my argument to agree with the modern synthesis.... but, survival i dont think is what drives the adaptation still.. i think on an ultimate level there is no compunction to survive.

What do you think?



posted on Dec, 16 2014 @ 07:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: PhotonEffect
a reply to: Krazysh0t
*snip*

It’s a catch all phrase and people are seeing it everywhere now. Well, in explaining everything, it explains nothing. I think it was Lewontin who said that.


Well until you can show that it is being controlled by an external force, THAT is the best explanation we got. Just because it doesn't satisfy all questions doesn't mean it is invalid.


Which is generally what’s accepted. We already know that most mutations are either deleterious or neutral, which would leave only a small percentage to provide the so-called "grist for the mill of natural selection." Not to mention the modern synthesis (MS) wants us to keep in mind that these mutations are random. I can't help but ask myself: how is this an adequate explanation for all the extremely useful and detailed adaptations out there? How did organisms survive this long with that kind of luck of the draw?


Because probability given a large enough population and enough time WILL produce something beneficial. Since the organisms are competing against each other, it is only natural that the odds would increase for something beneficial to evolve to help it survive better among its peer species that it shares its environment with. Remember for every species that you see that has survived, there are TONS more that have gone extinct because they didn't win the evolutionary lotto.


It's no wonder that natural selection requires extremely long time scales to “operate”. Yet this does nothing to satisfy the need for an explanatory cause of saltatory events, which I suspect occur more often than people like to believe. And I know you're a fan of punctuated equilibrium too. I fail to see how natural selection is a causal force behind this event. From my perspective, it makes more sense that natural selection, if we must refer to it, only maintains stasis and preserves (rather than is the cause of) adaptations.


Sorry if that makes more sense to you, but that isn't what the evidence is bearing out. The evidence favors punctuated equilibrium. But it's not like we can't see examples of this in the real world in non-biological evolutionary trees.

Look at music. When rock music first exploded onto the scene, all sorts of rock genres exploded into proliferation. Now rock music is evening out, creating smaller and smaller niche subgenres of bigger genres (basically creating a musical taxonomic scale). Rap and techno (edm) are now going through similar genre creating phases. In 20 - 30 years, they too will even out the same way.


First: So why bother with the term selected at all then? It's used in the majority of references to natural selection.


Which term would you prefer? Natural Lottery?


Second: Is it ever just one gene that contributes to an organism's propensity to survive? I don't think so. There have to be a number of genes that come into play. This is where natural selection gets into trouble because who is to decide which gene gets selected for according to the modern synthesis? How does anyone determine that without engaging in conjecture? You can't, that's why I always laugh at these just so explanations. You people all love telling these narratives of how things became what they are.


Who is this "who" you are talking about? Natural forces in the environment select the genes that get passed on. It's that simple. You seem to be implying that there is a general direction that evolution must go it. That isn't true, evolution is shaped by previous evolutionary steps. In computer science that is called recursion.


It's one of many examples found around the web of a nice, evolutionary just-so story. This one explains how long legs can become fixed in a human population... and this is what is being taught to people as being the end-all explanation behind everything we see in life. Pure hogwash. Yet no one seems to care; Why? Maybe they're content, or too pre-occupied with what creationists are chirping about...


Why? What's wrong with it?


So yeah, the OP is right I think. Natural selection will soon meet it’s demise and will be replaced by theories with actual explanatory substance.


Even if that is the case, I predict that you won't accept them either. You'll nitpick them apart trying to find the smallest holes to claim victory when nothing you have argued will point to it being disproven (just like you do with modern evolutionary synthesis). I predict this because NO scientific theory is going to go along side the bible, so I don't expect you to ever except any scientific explanation for life.



posted on Dec, 16 2014 @ 07:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: PhotonEffect
a reply to: Krazysh0t
HArdly a useless argument. The entirety of natural selection resides on a shaky foundation of pure metaphor.


No it doesn't.


And speaking of outdated terms, is it not ironic that Darwinism is no longer considered a viable term, yet its underlying principle of natural selection is? What a farce.


Chemistry's foundations are rooted in Alchemy, but I don't see anyone going around calling Chemists, Alchemists.



new topics

top topics



 
18
<< 6  7  8    10  11 >>

log in

join