Can you really say Evolution has no Meaning ?

a reply to: cooperton

That's not what the threads about. You bring up my religion because you can't defend your own. Show an example of a population of organisms evolving into something distinctly new

I hate to be the bearer of bad news but evolution doesn't make this claim. And to my knowledge nothing on earth i can think of besides maybe a butterfly.

Evolution relies on suttle changes in each generation and after multiple generations, you may get a new species for example a zebra and a horse.

a reply to: Phantom423

Still no examples of evolution

originally posted by: dragonridr

I hate to be the bearer of bad news but evolution doesn't make this claim. And to my knowledge nothing on earth i can think of besides maybe a butterfly.

Evolution relies on suttle changes in each generation and after multiple generations, you may get a new species for example a zebra and a horse.

I'm referring to a population of organisms, not a single organism. That's the whole idea that populations can evolve given new genes that are randomly mutated which can be naturally selected to slowly generate a new population of creatures

We've never seen this happen though, despite over 100 years trying to emulate it in a lab

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: TerraLiga


Every organic structure on this planet are my examples. They all started as something distinctly different to what they are now.

That's your belief. We've never observed it in a lab with over 100 years of trying. You all have strong faith, it's a shame it's in a theory with no meaning

originally posted by: TerraLiga
. The lunatic fringe are not dead yet. Not quite.

Lol relax Stalin, you had your chance and your ideology doesn't work.

originally posted by: TzarChasm


Thus far Cooperton has refused to provide a detailed explanation of "ultimate higher purpose

That's not what the threads about. You bring up my religion because you can't defend your own. Show an example of a population of organisms evolving into something distinctly new

I'll show you what the theory actually talks about: "the process by which organisms change over time as a result of changes in heritable physical or behavioral traits" Not butterflies turning into cats, or fish spontaneously poofing into existence, that's how creationism works, which is the opposite of evolution.

originally posted by: cooperton
a reply to: Phantom423

Still no examples of evolution

originally posted by: dragonridr

I hate to be the bearer of bad news but evolution doesn't make this claim. And to my knowledge nothing on earth i can think of besides maybe a butterfly.

Evolution relies on suttle changes in each generation and after multiple generations, you may get a new species for example a zebra and a horse.

I'm referring to a population of organisms, not a single organism. That's the whole idea that populations can evolve given new genes that are randomly mutated which can be naturally selected to slowly generate a new population of creatures

We've never seen this happen though, despite over 100 years trying to emulate it in a lab

Macroevolution takes thousands of years, and it's been happening right under our noses. Another 10,000 years...who knows?

originally posted by: TzarChasm
Not butterflies turning into cats, or fish spontaneously poofing into existence

lol I never said that. I just said a population of organisms changing into something else. Like a fruit fly becoming some other kind of fly. But it NEVER happens. We've had countless generations of these things.

You guys can believe as you want, but just don't go calling it science.

Peace

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: TzarChasm
Not butterflies turning into cats, or fish spontaneously poofing into existence

lol I never said that. I just said a population of organisms changing into something else. Like a fruit fly becoming some other kind of fly. But it NEVER happens. We've had countless generations of these things.

You guys can believe as you want, but just don't go calling it science.

Peace

There are answers to your question, a long list of examples that you have seen many times before I'm sure.

But you still haven't answered my questions so I think I'll wait for you to do that instead.

a detailed explanation of "ultimate higher purpose", a concrete measurement of any "extra dimensional consciousness" supposedly interacting with our world, and proof of consciousness preceding matter

Any of those requests shouldn't be a problem for a higher power to provide

At least we can agree that evolution is also a theory.

I don't think you have the authority to say what is a theory and what is not...

Im pretty sure the rethorics when they burn pagans and whiches for not even having a Theorie were pretty much the same as you apply now.

Once the accepted theory was creationism, now it is evolution, make sure you don't miss the train.
Are you not interested in Evolving theories?
Why neither adress and see how, the ebbner effect or the many experiments that show we have in fact an impact on matter, can tie into your evolution theory...

Here we go again with the definition of theory. In science a theory is not your particular version of events, or an opinion; it is a measurable and demonstrable explanation, or an accepted explanation based on the balanced reasoning of professionals in the field.

I have saved you the trouble of Googling the term, here:
en.wikipedia.org...#:~:text=A%20scientific%20theory%20is%20an%20explanation%20of%20an,are%20tested%20under%20controlled%20 conditions%20in%20an%20experiment.

a reply to: TerraLiga
Ok...
It seems all you do is beat around the vocabulary bush.

I'm glad we can at least agree that evolution is just a theory that evolves as well. No law, no fact.

From your link

A scientific theory differs from a scientific fact or scientific law in that a theory explains "why" or "how"

what about the ebbner effect how does it tie in?
I can't regard a theory whole when important observable dynamics are not included, it is flawed or incomplete at best..

What do you mean 'just' a theory? Are you saying it has no validation?

I don't know much about the Ebbner anomaly, only that the process effects gene expression in some parts of the genome. As the process appears to regress the organism, it wouldn't be described as 'evolution', rather 'devolution'.

I will have to look more into it to discover if the findings are consistent and valid.

I see you've changed your post I replied to.

The proof of evolution is in the genome. You cannot 'see' evolution or adaptation happening before your eyes, if that's the sort of proof you're after. That's being ignorant of the process.

a reply to: TerraLiga

Sorry for changing it, yet more beating around the vocabulary bush, how can I devolve a gene with electrostatic fields what role do electrostatic fields have in evolution theory?

I'm well aware of the process and the theory is based on readings from equipment that is interpreted to formulate a theory.
its all based on interpretation of data, in the process to gater such data, it's evaluation, and conclusion there is alot of room for biased interpretation.

Of course it is a valid Theory there are many valid theories, but they're not complete.

There are to many repeatable observable experiments that proof that we as conscious matter influence the phisical reality, even if it is just one micro change.

What triggers the micro evolution you mentioned earlier?

Excluding new scientific findings from a theory will make it obsolete in no time, just ask Christians from back then and how it went with their flat earth.

It is staggering how evolution theory is holding onto its long outdated findings, and behave as if no one has the expertise to question their authority on the subject...

You see the similarities?

sometimes it's funny how the experts in evolution are not evolving their theory. Maybe quantum mechanics hasn't reached evolution theorists yet...

I'm not sure what you're reading, but the theories on abiogenesis, evolution and adaptation are expanding every month. Our understanding is better than it has ever been, and will always continue to increase in depth and scope. All of these theories are not fully complete, and this is something that creationists always fail to understand - mainly because their alternative explanation is complete. Never before have so many sciences collaborated to understand our universe, our planet and the organisms that inhabit it. To say that life sciences are stuck is utterly absurd. That is only true of fundamentalist religions.

Many previously rock-solid theories have been superseded by more accurate theories over the last few hundred years by better and more comprehensive research and understanding, mostly due to the technology utilised to find, conduct and interpret the research. Only one pre-historic theory has persisted - creation.

To answer your question, I have no idea what electrostatics has to do with evolution as it's way out of my field of understanding. My immediate guess would be it has nothing to do with evolution as a natural process. It would be forced and therefore add nothing to the established theory.

A question for you. Does a theory have to complete before you accept it?

a reply to: Terpene

Yeah electrogenic effects seem to be the main underlying scaffold of biological organisms. From brains to bones there is electromagnetic effects, such as piezoelectricity in bones, DNA and proteins which creates electric charge from mechanical pressure. It's these sorts of electromagnetic cues that are likely responsible for upholding organisms during development and post maturity. Material reductionism is long obsolete as being the founder of organisms, it's just easier for acolytes to understand.

The Ebbner effect reminds me of one of Luc Montagnier's discoveries where he found that electromagnetic frequencies were capable of generating viral genomes (source) to around 96% accuracy with nothing but water and monomers as the substrate. It is these sorts of experiment that make me believe there is some intelligible aspect to electromagnetism (including its generic term "light"). This intelligent wave-like feature that is capable of harboring data that can assemble a viral genome is proof of that assertion.

a reply to: TerraLiga

as long as it presents itself as theory and not as fact i have no problem with incomplete theories, it is scientifically inevitable if you consider Gödel's incompleteness theorems.

Does a theory have to be complete before you accept it?

I can accept it but wont defend nor belief in it, to many unknowns to take a stance for or against it.

I like to see productiv interdisciplinary discussion, unfortunately many experts don`t like that as it could lead to them having to reevaluate their stance.

It would be forced and therefore add nothing to the established theory.

So generating slightly diffrent magnetic fields to the one earth is emmiting, and seeing a reaction in the expression of the genome, does not indicate that electromagnetic fields have an influence on the evolution of the Genome?

Evolution is constant as are changes in the electromagnetic field of the earth...

I wonder what is the cause and effect with evolution, as far as I`m aware you just chalk cause of to beeing chance, correct me if I`m wrong but that doesn`t seem very scientific...

Explain what the term 'evolution' means to you. To some it means the complete story of active organisms on Earth. That is not what it is.

I regard evolution and adaptation as natural processes brought about by natural occurrences, so forcibly introducing a strong field where one would never occur naturally is not evolution in a natural sense, in the same way selective breeding is not natural evolution from one species to the next.

a reply to: cooperton

Still no examples of evolution

Still no examples of evolution THAT YOU BOTHER TO READ. You simply ignore the posts. It's the arrogance of ignorance.
Denial of reality.

originally posted by: Terpene
So generating slightly diffrent magnetic fields to the one earth is emmiting, and seeing a reaction in the expression of the genome, does not indicate that electromagnetic fields have an influence on the evolution of the Genome?

Evolution is constant as are changes in the electromagnetic field of the earth...

I wonder what is the cause and effect with evolution, as far as I`m aware you just chalk cause of to beeing chance, correct me if I`m wrong but that doesn`t seem very scientific...

"Slightly different?"
You should read more about this claim, it seems.
It was supposedly a high voltage electrostatic field, which is not a magnetic field (unlike the Earth's field.)
Magnetic fields are created by the movement of charges. Now, think about the meaning of the term "static."

Harte

a reply to: Harte

As far as I understand it the charge of earth's surface and the diffrent charge in the ionosphere is causing an electrostatic field in the non conductive atmosphere... Am I missing something?

I assume that the field in the experiment has to be pretty high to overwrite earths own electro static field.

originally posted by: cooperton
a reply to: Terpene

Yeah electrogenic effects seem to be the main underlying scaffold of biological organisms. From brains to bones there is electromagnetic effects, such as piezoelectricity in bones, DNA and proteins which creates electric charge from mechanical pressure. It's these sorts of electromagnetic cues that are likely responsible for upholding organisms during development and post maturity. Material reductionism is long obsolete as being the founder of organisms, it's just easier for acolytes to understand.

The Ebbner effect reminds me of one of Luc Montagnier's discoveries where he found that electromagnetic frequencies were capable of generating viral genomes (source) to around 96% accuracy with nothing but water and monomers as the substrate. It is these sorts of experiment that make me believe there is some intelligible aspect to electromagnetism (including its generic term "light"). This intelligent wave-like feature that is capable of harboring data that can assemble a viral genome is proof of that assertion.

Still waiting for a response that answers my questions


a reply to: Terpene

The ebner effect appears to be pseudo science, no one has reproduced the experiment since before 2000 or documented the effect since that patent was filed.

a reply to: TzarChasm

pseudo science lol
why has no one reproduced the experiment?

that is the last argument whenever the findings are not compatible with the theorie one defends... but as supected.

go and read "The new Inquisition" you will find that your arguments and tactics are very much aligned with what is postulated.

Evolution is just a theorie as is the ebbner effect... show me an experiment that proofs evolution, not interpeted trough data. something that I can observe otherwise yours is as pseudo as mine only difference is you have the establishment behind you... which is worth nothing looking at history you are on the side of the suppressors of new info and believer in antics.
I`m pretty sure the pope couldn`t see it coming either, that is what happens if you have tunelvision

I will show myself out