Home | Community | Message Board

Magic Mushrooms Zamnesia
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.


Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Unfolding Nature Shop: Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

Jump to first unread post Pages: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4  [ show all ]
Re: Deconstructing evolution. [Re: Cracka_X]
    #11583958 -

Sorry Crackax, but you missed the bus. Take a closer look.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Deconstructing evolution. [Re: daytripper23]
    #11584135 -

http://www.amazon.com/Not-Chance-Shattering-Modern-Evolution/dp/1880582244

"Each new revelation in genetic research, no matter how bizarre and unforeseen, can be construed as a ringing confirmation of the theory of evolution, or so evolutionary biologists would have us believe. With this book, Dr. Lee Spetner risks the wrath of the evolution establishment by challenging the validity of the neo-Darwinian theory, or "dogma" as he calls it. Evolutionists assume that the observed ability of organisms like finches and bacteria to adapt to altered environments is clear proof of the NDT, which holds that random mutations in the DNA molecule are a prime factor in these adaptations. But this inference is negated by compelling new evidence at every level of biology according to Spetner, whose credentials include an MIT doctorate in physics, expertise in molecular biology, and published papers on biology in prestigious scientific journals. Numerous experiments are cited indicating many of these survival modifications are linked to a particular class of nonrandom mutations responding on cue to specific changes in the environment. A given external stimulus will trigger the same chain reaction of hormone-induced DNA mutations every time, yielding an identical adaptive response.

Spetner claims research findings like these which don't fit approved doctrine are simply ignored by evolutionary biologists. That charge is echoed with gusto by renowned biologist Lynn Margulis, who issues scathing denunciations of their obscurantist tactics in "Slanted Truths." She believes the "stranglehold" of the Darwinian "religious movement" can only be broken by a rational counter-force from outside the fold. Spetner's authoritative book is an ideal instrument for this deliverance. Critics of the NDT will savor the hard-science rigor of molecular arguments adduced against a theory they believe is largely based on speculative just-so stories.

In a historical overview, the author reminds us that when the so-called synthetic theory was first crafted fifty years ago, DNA had yet to be discovered. Darwin himself was blissfully ignorant of the functions and structure of the cell. We now know that mammals are composed of trillions of cells, each containing an information-packed DNA molecule and hundreds of interacting organelles. It is therefore not unreasonable to ask: What if Darwin's quaint theory were advanced today for the first time? The proposal that a clumsy hypothetical mechanism modeled on eighteenth century economic theories and pigeon breeding practices could possibly account for the origins of EVERY SINGLE ELEMENT in the incredibly complex universe of microbiology unfolding before our eyes would be laughable. The hodgepodge theory of evolution has become a religious faith so deeply ingrained in its adherents they appear oblivious to its absurdities. This book relates how stunning advances in biotechnology in just the past two decades have dramatically widened the gulf separating the realities of empirical science from the myths of neo-Darwinism.

A number of these myths are spun in "The Blind Watchmaker" by one of evolution's high priests, zoologist Richard Dawkins. Spetner searched this work for traces of solid science and found mainly false assumptions and technical inaccuracies instead. He notes that, "like many passionate believers, Dawkins did not examine his evidence critically." Indeed, his vaunted cumulative selection thesis is riddled with unfounded assumptions. He built his case for it entirely on the power of the concept, with not one word of proof. His biomorph and lexical computer simulations are demonstrated not to represent natural selection as his uncritical disciples may believe, only artificial selection, as in pigeon breeding.

The author's diversified background, which also includes lectureships in information theory and communication theory at Johns Hopkins University, enables him to speak expertly on a host of technical issues surrounding this subject. Laymen who've fallen behind the dazzling pace of microbiology will be intrigued by his lucid account of the counter-intuitive adaptive strategies in Nature's arsenal. The architecture and mechanisms of the DNA molecule are examined in depth, introducing lay readers to a host of basic concepts like introns, transitrons, point mutations, mutation rates, genetic information and heritable genetic switches. This potent brew is spiced with liberal doses of humorous asides and amusing anecdotes.

It should be noted that Spetner's work is narrowly focused on the purely secular, scientific aspects of his topic. It rarely strays into the domains of metaphysics or theology. Amazon reviewers of this book who parrot mindless shibboleths about creationism and gods of the gap as they did with Michael Behe's ground-breaking "Darwin's Black Box " will clearly establish they either didn't read the book or have been hopelessly brainwashed in orthodox biology classes.

To appreciate the extent of evolutionists' distortions in the classroom, one has only to browse through a current biology textbook after reading Spetner. To cite one case, he has found thousands of examples of convergence, or parallel evolution, buried in the literature, so one might assume they are a significant fact of biological life. He demonstrates mathematically the impossibly long odds against these uncanny near-identities of features in unrelated species, like wings in birds and bats, being evolved by any feat of natural selection. Evidently academic biologists prefer not to dispute this conclusion. A typical nationally distributed college text, "Biology " by N.A. Campbell, contains 1200 pages saturated with evolution mythology, but just one short paragraph on convergence. An equally inextricable companion phenomenon, mimicry, is completely ignored. Other slanted omissions and distortions abound.

Spetner's definitive treatise on what many consider an extremely important issue deserves a much wider audience than it presently commands. Whereas the shelf space afforded the evolutionist tomes of Dawkins and Steven J. Gould in the mega book stores Barnes & Noble and Borders is measured in linear feet, "Not by Chance" is nowhere in sight, not even in inventory. These giant outlets are rapidly driving out alternative book sellers. The inability of an author of Spetner's stature to address a substantial segment of the population that would be sympathetic to his message amounts to de facto censorship by a quasi-monopolistic distribution system. Although most of them will never have the opportunity, avid evolutionists would find this slender volume an eye-opening read. "

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Deconstructing evolution. [Re: Life Upon Death]
    #11588643 -

Thanks.  I'll be buying that one.

Synoptic reading FTW


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Deconstructing evolution. [Re: Life Upon Death]
    #11589148 -

Quote:
He demonstrates mathematically the impossibly long odds against these uncanny near-identities of features in unrelated species, like wings in birds and bats, being evolved by any feat of natural selection.



The odds are 1:1 or 100%, hardly impossibly long.

Quote:
Evidently academic biologists prefer not to dispute this conclusion.



The author is also a mind-reader? Why would they take the time to dispute nonsense? They have real work to do.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Deconstructing evolution. [Re: Life Upon Death]
    #11589823 -

This particular consideration of evidence only holds that it is insufficient to circumspect evolution.

Evidence "for", or evidence "against" misses the point.

There is plenty of evidence "for" evolution, from within its stream, if we demarcate a certain interval to it. Thus there is plenty of evidence for genealogy, zoology, and many other "ologies". But the question I am raising is how this refers to evolution in its present signification - "of change", but also "as change".

This humane interval is too rigid to actually circumspect evolution. In an "evident" evolution, the "joints" of these imagined intervals (in genealogy for instance) lead us to mistakenly wield our freedom as sophistry. We politicize the human, and cage the animal. Individually, our "very own"  joints that are projected forward as reproduction and death, are wielded ritually, in the terms of their strict consummation. Generally we may either opt in or out of this flow, opting for either conservative human responsibility or animal violence.

My case is that evolution signifies change, and in that sense mystery. There is nothing to grasp as evident in that signification.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Deconstructing evolution. [Re: daytripper23]
    #11589874 -

Allegorically, Evolution is like meditation.

There are many people saying way too much in the way of "evidence", especially as it correlates to method.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Deconstructing evolution. [Re: daytripper23]
    #11589965 -

Quote:
My case is that evolution signifies change, and in that sense mystery.



The underlying mechanics or biological evolution are not completely understood, but the principles are not mysterious. I did a lot of work in genetic computer algorithms. Forgetting the coding, here it is in a nutshell.

1. Randomize population.

2. Measure each member's performance or output against a desired goal.

3. Keep some percentage of those that get the closest to the goal. (The lowest delta.)

4. Randomly mutate a small percentage of the software DNA (or variable weighting or thresholding, etc.)

5. Repeat 2-4 until population shows no significant decrease in delta for X number of generations.

The above is for 'asexual' reproduction, but similar principles apply to 'sexual' reproduction wherein two parent members mix their 'DNA'.

It is basically just feedback and adjustment.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Deconstructing evolution. [Re: OrgoneConclusion]
    #11590093 -

Quote:
The underlying mechanics or biological evolution are not completely understood, but the principles are not mysterious.



I agree principals themselves aren't mysterious, but that's only the aspect of the story you are choosing to represent. For instance, if your principal is this:

Quote:
It is basically just feedback and adjustment.



are you talking about change, or what we grasp as cause and effect?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Deconstructing evolution. [Re: daytripper23]
    #11590236 -

Not sure what you are asking.

The slowest lions can't catch zebras and die thus terminating their genetic pattern.

The fastest lions catch zebras and are able to feed their offspring thus continuing their genetic pattern.

The same with zebras. Surviving and not surviving are the basic feedback mechanisms. Of course this goes paw in paw with mating vs. not mating.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Deconstructing evolution. [Re: OrgoneConclusion]
    #11590521 -

I just didn't want to assume to much; I was making sure you were referring to something like a "mechanism".

I agree so far as survival and reproduction may be considered mechanisms in the purview of retrospective studies such as genealogy or zoology.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Deconstructing evolution. [Re: MindGorilla]
    #11600567 -



--------------------
"I'm the one who's gonna die when it's time for me to die, so let me live my life the way I want."
-Jimi Hendrix

So fuck ya'll all of ya'll If ya'll don't like me blow me

Edited by Mystery420 (12/07/09 12:57 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Deconstructing evolution. [Re: daytripper23]
    #11823247 -

This is a fascinating thread.

I've never really understood deconstruction (or poststructuralism for that matter), so let me be analytical here.  I think there's been some speculation here that language and representation seem to change our notion of evolution, and the "essence" of evolution seems to be something wispy, and sometimes contradictory. 

If that's the case, there is a deep point to this.  Some analytic philosophers argue that all laws are linguistic entities, so that they can relate events only as those events are given under specific linguistic (and representational) descriptions.  As such, it's possible  that evolution is just a set of events given under various descriptions.  There may be no "essence" to evolution, just the linguistic relations that bind the various descriptions together.  Scientists that say that one representation is a more "accurate" description of evolution probably mean to say that this form is the "reduced" form, and thus more "accurate."

Edited by evilturnip (01/13/10 04:15 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Deconstructing evolution. [Re: evilturnip]
    #11823320 -

^ not bad :strokebeard:


--------------------
Jesus loves you.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4  [ show all ]

Unfolding Nature Shop: Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* The History of Evolution
( 1 2 all )
rizingfire 4,598 26 12/19/09 09:30 PM
by Icelander
* DNA - Further Proof against Evolution
( 1 2 3 4 5 all )
rizingfire 8,064 85 12/13/09 11:25 AM
by EntheogenicPeace
* The Idea of Evolution is BS
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 all )
World Spirit 19,817 165 07/21/02 09:44 AM
by whiterastahippie
* Does contrivance necessitate a contriver?
( 1 2 3 all )
chemkid 5,783 55 08/21/02 08:37 AM
by Sclorch
* evolution or creationism?
( 1 2 3 all )
top 5,520 52 11/17/05 09:19 PM
by Moonshoe
* Why evolution isn't a scientific theory.
( 1 2 3 4 ... 13 14 )
Mr. Mushrooms 14,561 265 04/20/09 03:22 PM
by zouden
* Evolution
( 1 2 3 4 all )
SkorpivoMusterion 9,419 61 12/08/03 03:34 PM
by Anonymous
* Pinellas, Florida: Evolution's Not Enough
( 1 2 3 all )
DiploidM 4,754 48 01/04/06 04:32 PM
by BlueCoyote

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Middleman, DividedQuantum
4,814 topic views. 0 members, 75 guests and 74 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2026 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.032 seconds spending 0.007 seconds on 14 queries.