- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Why are theories on evolution, climate change, etc sacrosanct,
Posted on 4/1/17 at 9:42 am to DawgsLife
Posted on 4/1/17 at 9:42 am to DawgsLife
quote:
You see? that's my whole point. If there were solid evidence it would be a law. There is observational evidence, which is not the same thing. But 400 years ago there was observational evidence that the sun rotated around the earth....or so they thought...until it changed. 400 years from now? Who knows? EVERY scientist will tell you that science changes.
The facts of evolution come from observational evidence of current processes, from imperfections in organisms recording historical common descent, and from transitions in the fossil record. Theories of evolution provide a provisional explanation for these facts.
There is solid evidence. There is more than solid evidence. Scientific theories aren't synonymous with the general concept of a "theory" - they're substantiated by facts, tested hypotheses, and actual laws.
Most of our current understanding of evolutionary theory comes from molecular analysis and genetics, which corroborates and indisputably validates the troves of already extant data and evidence.
quote:
Evolution by natural Selection is but one theory of evolution. Do you have any idea of how many theories of evolution there are?
Evolution by Natural Selection
Front-loaded Evolution
Evolutionary Developmental Biology (Evo-Devo)
Evolution by Natural Genetic Engineering
Somatic Selection Structuralist / Platonic Evolution
Biological Self-Organization
Multilevel Evolution
Epigenetic Evolution
Evolution by Symbiogenesis
Teleological Selection
None of those concepts have anything to do with evolution via natural selection.
Front-loaded "evolution" has nothing to do with how populations change over time. Nothing. This "theory" has theological undertones and appears to be synonymous with intelligent design. Fun fact: evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life.
Developmental biology is an incredibly important field, and a lot of the findings from this field have helped further corroborate evolutionary theory. Just look at Hox genes, for example.
NGE, again, has nothing to do with evolutionary theory. It simply refers to how alterations within a genome occur. As we've developed more advanced investigative methods, we continue to discover just how intricate some of these DNA altering methods can be. For example, just a simple methylation of a histone complex could result in differentiated genetic regulation, and therefore altered phenotypic expression.
Biological self-organization has nothing to do with evolutionary theory. Molecules react in specific ways based on chemical interactions to form everything from proteins to various cellular structures.
Multilevel evolution (group selection) is a concept that corroborates evolutionary theory. Mathematical models have been employed to evaluate the significance of individuals within a group acting altruistically, or selfishly, and how that influences the net fitness of not only the individual, but of the group. This entire model operates on the paradigm of evolutionary theory via natural selection.
Epigenetic evolution, or really...just "epigenetics" refers to how alterations are made in the differential expression of genes due to biochemical modifications made to chemical structures other than nucleotides themselves. Again, this really has nothing to do with evolution.
Symbiogenesis, like abiogenesis, has nothing to do with evolution via natural selection.
Teleological selection, like front-loaded evolution, are philosophical and theistically insidious concepts masquerading as scientific theories. Teleology makes no refutations or contradictions to the tenants of evolution via natural selection; rather, it seems to misrepresent and misunderstand why certain functions exist - for example, a mouse with a dark brown coat allows it to blend in to the foliage and soil, allowing it to evade predation from hawks. Teleology questions the "function" of the coat, rather than why the coloration of the coat is the way it is. The brown coat of the mouse doesn't serve any inherent "function" and it wasn't "guided" in any way. Rather, the genetic variance in the mouse population resulted in some mice with darker coats than the average for the population. With the hawks soaring overhead, they were able to more easily identify mice with lighter coats, thereby affording the mice with darker coats a higher fitness. Over time, the genetic variance of the mice population shifts to darker colored coats, which serve no preconceived "function", but are rather strictly a product of the stressors of the environment.
I've never heard of Platonic Evolution, so perhaps you could provide some specifics regarding this concept.
This post was edited on 4/1/17 at 9:54 am
2
Posted on 4/1/17 at 10:04 am to Cs
quote:
None of those concepts have anything to do with evolution via natural selection.
I understand that. Obviously i am not expressing myself well.....that's my fault.
In listing those, I was merely pointing out that there were many other theories out there about evolution. The poster I was responding to, (I don't even remember who it was) said something that indicated to me that he thought of evolution only in terms of Natural Selection. I was simply pointing out that there were many other theories concerning evolution than just Natural Selection.
I hope this better explains why i made that long, boring list.
Posted on 4/1/17 at 10:23 am to Cs
Since we are questioning dogma....
Randall proposes cataclysmic cosmic impacts as the source of radical changes to the earth. Keep in mind that he has been accused of being a "climate change denier"
That statement alone is pretty telling about the motivations of the current political movement (gradualists, uniformitarians...). There is no search for knowledge or truth. Some folks just want to be "right" to drive policy/funding/agendas...
LINK
Chevron forms created on a stream sandbar by local spring floods in Georgia, USA. The significant point is that these forms were produced by flowing water, not wind. After the flood subsides and the sand deposits dry out they will become subject to wind erosion and modification until they are stabilized by vegetation.
Chevron forms found on the southern tip of Madagascar. Were these formations created by wind or water? If the chevrons are formed of fine-grained wind transported sediment why is the line of demarcation at the distal end so distinct? What kind of aeolian process would produce features of this form and magnitude? The light colored deposits near the upper end of the chevrons are sand. This sand is undoubtedly being modified by wind, but this does not mean that the whole complex of lancet-like forms composing the chevrons were originally created by wind.
For scale...
---
Small scale parabolic dune forms and hummocky topography produced by local flooding in Peachtree Creek, GA are clearly visible in this photograph. The open end of the parabola seen in the top center points in the up-current direction which was from right to left. Again, these sedimentary forms are initially produced by flowing water and later modified by wind.
Large scale parabolic dune forms on the Rolling Palouse landscape of SE Washington State. Note the large parabolic shaped dune in the foreground. It opens upcurrent, flow was from right to left (north to south). Compare the general morphology of this landscape with the water shaped forms in the previous photograph. This landscape is the product of wind AND water. A study of mega-scale paleohydrology reveals the scale-invariant, or self-similar nature of fluvial forms across a wide variety of spatial scales and signifies its value as a means of comparison and recognition of mega features whose origins it is not possible to witness directly.
Summary:
-comet impact on North American icecap, images above (cooling was the existing paradigm prior to this)
-massive, cataclysmic flooding (see Washington state photo above)
-sea levels rise, massive amount of water vapor injected into the atmophere leading to a greenhouse effect/ rapid warming
Multiple impacts of varying scale have occurred leading to cyclical change....
Randall does a better job of describing this (in great, well referenced length) than I am above in this overview. His site and vids are definitely worth looking into.
LINK
If you want my breakdown of this, reference this clandestine thread...
Randall proposes cataclysmic cosmic impacts as the source of radical changes to the earth. Keep in mind that he has been accused of being a "climate change denier"
That statement alone is pretty telling about the motivations of the current political movement (gradualists, uniformitarians...). There is no search for knowledge or truth. Some folks just want to be "right" to drive policy/funding/agendas...
LINK
quote:
An open letter to a critic on the matter of chevrons, megatsunamis and bolide impacts.
by Randall Carlson
quote:
I am addressing this response to one issue raised regarding remarks about possible mega-tsunami deposits that I brought up during the podcast. It is my impression after investing a fair amount of time researching this phenomenon that it warrants serious consideration, especially in light of what we have witnessed during the past decade, two tsunami induced mega-disasters in Japan and the Indian Ocean. Several comments were particularly dismissive, so I am setting down this small exposition, without malice, to demonstrate that the remarks made on The Joe Rogan Experience were preceded by a substantial amount of background research and thought. While the following remarks pertain to this one issue specifically, they are also relevant to the general attitude evinced in many of the other comments critical of something I said that are obviously being made by individuals whose preconceived opinions were incompatible with the information I presented and their objections were nothing more than a knee jerk emotional response rather than a reasoned critique with some actual thought behind it.
Chevron forms created on a stream sandbar by local spring floods in Georgia, USA. The significant point is that these forms were produced by flowing water, not wind. After the flood subsides and the sand deposits dry out they will become subject to wind erosion and modification until they are stabilized by vegetation.
Chevron forms found on the southern tip of Madagascar. Were these formations created by wind or water? If the chevrons are formed of fine-grained wind transported sediment why is the line of demarcation at the distal end so distinct? What kind of aeolian process would produce features of this form and magnitude? The light colored deposits near the upper end of the chevrons are sand. This sand is undoubtedly being modified by wind, but this does not mean that the whole complex of lancet-like forms composing the chevrons were originally created by wind.
For scale...
---
Small scale parabolic dune forms and hummocky topography produced by local flooding in Peachtree Creek, GA are clearly visible in this photograph. The open end of the parabola seen in the top center points in the up-current direction which was from right to left. Again, these sedimentary forms are initially produced by flowing water and later modified by wind.
Large scale parabolic dune forms on the Rolling Palouse landscape of SE Washington State. Note the large parabolic shaped dune in the foreground. It opens upcurrent, flow was from right to left (north to south). Compare the general morphology of this landscape with the water shaped forms in the previous photograph. This landscape is the product of wind AND water. A study of mega-scale paleohydrology reveals the scale-invariant, or self-similar nature of fluvial forms across a wide variety of spatial scales and signifies its value as a means of comparison and recognition of mega features whose origins it is not possible to witness directly.
Summary:
-comet impact on North American icecap, images above (cooling was the existing paradigm prior to this)
-massive, cataclysmic flooding (see Washington state photo above)
-sea levels rise, massive amount of water vapor injected into the atmophere leading to a greenhouse effect/ rapid warming
Multiple impacts of varying scale have occurred leading to cyclical change....
Randall does a better job of describing this (in great, well referenced length) than I am above in this overview. His site and vids are definitely worth looking into.
LINK
quote:
While this knowledge is, at present, within the purview of a small but growing number of catastrophist geologists, astronomers, and other scientists, it has fallen completely by the wayside in the public discourse. For the present time politics dominates the discussion of global change, and there is a powerful political incentive to direct the discussion towards anthropogenic forcing to the exclusion of natural forces of change, for human behavior is subject to political control and natural forces of global change are not.
If you want my breakdown of this, reference this clandestine thread...
This post was edited on 4/1/17 at 10:30 am
Page 1 of 1
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News