| Author |
Message
|
| Heliopolis |
 Posted: Fri May 09, 2008 3:52 am Post subject: I think i can disprove Darwinian Natural Selection |
 |
|
Forum Freshman
Joined: 09 May 2008
Posts: 36
|
not so much Evolution ,as the "Origin of species by natural
selection".
Trouble is, will the Darwinian fundamentalists ( as Gould referred
to them as) try and kill me before i can publish in a peer-reviewed
journal?
How can I promulgate my work in the face of academic fascism? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| paralith |
| Posted: Fri May 09, 2008 5:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Ph.D.
Joined: 06 Jun 2007
Posts: 959
Location: Washington, DC
|
Darwinian fundamentalists do not exist. The theory of evolution and natural selection exactly as it was proposed by Darwin is no longer in use, and has been updated and replaced by the modern synthesis. Please keep this in mind.
I'd be interested to hear how you plan to disprove natural selection.
_________________
Man can will nothing unless he has first understood that he must count on no one but himself; that he is alone, abandoned on earth in the midst of his infinite responsibilities, without help, with no other aim than the one he sets himself, with no other destiny than the one he forges for himself on this earth.
~Jean-Paul Sartre
Monkeys in Clothes - hosted by SFN blogs |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Evaporation |
| Posted: Fri May 09, 2008 5:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Freshman
Joined: 02 May 2008
Posts: 10
Location: Australia
|
| Quote: |
I'd be interested to hear how you plan to disprove natural selection. |
In this, I am also interested.
_________________
All the biblical miracles will at last disappear with the progress of science. - Matthew Arnold |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| sunshinewarrior |
| Posted: Fri May 09, 2008 5:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Ph.D.
Joined: 26 Sep 2007
Posts: 825
Location: London
|
| Evaporation wrote: |
| Quote: |
I'd be interested to hear how you plan to disprove natural selection. |
In this, I am also interested. |
Me too. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Heliopolis |
| Posted: Fri May 09, 2008 6:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Freshman
Joined: 09 May 2008
Posts: 36
|
| paralith wrote: |
Darwinian fundamentalists do not exist. The theory of evolution and natural selection exactly as it was proposed by Darwin is no longer in use, and has been updated and replaced by the modern synthesis. Please keep this in mind.
I'd be interested to hear how you plan to disprove natural selection. |
I must let you know this: I accept Evolution 100%.
But Natural selection as a mechanism for evolution is flawed.
It has been known for some time ( biologists relunctantly accepted it by default in the 1930s). It remains the principal means of evolution amongst academics: Drift, the founder effect, and others are not considered valid alone.
Now, I have verifiable and testable proof that it not only cannot be the agent of evolutionary change but, on a genetic level, actually leads to terrible consequences.
I will publish this of course in the Journal of Theoretical Biology but if
you want a copy in advance and would like to say to your kids and grand kids "I was among the first to know", I will happily email you the proof. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Evaporation |
| Posted: Fri May 09, 2008 6:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Freshman
Joined: 02 May 2008
Posts: 10
Location: Australia
|
Email it to me at da.metal.head@hotmail.com
I wish to see the proof. [ Or you could just post it on the forums I suppose..]
_________________
All the biblical miracles will at last disappear with the progress of science. - Matthew Arnold |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Heliopolis |
| Posted: Fri May 09, 2008 6:43 am Post subject: Proof |
|
|
Forum Freshman
Joined: 09 May 2008
Posts: 36
|
| Evaporation wrote: |
Email it to me at da.metal.head@hotmail.com
I wish to see the proof. [ Or you could just post it on the forums I suppose..] |
Its a little too big and I don't want to publish widely just yet...but
I will certainly email it to individuals like yourself.
There is a simulation as well....but I am reluctant to send it on until
it has been perfected and I have run all of the tests.
I will send you the science behind it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| paralith |
| Posted: Fri May 09, 2008 6:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Ph.D.
Joined: 06 Jun 2007
Posts: 959
Location: Washington, DC
|
| Heliopolis wrote: |
| paralith wrote: |
Darwinian fundamentalists do not exist. The theory of evolution and natural selection exactly as it was proposed by Darwin is no longer in use, and has been updated and replaced by the modern synthesis. Please keep this in mind.
I'd be interested to hear how you plan to disprove natural selection. |
I must let you know this: I accept Evolution 100%.
But Natural selection as a mechanism for evolution is flawed.
It has been known for some time ( biologists relunctantly accepted it by default in the 1930s). It remains the principal means of evolution amongst academics: Drift, the founder effect, and others are not considered valid alone.
Now, I have verifiable and testable proof that it not only cannot be the agent of evolutionary change but, on a genetic level, actually leads to terrible consequences. |
A flaw in a theory and disproving it entirely are not exactly the same thing. There is always debate and research about the exact workings of the mechanisms of evolution - that is nothing new. You say it leads to terrible consequences - does it do so necessarily? 100% of the time? Are these consequences only terrible on a certain timescale?
| Quote: |
I will publish this of course in the Journal of Theoretical Biology but if
you want a copy in advance and would like to say to your kids and grand kids "I was among the first to know", I will happily email you the proof. |
You mean, you will apply to have it published and a group of peer reviewers will decide whether or not it should be published. Please do email me this proof: basilisk@gmail.com.
_________________
Man can will nothing unless he has first understood that he must count on no one but himself; that he is alone, abandoned on earth in the midst of his infinite responsibilities, without help, with no other aim than the one he sets himself, with no other destiny than the one he forges for himself on this earth.
~Jean-Paul Sartre
Monkeys in Clothes - hosted by SFN blogs |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Heliopolis |
| Posted: Fri May 09, 2008 6:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Freshman
Joined: 09 May 2008
Posts: 36
|
| paralith wrote: |
| Heliopolis wrote: |
| paralith wrote: |
Darwinian fundamentalists do not exist. The theory of evolution and natural selection exactly as it was proposed by Darwin is no longer in use, and has been updated and replaced by the modern synthesis. Please keep this in mind.
I'd be interested to hear how you plan to disprove natural selection. |
I must let you know this: I accept Evolution 100%.
But Natural selection as a mechanism for evolution is flawed.
It has been known for some time ( biologists relunctantly accepted it by default in the 1930s). It remains the principal means of evolution amongst academics: Drift, the founder effect, and others are not considered valid alone.
Now, I have verifiable and testable proof that it not only cannot be the agent of evolutionary change but, on a genetic level, actually leads to terrible consequences. |
A flaw in a theory and disproving it entirely are not exactly the same thing. There is always debate and research about the exact workings of the mechanisms of evolution - that is nothing new. You say it leads to terrible consequences - does it do so necessarily? 100% of the time? Are these consequences only terrible on a certain timescale?
| Quote: |
I will publish this of course in the Journal of Theoretical Biology but if
you want a copy in advance and would like to say to your kids and grand kids "I was among the first to know", I will happily email you the proof. |
You mean, you will apply to have it published and a group of peer reviewers will decide whether or not it should be published. Please do email me this proof: basilisk@gmail.com. |
Yes, I do fear that prejudice will stand it my way and that there are too many people with too much to lose....imagine all the books on natural selection that have been written! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| free radical |
| Posted: Fri May 09, 2008 6:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Senior
Joined: 24 Sep 2007
Posts: 349
|
| Heliopolis wrote: |
| paralith wrote: |
Darwinian fundamentalists do not exist. The theory of evolution and natural selection exactly as it was proposed by Darwin is no longer in use, and has been updated and replaced by the modern synthesis. Please keep this in mind.
I'd be interested to hear how you plan to disprove natural selection. |
I must let you know this: I accept Evolution 100%.
But Natural selection as a mechanism for evolution is flawed.
It has been known for some time ( biologists relunctantly accepted it by default in the 1930s). It remains the principal means of evolution amongst academics: Drift, the founder effect, and others are not considered valid alone.
Now, I have verifiable and testable proof that it not only cannot be the agent of evolutionary change but, on a genetic level, actually leads to terrible consequences.
I will publish this of course in the Journal of Theoretical Biology but if
you want a copy in advance and would like to say to your kids and grand kids "I was among the first to know", I will happily email you the proof. |
Are you saying that natural selection does not contribute to evolution? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| paralith |
| Posted: Fri May 09, 2008 6:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Ph.D.
Joined: 06 Jun 2007
Posts: 959
Location: Washington, DC
|
| Heliopolis wrote: |
| Yes, I do fear that prejudice will stand it my way and that there are too many people with too much to lose....imagine all the books on natural selection that have been written! |
If your science is solid, it will stand the test of any prejudice. Good scientists will accept it.
_________________
Man can will nothing unless he has first understood that he must count on no one but himself; that he is alone, abandoned on earth in the midst of his infinite responsibilities, without help, with no other aim than the one he sets himself, with no other destiny than the one he forges for himself on this earth.
~Jean-Paul Sartre
Monkeys in Clothes - hosted by SFN blogs |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| spuriousmonkey |
| Posted: Fri May 09, 2008 7:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Masters Degree
Joined: 12 May 2005
Posts: 556
|
What a bullshit.
As if you can disprove natural selection in a theoretical paper.
You Sir, are full of shit.
_________________
“A scientific man ought to have no wishes, no affections, - a mere heart of stone.” |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Heliopolis |
| Posted: Fri May 09, 2008 7:05 am Post subject: Natural selection |
|
|
Forum Freshman
Joined: 09 May 2008
Posts: 36
|
Are you saying that natural selection does not contribute to evolution?[/quote]
I am saying that natural selection or more specifically growth by selection leads to genetic disorientation and even meltdown rather than evolution.
What??? you may say....yes...really....that is what I have found.
What I have also found is that academics way more knowledgeable than me have deliberately avoided finding this out..although part of it is that it is a little difficult.
The whole thing stinks of a mass cover up.
There is much power, too much money at stake. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| spuriousmonkey |
| Posted: Fri May 09, 2008 7:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Masters Degree
Joined: 12 May 2005
Posts: 556
|
growth by selection?
What is that supposed to be?
Nothing grows in evolution in the first place.
_________________
“A scientific man ought to have no wishes, no affections, - a mere heart of stone.” |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Heliopolis |
| Posted: Fri May 09, 2008 7:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Freshman
Joined: 09 May 2008
Posts: 36
|
| spuriousmonkey wrote: |
What a bullshit.
As if you can disprove natural selection in a theoretical paper.
You Sir, are full of shit. |
Now now...language my dear man!
Look, natural selection IS a theoretical observation..there is
no empirical observation of it.......the best we get are
population fluctuations in moths and those that Darwin
cited in the Origin of Species. Noone has actually seen
speciation by natural selection ( although we are probably
not in a position to do so).
What we have seen in the lab is adaptation by directed
mutation as with bacteria and yeast.....NOT chance mutations
being favored by selective processes. This has been known
for the last 20 years.
It is more like a best guess than a verified and proven hypothesis.
On the level of the gene and allelic frequencies, natural
selection is flawed when you factor in the necessary
variables. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
