tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6821840758756075048.post8650841038669753335..comments2023-09-25T09:44:38.184-07:00Comments on Evolutionary Novelties: Was Darwin Wrong?Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6821840758756075048.post-8961106683311310362010-09-09T00:07:05.473-07:002010-09-09T00:07:05.473-07:00I don't belive that Charles Darwin was wrong a...I don't belive that Charles Darwin was wrong about the tree of life I think that what he found it is an open door for science. Yet we have two major obstacles in developing this theory: our ego and church.news gameshttp://www.gnews.ro/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6821840758756075048.post-49996433606153049202010-09-03T07:04:09.692-07:002010-09-03T07:04:09.692-07:00I apreciate the work that this scientist has put i...I apreciate the work that this scientist has put into developing his theory and making all the necessary tests. <br /><br />His idea dates from 1859 so it is clear that with the new technology the nowadays scientiests should find/ develop his theory.inchirieri apartamente clujhttp://www.edil.ro/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6821840758756075048.post-70730166998986292722009-12-03T23:51:38.470-08:002009-12-03T23:51:38.470-08:00Upgrade Evolution Comprehension Beyond Darwin
A....Upgrade Evolution Comprehension Beyond Darwin<br /><br /><br />A. From "Asymmetry switched in snail (by manipulation)"<br />http://www.the-scientist.com/blog/display/56187/<br /><br />This altered handedness, however, did not pass from generation to generation; offspring of (manipulated) reversed-coiled snails reclaimed the pre-manipulated orientations of their ancestors, suggesting the physical manipulations by researchers did not affect the genetically programmed structural pattern.<br /><br />B. Again and again: Upgrade Evolution Comprehension Beyond Darwin<br /><br />Physical manipulations that do not result in augmented energy constrainment by the organism do not affect the expression of its primal organism, the gene. (PS: why refer to an organism as "genetically programmed structural pattern"?. Are we genetically programmed structural patterns?)<br /><br />Please consider the following concept of the origin and nature of life and organisms, of the origin and nature of cosmic and life evolution: <br /><br />- Genes, Earth's primal organisms, and all their take-off organisms - Life in general - are but one of the cosmic forms of mass, of constrained energy formats. <br /><br />- The on-going cosmic mass-to-energy reversion since the Big-Bang inflation is resisted by mass, this resistance being the archtype of selection for survival by all forms of mass, including life.<br /><br />- The mode of genes', Earth's primal organisms, response to the cultural feed-back signals reaching them from their upper stratum take-off organism is "replicate without change" or "replicate with change". "Replicate with change" is selected in case of proven augmented energy constrainment by the the new generation, this being "better survival". This mode of Life's normal evolution is the mode of energy-mass evolution universally. <br /><br /><br />Dov Henis<br />(Comments From The 22nd Century)<br />Updated Life's Manifest May 2009 <br />http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/list/140/122.page#2321<br />Implications Of E=Total[m(1 + D)] <br />http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/list/180/122.page#3108<br /><br />http://profiles.yahoo.com/blog/2SF3CJJM5OU6T27OC4MFQSDYEUAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6821840758756075048.post-26524776221040120812009-10-15T09:33:07.716-07:002009-10-15T09:33:07.716-07:00Can't you just change tree to DAG?
Why are DAG...Can't you just change tree to DAG?<br />Why are DAGs considered more "complex" than trees?<br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directed_acyclic_graphRobert Furberhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10746976399050925428noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6821840758756075048.post-44153137379567583392009-01-23T13:19:00.000-08:002009-01-23T13:19:00.000-08:00Graham - I read the article;Seems biased to me:1. ...Graham - I read the article;<BR/><BR/>Seems biased to me:<BR/>1. Speaking to the Tree of life project - “But today the project lies in tatters, torn to pieces by an onslaught of negative evidence”<BR/><BR/>2. “Many biologists now argue that the tree concept is obsolete and needs to be discarded”<BR/><BR/>3. HGT - “[This] bombshell has even persuaded some that our fundamental view of biology needs to change”<BR/><BR/>4. “For a while, this allowed evolutionary biologists to accept HGT without jeopardizing their precious tree of life”<BR/><BR/>5. Darwin’s concept - “We now know that view is wrong”<BR/><BR/>6. “Meanwhile, those who would chop down the tree of life continue to make progress”<BR/><BR/>7. “Having uprooted the tree of unicellular life, biologists are now taking their axes to the remaining branches”<BR/><BR/><BR/>Etc...<BR/><BR/>Why's Graham so glum?<BR/>http://ecographica.blogspot.com/2009/01/whys-graham-so-glum-lawton-critiqued.htmlJohnnyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04947292290232739954noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6821840758756075048.post-5066858730911207112009-01-23T06:45:00.000-08:002009-01-23T06:45:00.000-08:00Graham -- Thanks for the note. You're right. I d...Graham -- Thanks for the note. You're right. I do need to read the article in <I>New Scientist</I> (and will try to have a look after I teach this morning). But whatever the original article actually says doesn't make the partially digested chunk of goo in <I>The Guardian</I> any less inane.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6821840758756075048.post-12547148942361400622009-01-23T04:00:00.000-08:002009-01-23T04:00:00.000-08:00Frank, you might be interested in the original New...Frank, you might be interested in the original New Scientist article, it goes into a lot more detail than the filleted ripoff in the guardian. <BR/><BR/>http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126921.600-why-darwin-was-wrong-about-the-tree-of-life.html?full=trueAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6821840758756075048.post-2318189927679817082009-01-23T03:58:00.000-08:002009-01-23T03:58:00.000-08:00Hey guys, please read the original New Scientist a...Hey guys, please read the original New Scientist article, not the filleted ripoff in the guardian. <BR/><BR/>http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126921.600-why-darwin-was-wrong-about-the-tree-of-life.html?full=trueAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6821840758756075048.post-70249547668465659062009-01-22T13:56:00.000-08:002009-01-22T13:56:00.000-08:00This is stupid on so many levels."We have no evide...This is stupid on so many levels.<BR/><BR/><I>"We have no evidence at all that the tree of life is a reality," Eric Bapteste, an evolutionary biologist at the Pierre and Marie Curie University in Paris, told New Scientist magazine.</I><BR/><BR/>What? WHAT?!? No doubt, HGT occurs, as do incomplete lineage sorting, paralogy, etc., including some hybridization (actually, quite a bit in some groups). But we usually only recognize these phenomena <I>in light of a phylogeny</I>. I think the existence of layer upon layer of hierarchically arranged homologies across all of life is pretty damn good evidence for descent with modification. For Pete's sake...no evidence...<BR/><BR/><I>Darwin himself also wrote about evolution and ecosystems as a "tangled bank".</I><BR/><BR/>Um, yes, but he was referring to the amazing diversity of life, and how cool it was that all this diversity was produced by the fairly simple processes he had described. He <I>wasn't</I> writing "Oh, yeah, descent with modification -- the stuff I've been talking about for this entire book? Yeah, that's not true".<BR/><BR/><I>Last year, scientists at the University of Texas at Arlington found a strange chunk of DNA in the genetic make-up of eight animals, including the mouse, rat and the African clawed frog. The same chunk is missing from chickens, elephants and humans, suggesting it must have become wedged into the genomes of some animals by crossbreeding.</I><BR/><BR/>Or viruses, or any number of other known phenomena (like multiple losses of this magic chunk of DNA). Again, we wouldn't recognize this as something interesting if we didn't already have a <I>phylogeny</I> that causes us to be <I>surprised</I> by such a finding. I mean, come on...exceptions to the rule are very interesting, but they are NOT the new rule!<BR/><BR/>Grr. I can't take it. And the worst part is having some real biologists basically saying some of the same things.....again, I say "grr".Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com