Systems biology, is it pseudoscience?

[metatron]

I have on several occasions attempted to introduce systems theory into the discussion on evolutionary process, but have been told that this view point is pseudoscience, so I am seeking some feedback on what is considered systems science and what is considered pseudoscience on this forum.

 

These are my primary sources for what I have been postulating relating to my model on “archetypal descent” steming from my discovery of the “vesica attractor.”

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

Self-organization and the Science of Emergence

 

(Koestler, Salthe, Von Bertalanffy, Laszlo, Haken, Eigen, Prigogine, Cohen, Turing, Von Neumann, Conway, Holland, Goldberg, Langton, Kauffman, Thom, Gell-Man, Varela, Fuller)

http://www.thymos.com/tat/emergenc.html

 

Tensegrity I: Cell structure and hierarchial systems biology

 

Donald E. Ingber

 

 

http://web1.tch.harvard.edu/researc...Tensegrity1.pdf

 

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

[Mokele]

Frankly, metatron, if you were to post 2+2=4 tommorrow, I'd ask for peer-reviewed sources, simply because it's *you* posting.

 

You're attempting to construct an entire theory that's not needed, not supported by empirical evidence, and based on a rock from your driveway.

 

Hey, I found a discarded beer can! Watch as I extrapolate a completely new theory of all biology from it!

 

Mokele

[PhDP]

I really don't trust the text you included (Darwin's "Law" isn't a "law" and with the new synthesis it IS an equation) but serious applications of system theory and nonlinear dynamics has been made, for exemple by Günter Wagner (of Yale), a leader in evo-devo (evolutionary developmental biology).

 

But beware the hysterical anti-"reductionist", the more I know about science, the less I care with this kind of classification (holistic, reductionist, neo-darwinist...), the more I care about facts and predictive/descriptive power.

[metatron]

Frankly' date=' metatron, if you were to post 2+2=4 tommorrow, I'd ask for peer-reviewed sources, simply because it's *you* posting.

 

You're attempting to construct an entire theory that's not needed, not supported by empirical evidence, and based on a rock from your driveway.

 

Hey, I found a discarded beer can! Watch as I extrapolate a completely new theory of all biology from it!

 

Mokele[/quote']

Thanks for pointing out my oversight. Yes my main source is from a fossil from the early Cambrian strata just before the Cambrian explosion.

 

People do extrapolate information directly from rocks if you know how to read them. I have found that this layered record of the earth is mostly unread, therefore unexplored.

 

I know this may be hard for you to comprehend, but you do not always need others to filter information for you.

 

You can if you wanted to, walk outside, away from your computer find a road cut or creek bed an begin collecting information.

 

This my involve physical exertion, investigative thinking, and getting your hands dirty, but hey how do you think new information is uncovered.

 

This fossil came from a creek bed cutting down though early Cambrian strata.

 

I must admit though, I do like to extrapolate information from the gravel in peoples drive ways.

[metatron]

I really don't trust the text you included (Darwin's "Law" isn't a "law" and with the new synthesis it IS an equation) but serious applications of system theory and nonlinear dynamics has been made' date=' for exemple by Günter Wagner (of Yale), a leader in evo-devo (evolutionary developmental biology).

 

But beware the hysterical anti-"reductionist", the more I know about science, the less I care with this kind of classification (holistic, reductionist, neo-darwinist...), the more I care about facts and predictive/descriptive power.[/quote']

 

 

I believe this school of thought represents the future of scientific inquiry.It does not displace reductionism, it merly shows how these parts connect in a dynamical way.

 

quote:

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

SYSTEMS THEORY:

Systems theory or systems science argues that however complex or diverse the world that we experience, we will always find different types of organization in it, and such organization can be described by principles which are independent from the specific domain at which we are looking. Hence, if we would uncover those general laws, we would be able to analyze and solve problems in any domain, pertaining to any type of system. (Principia Cybernetica)

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

[Hellbender]

I have on several occasions attempted to introduce systems theory into the discussion on evolutionary process, but have been told that this view point is pseudoscience, so I am seeking some feedback on what is considered systems science and what is considered pseudoscience on this forum.

We don't arbitrarily make up our own views on what constitutes pseudoscience and science, you know. What think/know is pretty much what the entire scientific community thinks/knows. You have yet to provide us with any evidence of "systems theory" (which I am not currently aware of, but would study if given a good reason).

[metatron]

We don't arbitrarily make up our own views on what constitutes pseudoscience and science, you know. What think/know is pretty much what the entire scientific community thinks/knows. You have yet to provide us with any evidence of "systems theory" (which I am not currently aware of, but would study if given a good reason).

 

 

First you will need to study systems theory, so then you will be able to understand and recognize a model based on this framework of information.

Then you will have acquired the ability to criticize it on its merits.

 

But for now lets just forget my model and concentrate on my initial query.

Let me ask again, because I sincerely am seeking an answer to this question.

 

 

Are these scientist that I posted considered suedoscientist?

[Mokele]

Yes my main source is from a fossil from the early Cambrian strata just before the Cambrian explosion.

 

Aside from the fact that a sample size of 1 is pretty much useless, if you're referring to that unremarkable rock you posted pics of (and have as your icon), that's not a fossil, it's just a rock.

 

People do extrapolate information directly from rocks if you know how to read them. I have found that this layered record of the earth is mostly unread, therefore unexplored.

 

You mean in spite of the fact that the Cambrian explosion is one of the most-studied paleontological events ever?

 

Are you seriously suggesting that none of the legions of paleontologists have ever looked at these strata?

 

I know this may be hard for you to comprehend, but you do not always need others to filter information for you.

 

Aside from your little ad-hominem, you should realize that the only "filtering" peer-review does is filtering out bullshit and poorly-done work so we don't have to waste our time with garbage like, say, your posts.

 

You can if you wanted to, walk outside, away from your computer find a road cut or creek bed an begin collecting information. This my involve physical exertion, investigative thinking, and getting your hands dirty, but hey how do you think new information is uncovered.

 

I find it absolutely hilarious that someone is lecturing me about doing active science from the POV of paleo.

 

Gee, look, I'm doing my own experiments. Yes, *experiments*, those wonderful essentials of science that allow us to actually establish causality, which paleontology (on account of dealing with dead things) cannot do.

 

Try dealing with *live* things. You can't understand life from just studying rocks and dead bones.

 

This fossil came from a creek bed cutting down though early Cambrian strata.

 

AHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

 

A creek bed? And you havent considered that maybe, just maybe it's *not* from there, but instead transported from elsewhere? Like, say, a driveway?

 

In fact, have you even actually had this rock examined by any knowledable professional paleontologist? Or even a good amateur like a fossil dealer? Or did they tell you it's just a rock, and you came here hoping that maybe someone would believe your ridiculous ideas?

 

Are these scientist that I posted considered suedoscientist?

 

Is systems theory psuedoscience? No. I've heard of it, I'm passingly aquainted with it, and it seems to be interesting. Can it be applied to biology? Probably, especially in embryogenesis. In fact, I seem to recall a similar approach solving a great mystery of embryology.

 

However, both of those do *NOT* mean that your particular theory isn't psuedoscientific bullshit.

 

For instance, nuclear physics isn't psuedoscience. Nor is it's application to fusion. But if I claim that I can initiate fusion around my body from the hydrogen in the water in the air via psychic energy in order to become the Human Torch, that's still psuedoscience.

 

Your claims, so far as I understand them, are that there is some sort of overlying pattern to evolution that is not explained by current knowledge and our growing knowledge of evolutionary developmental biology. You have not backed this up with any evidence from the fossil record except a stone that you only delude yourself into thinking is a fossil.

 

If you claim such large-scale patterns exist, I want you to tell me one (in a short and simple way) and tell me a) why the current explanation does not fit the data and b) why your explanation is superior and accounts for more data more effectively.

 

So far, all you've done is gibber about your personal God of "systems theory", without giving any sort of concise explanation of why it's even needed. Occam's razor, the least complicated explanation should be preferred. Given that I had to explain punctuated equilibrium to you in another post, I sincerely doubt you know enough to actually make a convincing case.

 

Until you actually use evidence and facts like those of us who are *real* scientists, your gibberish will continue to be treated like the psuedoscience that it is.

 

Mokele

[metatron]

Quote So far, all you've done is gibber about your personal God of "systems theory", without giving any sort of concise explanation of why it's even needed. Occam's razor, the least complicated explanation should be preferred. Given that I had to explain punctuated equilibrium to you in another post, I sincerely doubt you know enough to actually make a convincing case.Quote

 

Show me were you explained puctuated equilibrium to me.

 

 

quote;You're attempting to construct an entire theory that's not needed, not supported by empirical evidence, and based on a rock from your driveway.quote

 

Show me were I said it was from a drive way.

 

Truth is what science is about mokele.

 

You cannot advise me on a model based on a science you have not studied.

[Hellbender]

First you will need to study systems theory' date=' so then you will be able to understand and recognize a model based on this framework of information.

Then you will have acquired the ability to criticize it on its merits.[/quote']

You are partly right, but I don't need to know all the ins and outs of homeopathy to have made up my mind that it is absolute bunk. However, I have evaluated what you have posted, and know enough to have decided that you haven't been forthcoming with any good evidence (if there is any) to support your hypothesis. Aside from that, it is frankly pretty hard to even comprehend what you are getting at half the time in your posts.

But for now lets just forget my model and concentrate on my initial query.

Let me ask again, because I sincerely am seeking an answer to this question.

Are these scientist that I posted considered suedoscientist?

AFAIK a legit scientist that is a proponent of a psuedoscientific idea isn't labeled as much. For instance Michael Behe is a Biochemist at Leigh (or is it Berkeley?) university, and he is one of the main proponents of the whole "Intelligent Design" fiasco. I don't know what makes legit scientists their risk their reputations so, but they do it.

[Mokele]

Show me were you explained puctuated equilibrium to me.

 

Right here, in response to a question which is actually the perfect example of the phenomenon of PE. That you had to ask that question indicates that you did not understand or possibly even know of PE.

 

Truth is what science is about mokele.

 

No, "Truth" is for the philosophers. *Data* is what science is all about. It's explaining what we see in this world through observation and experimentation, with a reliance on empirical evidence (which you have never provided).

 

Show me were I said it was from a drive way.

 

You never did, nor did I claim you did. I said it, because I'm ridiculing you and your "fossil".

 

You cannot advise me on a model based on a science you have not studied.

 

If that holds true, why are you posting about evolution?

 

Mokele

[metatron]

Right here[/url'], in response to a question which is actually the perfect example of the phenomenon of PE. That you had to ask that question indicates that you did not understand or possibly even know of PE.

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

If natural selection and mutation has such an effect on morphology, why then does in remain so perfectly stable then suddenly take such leaps.

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

Wow, lets see the unedited version of that post;

 

Quote;

 

If natural selection and mutation has such an effect on morphology, why then does in remain so perfectly stable then suddenly take such leaps. {punctuated equilibrium }

 

Quote

http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?t=11177 post 55 & 56

 

You should be ashamed.... ............. ........ ......... ............... ..........

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

why did you edit out the part {punctuated equilibrium} and then state; "you did not understand or possibly even know of PE"

 

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

[metatron]

You are partly right' date=' but I don't need to know all the ins and outs of homeopathy to have made up my mind that it is absolute bunk. However, I have evaluated what you have posted, and know enough to have decided that you haven't been forthcoming with any good evidence (if there is any) to support your hypothesis. Aside from that, it is frankly pretty hard to even comprehend what you are getting at half the time in your posts.

 

AFAIK a legit scientist that is a proponent of a psuedoscientific idea isn't labeled as much. For instance Michael Behe is a Biochemist at Leigh (or is it Berkeley?) university, and he is one of the main proponents of the whole "Intelligent Design" fiasco. I don't know what makes legit scientists their risk their reputations so, but they do it.[/quote']

 

Michael Behe is not a systems scientist, he is an Idst, I am not.

Idst have contributed by pointing out some gaps in the Darwinian models. He has also stated that biochemical system are irreducibly complex.

 

My discovery shows that these system can be traced back to an attractor. The vesica attractor, this is what this fossil represents, a dissipative structure that is in the process of forming a complex closed system of catalytic loops among a microbial substrate.

 

This was been previously theorized to account for how the first cells formed {Stuart Kauffman}.

 

It is now very apparent if you do not understand these theoretical models my post will make no sense at all.

 

I had no Idea that there is so few people that actually have studied these theories.

 

I have only had two individuals say that they understood this model they were both math and physics majors that have studied chaos theory.

 

I just assumed with all books published on system biology that more people in the academic community concerning biology would be well versed on the subject.

[metatron]

 

 

 

No' date=' "Truth" is for the philosophers. *Data* is what science is all about. It's explaining what we see in this world through observation and experimentation, with a reliance on empirical evidence (which you have never provided).

 

 

 

Mokele[/quote']

 

 

I didn’t mean truth in the philosophical sense, I meant it in the not lying sense.

 

Of course you knew that.

[Hellbender]

Michael Behe is not a systems scientist, he is an Idst, I am not.

you completely missed the point. I only mentioned Behe to point out that legit scientists for some reason do sometimes back up pseudoscientific ideas. Maybe a better example would be the late Ivan Sanderson?

Idst have contributed by pointing out some gaps in the Darwinian models. He has also stated that biochemical system are irreducibly complex.

And then "logically" conclude that a supernatural diety is the only option for explaining what we don't know or imagine. Also, anyone who knows anything about evolution would easily see that there is no such thing as "irreducible complexity".

My discovery shows that these system can be traced back to an attractor. The vesica attractor, this is what this fossil represents, a dissipative structure that is in the process of forming a complex closed system of catalytic loops among a microbial substrate.

Which is well and good, but you have yet to explain how your "discovery" led you to this conclusion.

[Mokele]

why did you edit out the part {punctuated equilibrium} and then state; "you did not understand or possibly even know of PE"

 

Because, in spite of the fact that you mentioned the two magic words, your question alone indicates that you do no understand it.

 

Ever hear of the "Shotgun strategy" to test taking? It's when a student has no clue how to solve a problem, so they simply write down every equation they can think of and hope that the prof will give them at least some partial credit. Generally, those papers get zeros, because, although they know the equations, they don't know how to use them.

 

Same thing here.

 

Idst have contributed by pointing out some gaps in the Darwinian models. He has also stated that biochemical system are irreducibly complex.

 

ID is not science. It's nothing but creationism, designed to sound scientific and fool people. It was *explicitly* created for this purpose.

 

As for Behe, he's been wrong about *EVERY* instance he proposed. A batting average of 0 doesn't get you into the major leagues.

 

My discovery shows that these system can be traced back to an attractor. The vesica attractor, this is what this fossil represents, a dissipative structure that is in the process of forming a complex closed system of catalytic loops among a microbial substrate.

 

See, this is absolutely useless. You're hiding behind technobabble rather than actually explaining what any of this *means*, which, as the person making the claim, is YOUR responsibility.

 

I can make a post about snake biomechanics that's absolutely right, but so filled with unexplained technical jargon that nobody can make heads or tails of it. That's not going to convince anybody. Alternatively, I can make a post claiming I'm Q from Star Trek, and cover it in enough technobabble to make it sound good.

 

If your idea had any merit, you would be willing to actually put it out there in plain english, in an understandable format. Instead you hide behind jargon (probably incorrectly used), unwilling to put your ideas forth in a form which can be examined, because you *KNOW*, deep down, that your ideas are BS, and that exposure to rational analysis wll destroy them.

 

So keep hiding behind your jargon while we laugh at you, crackpot.

 

It is now very apparent if you do not understand these theoretical models my post will make no sense at all. I had no Idea that there is so few people that actually have studied these theories. I have only had two individuals say that they understood this model they were both math and physics majors that have studied chaos theory. I just assumed with all books published on system biology that more people in the academic community concerning biology would be well versed on the subject.

 

Lots of books have been published on string theory, that doesn't make it anything more than unsupported speculation.

 

Here's a novel idea: If you actually know this shit so well, why don't you actually explain it?

 

Oh, that's right, because it would allow us to see what a joke your ideas are (as if we didn't already).

 

I didn’t mean truth in the philosophical sense, I meant it in the not lying sense.

 

Yes, so let's start:

 

Have you *ever* taken a college-level course in Biology?

Have you *ever* taken an upper-level course in evolution?

Have you *ever* taken any formal courses in this so-called "systems theory"?

Do any of your ideas spring from something other than "Science for dummies" volumes you find at Barnes and Nobles and random rocks you find?

Do you have any peer-reviewed sources to back this up?

Have you ever actually had that rock of yours examined by a competent paleontologist or geologist?

 

So, let the honesty begin, eh metatron? Or are you too cowardly to answer these?

 

Mokele

[metatron]

Because, in spite of the fact that you mentioned the two magic words, your question alone indicates that you do no understand it.Mokele

 

 

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

 

This is the entire post, context of information, and being honest can be helpfull in these discusions, and would save time and alot of bandwidth,

Here is the post in question that I believe reflects current evolutionary theory.

 

 

What is known about evolution, is that life changes over time.

 

What is not thoroughly understood is how life accumulates this information.

 

We can see by the fossil record that their is not only a pattern of change but also a morphological mean or stasis over long periods.

 

We have stated that the controlling factor in this pattern can be traced to random mutation and natural selection.

 

However current models do not reflect the fossil record.

 

If natural selection and mutation has such an effect on morphology, why then does in remain so perfectly stable then suddenly take such leaps. {punctuated equilibrium }

 

Some in the scientific community have acknowledged this gradual process of natural selection and mutation, may not account for the stability and sudden change in morphology,

 

Also there exist a major disparity in the appearance of these original phyla level body plans.

 

According to the fossil record, they have no record to the past, and intermediary’s between each other.

 

Simply put we understand evolution about as well as gravity, electromagnetism or quantum mechanics.

 

No matter what anyone says, their still exist in science today a major disparity between our map of the evolution and the actual territory of the fossil record.

[metatron]

Which is well and good' date=' but you have yet to explain how your "discovery" led you to this conclusion.[/quote']

 

 

I am a artist, engineer that studies system science and geology as for degrees I have none.

 

This mix of interest along with this fossil find led me to discover a new evolutionary lens.

 

One I call archetypal decent.

 

 

 

The fossil record shows a disparity in the formation of complex body plans.

The individual eukaryote cannot build these original structures. They do not carry within themselves a prior blue print for an overall structure.

Science today is attempting to answer these questions, [ via, systems science] though genomic constraints. My discovery shows the missing information in the original body design was provided by a wave function, acting on a mass of oolitic spheres bound by a microbial substrate.{ a dissipative structure}

This substrate crystallized into an archetypal pattern. The first complex animal life. [source of a body plan pattern] that then spawn an entire phyla.

This central archetype then becomes a sustained, central information bank for the phyla.

Releasing new genetic information in pulses over time.

This model not only accounts for the original forms, but also genetic control patterns of punctuated equilibrium. This is what this fossil is showing, in the context of the fossil record.

[Mokele]

What is not thoroughly understood is how life accumulates this information.

 

Wrong, we have a thorough grasp of mutation.

 

We can see by the fossil record that their is not only a pattern of change but also a morphological mean or stasis over long periods.

 

I would dispute "pattern". There is a correlation between periods of rapid change and environmental change, but no overall pattern to either.

 

If natural selection and mutation has such an effect on morphology, why then does in remain so perfectly stable then suddenly take such leaps. {punctuated equilibrium } Some in the scientific community have acknowledged this gradual process of natural selection and mutation, may not account for the stability and sudden change in morphology,

 

Once again, you prove you do not understand PE or NS. NS does *not* have to be progress; it can select *against* the extremes, preventing a shift in the mean value of a trait. This is seen in times of environmental stability. Go back and review the post I linked to for more details.

 

NS is dependent upon environment. Until the selective pressures change (due to changes in environment), you will not see any changes in the selection organisms undergo, including stabilizing selection (the one described above).

 

Also there exist a major disparity in the appearance of these original phyla level body plans. According to the fossil record, they have no record to the past, and intermediary’s between each other.

 

The fossil record is an imperfect record. It can contain huge gaps simply due to things not fossilizing, those sediments having already eroded away, etc. This is *especially* true for the early fossil record, and is simple to prove: The longer a rock is around, the greater the chance that it will be exposed to an environment (like, say, the surface of earth) that can destroy it.

 

Furthermore, not everything fossilizes to begin with, *especially* soft-bodied organisms.

 

This entire point in your arguement is nothing but arguement from ignorance. Just because we don't know what's there and have no record does not mean that nothing was there.

 

No matter what anyone says, their still exist in science today a major disparity between our map of the evolution and the actual territory of the fossil record.

 

Really? You certainly haven't shown me one in this post.

 

I am a artist, engineer that studies system science and geology as for degrees I have none.

 

In short, you are totally uneducated and unqualified to make any sort of claims about your new theory and evolution. Thanks for confirming my suspicions.

 

Seriously, hostility aside, I can recommend a very good textbook (the one I used in my Evolution course, in fact) that can help you remedy some of your oversights. Also, have a look at the existing papers and material. Chances are that any question you have has already been asked and answered, and by looking at the papers you can avoid having to "re-invent the wheel".

 

This mix of interest along with this fossil find led me to discover a new evolutionary lens.

 

Your "fossil" is just a rock. Deal with it.

 

My discovery shows the missing information in the original body design was provided by a wave function, acting on a mass of oolitic spheres bound by a microbial substrate.{ a dissipative structure}

 

Once again, baseless assertion.

 

You cannot just *say* "My discovery shows this". You have to say *why* it shows that. You have to show that it truly does show that, and isn't just being mis-interpreted.

 

For instance, if I said "My experiments have shown that cycle duration of arboreal concertina locomotion in snakes is strongly affected by incline", you could justifiably call that unfounded. But if I make that claim at the end of a paper in which I elaborate what I tested, how I tested it, how I gathered what data, how that data was analyzed, and that the statistics show a highly significant effect, *then* my claim is worth something.

 

You have not shown didly squat about your "fossil", only claimed it, and sheathed those claims in technobabble. Explain what a dissipative structure is, explain what an oolithic sphere is. YOU are the one presenting, and you are presenting to an audience (so far as I can tell, though I can speak only for myself) of biologists who don't know squat about systems theory.

 

Explain stuff, and tell us *how* you've shown something. Don't just assert that you have and move on.

 

This central archetype then becomes a sustained, central information bank for the phyla.

Releasing new genetic information in pulses over time.

 

Once again, assertions without basis. How? Why? Why not consider genes and mutation instead? What about the obvious flaws in your understanding of PE?

 

Most importantly: Where is a single scrap of proof that this phenomenon even exists, and where is the empirical evidence for these "pulses of genetic information"?

 

This model not only accounts for the original forms, but also genetic control patterns of punctuated equilibrium. This is what this fossil is showing, in the context of the fossil record.

 

No, it is not. There is no cyclical regularity to PE, only correlation with environmental change. There is no sudden, instant pulse of genetic information that makes a new species, just good old natural selection.

 

One of the most famous pieces of evidence for PE shows this. There are several layers of sediment. In the bottom is Clam A, then Clam B appears out of nowhere, spreads and supplants it totally. Where did Clam B come from? When the entire deposite was looked at, a small area was found, isolated but in the same levels. In it, Clam A arrives, and slowly, gradually changes through many intermediate steps into Clam B. The final form of Clam B appears in this isolated area, then appears in the main deposit. *THAT* is PE. An isolate sub-population, exposed to different environmental pressures, evolved into a new form, and then at a later date recolonized, all in a geological instant.

 

So, in summay, there is no problem that needs to be solved, and you have provided nothing but baseless assertions and technobabble.

 

Mokele

[metatron]

Quote;Most importantly: Where is a single scrap of proof that this phenomenon even exists, and where is the empirical evidence for these "pulses of genetic information"?Quote

 

Quote;No, it is not. There is no cyclical regularity to PE, only correlation with environmental change. There is no sudden, instant pulse of genetic information that makes a new species, just good old natural selection.Quote

 

 

 

 

 

 

"March 11, 2005 news releases | receive our news releases by email | science beat

 

 

Fossil Records Show Biodiversity Comes and Goes

Contact: Lynn Yarris (510) 486-5375, lcyarris@lbl.gov

 

BERKELEY, CA – A detailed and extensive new analysis of the fossil records of marine animals over the past 542 million years has yielded a stunning surprise. Biodiversity appears to rise and fall in mysterious cycles of 62 million years for which science has no satisfactory explanation. The analysis, performed by researchers with the U.S. Department of Energy's Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab) and the University of California at Berkeley, has withstood thorough testing so that confidence in the results is above 99-percent.

 

 

 

“What we’re seeing is a real and very strong signal that the history of life on our planet has been shaped by a 62 million year cycle, but nothing in present evolutionary theory accounts for it,” said Richard Muller, a physicist who holds joint appointments with Berkeley Lab’s Physics Division, and UC Berkeley’s Physics Department. “While this signal has a huge presence in biodiversity, it can also be seen in both extinctions and originations.”

[metatron]

Quote Originally Posted by Mokele;You have not shown didly squat about your "fossil", only claimed it, and sheathed those claims in technobabble. Explain what a dissipative structure is, explain what an oolithic sphere is. YOU are the one presenting, and you are presenting to an audience (so far as I can tell, though I can speak only for myself) of biologists who don't know squat about systems theory.Quote

 

 

 

 

Look it up. http://www.entropylaw.com/thermoevolution9.html

[metatron]

Wrong' date=' we have a thorough grasp of mutation.

Mokele[/quote']

 

 

Life does not creatively adapt by a series of small malfunctions over time. The system is dependent on too many interconnections to one another. Changes need to be made all at once.

 

 

http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/fte/darwinism/chapter13.html

 

Species stasis. Species show morphological stasis in the face of high levels of selectable diversity (Stanley, 1979 & 1985). But what sort of genetic anchor can hold constant a species' morphological mean and variance for several million years (Michaux, 1989), when enough genetic diversity exists in such species to allow laboratory selection to cause a ten-fold movement of that morphological mean? Are current models of the informational organization of the genome adequate to explain this? This difficulty is reinforced by the still greater morphological stasis shown by the body-plans of the higher levels of the taxonomic system, a stasis that seems to shape, direct, and constrain lower level change in an almost "archetypic" manner. This is hardly the neo-Darwinian prediction

A Blindfolded Watchmaker:The Arrival of the Fittest

David L. Wilcox

 

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

 

http://64.233.187.104/search?q=cache:knGXNAIxhPkJ:home.wxs.nl/~gkorthof/kortho32.htm+mutation+stuart+kauffman&hl=en&start=1

 

Neo-Darwinism is not enough to explain order of the living world: cells, organisms, ecosystems. Much of the order in organisms may not be the result of selection at all, but of the spontaneous order of self-organized systems (autocatalytic sets). So the combination of Natural Selection and Mutation cannot be the sole source of order. The role of Natural Selection is that it acts upon natural order. Kauffman is not anti-Darwinist in the sense that he rejects the existence of natural selection. It does play an important role in evolution, but he maintains that it cannot be the sole source of order. "We stand in the need of a new conceptual framework that allow us to understand an evolutionary process in which self-organization, selection and historical accident find their natural places with one another." (p150). So it's more appropriate to describe Kauffman as opposed to ultra-Darwinism [1]. Kauffman's criticism is motivated by his knowledge of other sources of order, Darwinists and biologists didn't know about.

Kauffman at home in the Universe.

 

The secret of life is auto-catalysis

review by Gert Korthof

[metatron]

you completely missed the point. I only mentioned Behe to point out that legit scientists for some reason do sometimes back up pseudoscientific ideas. Maybe a better example would be the late Ivan Sanderson?

 

And then "logically" conclude that a supernatural diety is the only option for explaining what we don't know or imagine. Also' date=' anyone who knows anything about evolution would easily see that [b']there is no such thing as "irreducible complexity".[/b]

Which is well and good, but you have yet to explain how your "discovery" led you to this conclusion.

 

 

The point about biological systems being irreducible complex is that in cannot be built bit by bit.

 

The separate parts have no function outside the contex of the whole.

What Kauffman is saying is that the basic biochemical system can form all at once though the spontaneous order of self-organized systems (autocatalytic sets). What my discovery shows is the same process on the level of complex animal life during the cambrian explosion.

 

 

In other words the same process that catalized the chemistry to make the first simple cells. Brought the cells together to form complex life forms.

 

 

quote:

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

SYSTEMS THEORY:

Systems theory or systems science argues that however complex or diverse the world that we experience, we will always find different types of organization in it, and such organization can be described by principles which are independent from the specific domain at which we are looking. Hence, if we would uncover those general laws, we would be able to analyze and solve problems in any domain, pertaining to any type of system. (Principia Cybernetica)

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

__________________

[Mokele]

Well, mystery solved: Metatron is just another creationist troll, evidently, albeit a very inept and circuitous one.

 

I repeat: *Learn* about evolution before you try to "fix" it.

 

Mokele

[Kygron]

metatron, I've been interested in what may be systems science for a while, so I attemted to read the first link you gave. Most likely it was excerpts from other research, but if that's what you're going on I can see why you're so confused.

 

I could only get halfway through. Every researcher has aproached the topic from a different point of view. Every one has used different techniques, every one has used different vocabulary. Most of them don't relate to each other outside of a general philosophy.

 

Strangely, most of them seem to suggest that COMPLICATED MATHAMATICS had been worked out, but the article only tryed to explain it using newly created vocabulary.

 

From the standpoint of my understanding, I don't see anything that would be counter to evolution as it stands today. Systems theory appears to be the science of the philosophy of developement. Unfortunatly that article was the philosophy of the science of the philosophy of developement, which is too abstract to be meaningfull unless you're working within the science.

 

I'll try and ask a question to see where on this spectrum you fit. Please describe the ETYMOLOGY of "oolitic sphere". Why did you come to use the word? If it's a placeholder for a mathematical form, provide a few example equations. If it's a discription of a chemical structure, explain why a few common words wouldn't be properly discriptive. If it's an organizational catagory, decribe the organizational structure with some common examples. If it's a reused word, point me to the right dictionary.

 

The fact that you've used the word means that it is meaninfull. At this point I don't care WHAT it means, but please decribe WHY you use it. I thought it was one of those paleobiology words that I don't know about, but it seems to be unconventional after all. Why wasn't a conventional word good enough?