a new paradigma in evolution theory

[Zbigniew Lisiecki]

Hi, I'd like to present you a new theory of evolution, which explans the phenomenon of evolution rather be self-references than by the competition, as the standard Darvins' theory does. The text is here: http://zbyszek.evot.org/ebs

I'd be pleased by your comments.

best,

Zbigniew Lisiecki

[Robittybob1]

Link won't open very well. There is nothing but some headings in my view. What am I doing wrong?

I see you have to click the "First Reading Expand All" button.

Edited June 5, 2015 by Robittybob1

[Zbigniew Lisiecki]

Ok, thank you. I see. I'll correct and write.

 

 

No, this is fine now. Possibly my server had some small trouble, but it should work properly now. Would you try again, please ?

Edited June 5, 2015 by Zbigniew Lisiecki

[swansont]

!

Moderator Note

 

You need to post material here for people to discuss.

 

rule 2.7

• Advertising and spam is prohibited. We don't mind if you put a link to your noncommercial site (e.g. a blog) in your signature and/or profile, but don't go around making threads to advertise it. Links, pictures and videos in posts should be relevant to the discussion, and members should be able to participate in the discussion without clicking any links or watching any videos. Videos and pictures should be accompanied by enough text to set the tone for the discussion, and should not be posted alone. Users advertising commercial sites will be banned.

 

[Phi for All]

Organic matter do evolves, but if it's not due to the natural selection what is it than, that makes it more and more complex when time passes ?

I had to stop reading here. Natural selection is evident EVERY DAY, we observe it constantly, even creationists allow that natural selection is fact, so I don't know why you question it here. Also, it's a mistake to think evolution produces more complex organisms. Many organisms were much more complex, and have been simplified over time, such as deep cave dwellers that lose their eyes to non-use.

 

Honestly, evolution is a fact, and the theory of evolution is one of the most supported theories we've ever had. Because of some of the fundamental flaws in your understanding of it, I think you should study it further before attempting to re-write it.

[Arete]

Would you try again, please ?

 

Without meaning to offend, there's numerous reasons I'm not going to click on your link. Would you care to provide an abstract or a discussion point?

[Endy0816]

Non-coding DNA has been explained within existing theory. Acting to regulate expression and serve as a mutation buffer and source of novel material.

[Zbigniew Lisiecki]

Hi swansont, I understand your claim. Yet the trouble is that subchapters open when clicking on them. This makes the rather long text easier to read. Therefore I cannot copy it here. I can only put excerbs.I can asure you that my whole domain evot.org (e.g. other servises too) has absolutely no payed commercial advert.

 

Hi, Phi for All, I fully agree with you that natural selection is a fact seen every day. It also shapes the evolution of species. I only say that natural selection (NS) is not a correct force promoting evolution. Saying so means as if somebody says that the gras grows from shearing. The true force promoting evolution has another source !

I know that my theory is suprising, but read please more exact and judge about it later.

 

Hi Endy0816, it may well be true that: "Many noncoding DNA sequences have important biological functions", as wikipedia says, but 80 % of non-coding sequnces is a little bit too much, don't you think ? Surely considerable efforts has been made to explain non-coding DNA, but my theory offers a very simple strightforward and obvious explanation ! Read it and compare, please.

[Robittybob1]

Hi, I'd like to present you a new theory of evolution, which explans the phenomenon of evolution rather be self-references than by the competition, as the standard Darvins' theory does. The text is here: http://zbyszek.evot.org/ebs

I'd be pleased by your comments.

best,

Zbigniew Lisiecki

What is your background and the reason you have come up with the new paradigm?

[Zbigniew Lisiecki]

Why do you ask about my backgroud ? I'd rather omit arguments by authority. If you'd like to know more about me just look at my homepage. I observed that some trivial mechanism, well known for each electronic ingenieur might be something new for a biologist, who does't have a technical education. Trivial solutions might be overseen by nearly all specialists. Still the nature shows us a suprising unity.

 

ps. I added some critical voices under Introduction -> Discussions and critics

Edited June 7, 2015 by Zbigniew Lisiecki

[Phi for All]

Hi, Phi for All, I fully agree with you that natural selection is a fact seen every day. It also shapes the evolution of species. I only say that natural selection (NS) is not a correct force promoting evolution. Saying so means as if somebody says that the gras grows from shearing. The true force promoting evolution has another source !

 

First, grass DOES grow from shearing. It grows differently than if you don't shear it. Shearing makes the plant use more resources to restore its ability to use light. Blades and runners will grow faster than roots if you shear them.

 

Second, while natural selection isn't the only driver affecting evolution, it's the main driver. It's also part of evolution most people grasp intuitively, that traits which make an individual creature successful enough to breed are passed along to offspring. How can you view this mechanism the same way you do cutting grass?

 

Third, I'm here, at SFN, a science discussion site. I'd rather stay here to discuss this. I don't want to go to your homepage, and when you agreed to join here, you agreed to give me enough information to discuss your idea without going anywhere else (except to trusted sources for verification). Please tell me what the "true force promoting evolution" is, and please support your assertions with evidence. If your idea has any merit, we'll deal with the "source" separately.

[Zbigniew Lisiecki]

> First, grass DOES grow from shearing. It grows differently than if you don't shear it.

 

Only the second sentence is true. The gras grows from the sun with the help of water and minerals. You can see it with the following argument: the gras grows without shearing with the sun alone, but it won't with shearing alone, but without the sun.

 

It's a pitty you won't look at the original text. Are you afraid of something like viruses, or spoofing ? How can I help you ? If you give me your e-mail addres I'll send you the whole article as pure html and you can verify this with any standard editor. My article is surely too long to post it here as one post. I'll copy an abstract below:

 

The contemporary standard theory explaining the evolution of species with the natural selection between competiting forms is not sufficient as a general paradigma. This article proposes a change of view by which a feedback mechanism a main example of which is the loop closed with self-replication appears as the engine promoting evolution. The new view don't deny that the phenotype is in most cases shaped in the process of natural selection. Yet on a more general abstraction level it is the feedback mechanism that decides that some forms appear and other don't. With a new view explaining some phenomena appears more natural, is easier to understand and importand generalisations are possible.

Edited June 9, 2015 by Zbigniew Lisiecki

[Strange]

Are you afraid of something like viruses, or spoofing ? How can I help you ?

 

It is about the rules of the forum. You agreed to them when you signed up.

 

Why not just tell us what your idea is: what do you think drives evolution and what is the evidence for it?

 

(Much against my better judgement, I did look at your website and I am none the wiser. So a summary here might help.)

Edited June 9, 2015 by Strange

[Zbigniew Lisiecki]

OK, please excuse me that I have overseen this rule. Here is my idea:

 

The true power feeding the biological evolution is the circulation of matter defined by the self-replication (of DNA).

This circulation is powered by the sun. The natural selection on the other hand has only a steering significance,

without which the circulation will take place too. Do you agree ?

I'll follow if yes.

[Strange]

What do you mean by "circulation of matter"? What type of matter? And what it is circulated through? And what does DNA have to do with it?

 

How does this differ from what is currently known about the metabolism, reproduction, etc of organisms? (Which is also driven by DNA.)

 

 

This circulation is powered by the sun.

 

What about organisms and environments that have no exposure to the sun?

 

 

The natural selection on the other hand has only a steering significance

 

True.

[Phi for All]

Only the second sentence is true. The gras grows from the sun with the help of water and minerals. You can see it with the following argument: the gras grows without shearing with the sun alone, but it won't with shearing alone, but without the sun.

No. Both sentences are true. Grass blades and runners grow at an accelerated rate when you shear them. Yes, sun, water, and minerals help the plant grow overall, but you change the way the plant uses its resources when you shear it.

 

It's a pitty you won't look at the original text. Are you afraid of something like viruses, or spoofing ? How can I help you ? If you give me your e-mail addres I'll send you the whole article as pure html and you can verify this with any standard editor. My article is surely too long to post it here as one post.

I did look at the original, but no other members should be required to. Excerpts, relevant to the part we're discussing, would be the best approach. You don't need to paste the whole thing all at once.

 

I'll copy an abstract below:

 

The contemporary standard theory explaining the evolution of species with the natural selection between competiting forms is not sufficient as a general paradigma. This article proposes a change of view by which a feedback mechanism a main example of which is the loop closed with self-replication appears as the engine promoting evolution. The new view don't deny that the phenotype is in most cases shaped in the process of natural selection. Yet on a more general abstraction level it is the feedback mechanism that decides that some forms appear and other don't. With a new view explaining some phenomena appears more natural, is easier to understand and importand generalisations are possible.

The true power feeding the biological evolution is the circulation of matter defined by the self-replication (of DNA).

This circulation is powered by the sun. The natural selection on the other hand has only a steering significance,

without which the circulation will take place too. Do you agree ?

I'll follow if yes.

Are you simply saying that the sun gives us our energy, and therefore drives evolution? That without it, evolution fails? Isn't this like saying the Big Bang Theory is driven by air because all the physicists working on it need air to breathe? It may be true but it misses the whole point.

 

Here's a falsification of your idea. If the sun were to stop working, we'd have a few weeks before the Earth got too cold to support life. But in that few weeks, there would be species that could mate and have offspring, passing along their genes as evolution always does, minus the sun. So yes, we all require the working sun for ANYTHING to happen here, but the process of evolution can continue without it, until there are no more organisms to mate. Bacteria could continue in a limited fashion, and there might be even more life that could evolve just using the cooling core for as long as it lasts.

[Zbigniew Lisiecki]

... How does this differ from what is currently known ...

I say nothing that differs from what is already known in this point.

Without the sun the evolution needs another source of power like hot gases from the earth under the sea or similar sources, otherwise it dies.

... Are you simply saying that the sun gives us our energy, and therefore drives evolution? That without it, evolution fails?

Nearly. I was speaking about the sun supplying self-replications. There are these self-replications which are crucial for the evolution to take place.

...If the sun were to stop working, we'd have a few weeks before the Earth got too cold to support life....

Yes, the life could survive some weeks, but the evolution survives only as far as self-replications take place.

 

What I say at this point is so simple and obvious that you doubt expecting something less simple ! The crucial point is later.

Do you agree, that self-replications are the basis of any evolution ?

[Arete]

Do you agree, that self-replications are the basis of any evolution ?

 

If you're saying biological evolution requires the presence of self-replicating biological entities, well, sure...

[Strange]

Quite. Selection is only part of the story. You also need heritable characteristics and a source of variation in the population.

 

I haven't seen what is novel in this idea.

[Zbigniew Lisiecki]

Exactly, three stages are necessary in the standard theory:

 

I. Organic matter is replicating itself by passing DNS structure to its' children.

 

II. Thereby unavoidable small changes in the DNA structure appear and

 

III. the environment distinguishes between them by damping structures,

which are less adjusted and allowing better adjusted to spread around.

 

and this is nothing new.

 

Now the new idea is that stages II and III are not necessary at all. I suffices for the evolution to take place.

Edited June 9, 2015 by Zbigniew Lisiecki

[Strange]

Now the new idea is that stages II and III are not necessary at all. I suffices for the evolution to take place.

 

Then why aren't evolutionary changes just random?

 

What causes species to evolve to fit their environments?

 

What evidence do you have for this?

 

As we see changes in DNA over generations (II) what prevents this affecting evolution?

 

As we see selection take place (III) what prevents this affecting evolution?

[Zbigniew Lisiecki]

 

Then why aren't evolutionary changes just random?

 

What causes species to evolve to fit their environments?

 

What evidence do you have for this?

 

As we see changes in DNA over generations (II) what prevents this affecting evolution?

 

As we see selection take place (III) what prevents this affecting evolution?

1. Due to my theory evolutionary changes are not random, because 1. some circles of self-replication are stronger, some weaker, 2. some new circles appear naturally as a consequence of possible solutions. As a result certain spectrum (of species) establishes itself.

2. Species sometimes fit to the environment just as a consequence of damping (nat.selection), sometimes they don't if damping is weaker

3. The evidence for my thesis are existing systems which evolve with neglecting selection presure or systems evolving completely without environment

4. DNA changes surely affect the construction of individual species, but not an evolution generally. Without DNA changes the evolution takes place too.

5. Selection certainly affect only the way organism are build up, but not an evolution itself. You just use the term "evolution" in double meaning: 1. as a process, 2. as this process output. 2. is touched by selection and DNA changes and 1. is not.

May I suggest you to consider a picture of a feedback. I noted it in footnote sup 10 in chapter 1.2.1 (power of self-reference). It allows to see easier why certain spectrum of species estabishes itself.

[Arete]

Now the new idea is that stages II and III are not necessary at all. I suffices for the evolution to take place.

 

Sorry, but this is trivially falsifiable. As the genome of a biological entity is the heritable component, changes which affect phenotype without altering the genotype are not passed on to subsequent generations. I think what you're proposing here is Larmarkian evolution which as long been falsified.

 

1. Due to my theory evolutionary changes are not random, because 1. some circles of self-replication are stronger, some weaker, 2. some new circles appear naturally as a consequence of possible solutions. As a result certain spectrum (of species) establishes itself.

 

Again, observation has long proven your first assertion to be generally false; mutations are by and large random - See the Lederberg experiment.

 

 

2. Species sometimes fit to the environment just as a consequence of damping (nat.selection), sometimes they don't if damping is weaker

3. The evidence for my thesis are existing systems which evolve with neglecting selection presure or systems evolving completely without environment

 

Yes, this would commonly be referred to as genetic drift, and is not a new idea.

 

4. DNA changes surely affect the construction of individual species, but not an evolution generally. Without DNA changes the evolution takes place too.

 

As previously stated, the genome of a biological entity is the heritable component, changes which affect phenotype without altering the genotype are not passed on to subsequent generations - thus cannot cause evolution.

 

5. Selection certainly affect only the way organism are build up, but not an evolution itself.

 

Evolution via natural selection has been thoroughly validated by empirical research.

 

You just use the term "evolution" in double meaning:

 

In biology, the term evolution has a well defined meaning: Evolution is change in heritable traits of biological populations over successive generations. Using it in another sense, in a biological context would be incorrect.

 

You seem to be thinking deeply about evolution, but unfortunately a lack of fundamental understanding about the theory and evidence for it seems to be leading you astray. I would suggest some basic research would allow to refine your thinking and steer you back on the right path.

 

Good luck.

[Phi for All]

You seem to be thinking deeply about evolution, but unfortunately a lack of fundamental understanding about the theory and evidence for it seems to be leading you astray. I would suggest some basic research would allow to refine your thinking and steer you back on the right path.

 

Good luck.

 

We see this so much, this enthusiasm and desire for knowledge, without the basic science education to form a good foundation.

 

I've always used building analogies for this, but maybe it's more like George R. R. Martin's maesters in Game of Thrones. The maesters forge a physical chain, link by link, once they have mastered the knowledge of that discipline. The bits of knowledge, the links, have value in themselves, but the real value is in the chain they make when you put them together.

 

In a way, when people cherry-pick the bits that make sense to them, and ignore the rest of the knowledge, they're placing more value on the links than on the chain they could make. They aren't giving themselves a chance for deeper understanding because they're trying to connect the links they have with bailing wire and string, instead of using the links in the mainstream way that we know forges a stronger chain.

 

As with most analogies, I'm sure this breaks down, but I wanted to mention it because I hate seeing such a love of science knowledge go unappreciated because it lacks formal training. And we see this so often here.

[tar]

Phi for All,

 

I have not gone to "Zbigniew Lisiecki's" paper yet, but I have gone to several of Arete's links.

 

Changes in phenotype can not be passed on to the next generation, through the genes, but if one population survives an environmental factor, where another one dies, the surviving population ALREADY had the genotype with which to fit that particular environment. It seems to me, that junk DNA is already loaded with prearranged, non coding stuff, that does not "fit" the parent's environment, so is not used. But, if the environment changes, since the genotype of the offspring, can not include a change in the phenotype as a reaction to the change in the environment, the fitting nature of the surviving population, was already present in the parent's genotype in that population, and the fitting nature of the genes present in the child's genes was not the result of a mutation that occurred between the pattern of the parent and the pattern of the child, but must have been a random, non useful, strand of DNA, that was copied faithfully for eons and never used before, until the penicillin was encountered in the surviving population's environment.

 

Regards, TAR

Like, if some Solar flare fried the brains of everybody with black or brown hair, but 10% of blonds survived. The mutation had nothing to do with radiation, and it happened eons ago. The blondes were already fit to survive the flare.