N.Wells
Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005
|
| Quote (GaryGaulin @ Sep. 05 2017,21:40) | | Quote (coldfirephoenix @ Sep. 05 2017,18:27) | | Gary, YOU argue against natural selection in your incoherent ramblings you call a theory. |
The phrase is useless to theory that has no "natural selection" variable in its model. A scientific theory for an entirely different phenomenon is not supposed to or should be expected to argue against the other. Therefore the only page you'll find it is on the page that explains why from that point on it's completely absent from the text, appears zero times.
| Quote | Preface/Premise
This scientific theory explains how “intelligent cause" works, as is required by the premise of the Theory of Intelligent Design(1) which states:
“The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.”
The logical framework of this theory does not have or need a “natural selection” variable. Intelligent living things "learn" (not select/selected) and can take a "guess” (not mutate) and in its lifetime physically “develop” (not evolve). A streamlined vocabulary eliminates subjective terminology and phrases like “evo-devo” that only Darwinian theory needs for it to connect to developmental Biology. The result is a more complete model of reality which is not only useful to scientists but also to computer programmers, artists, musicians, clergy, and anyone interested in knowing who and what we are, and where we came from.
Credit for this theory must also go to hundreds who as far back as 1980’s helped add to and strengthen the scientific concepts which led to novel theory that in time became all of this. Scientist or not, all who were a part of the way things went, as the theory moved from forum to forum on the internet, helped change science history by ultimately bringing to life the once thought to be scientifically impossible Theory of Intelligent Design.
Thank you! |
My not needing the "natural selection" variable is not an argument against anything. It just shows that the model/theory I develop does in fact have its own unique set of variables, and all alone "can stand on its own scientific merit". We thus have nothing at all needing to be argued over, much more free time. We're going to dance, have some fun:
www.kurzweilai.net/forums/topic/ok-its-a-dancing-robot-spider-moving-to-the-cuban-pete-song |
Indeed, not everything has to be explained by evolution, but evolution also does not start and end with natural selection - other processes are also involved.
| Quote | This scientific theory [1] explains [2] how “intelligent cause"[3] works, as is required by the premise [4] of the Theory of Intelligent Design [5] which states:
“The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things [6] are best explained by an intelligent cause [7], not an undirected process such as natural selection.” [8]
The logical framework of this theory does not have or need a “natural selection” variable. Intelligent living things "learn" (not select/selected) [9] and can take a "guess” (not mutate) [10] and in its lifetime physically “develop” (not evolve) [11]. A streamlined vocabulary eliminates subjective terminology [12] and phrases like “evo-devo” that only Darwinian theory needs for it to connect to developmental Biology [13]. The result is a more complete model of reality which is not only useful [14] to scientists but also to computer programmers, artists, musicians, clergy, and anyone interested in knowing who and what we are, and where we came from [15]. |
[1] Your proposal does not rise to the level of a scientific theory. It fails to qualify because you have not defined your terms, provided supporting evidence, or actually explained anything, and most particularly because it has not reached any level of acceptance, even at the level of being found worthy of further consideration or investigation.
2) It doesn't explain anything. It just makes a bunch of assertions in marginally comprehensible English.
3) Not used in the normal sense of intelligent cause; no operational definition; no regular redefinition; no demonstration that this actually exists in any but the normal sense.
4) You can describe this as a premise, but you never get beyond re-asserting your premise and assuming your desired conclusions. You give us no reason to accept your premises.
5) "Intelligent Design" has a history of applying to a very different concept from what you propose, and your ideas do not encompass design, nor intelligence as usually understood. Also, "intelligent design" has completely failed as an intellectual enterprise, so why you would want to take over a name with such horrendous baggage is unclear. IT's as if you were starting a party devoted to peace, love, and tolerance, but called it the Nazi Party because that name had been misused in the past.
6) Until you specify exactly which features are better explained this way, this is a meaningless exercise.
7) Again, "Intelligent cause" is going undefined, ill-explained, and unsupported.
8) You fail to justify why natural selection fails to explain certain features of living things. Evidence for natural selection is very strong - it's well defined and well documented, and the few times you talk about biology you get your facts wrong - salmon as examplars of parental devotion, the function of the giraffe's laryngeal nerves, crocodile parenting, and on and on and on.
9) You have not demonstrated that learning can substitute for selection in evolutionary changes (and it can't).
10) You have not documented that "guesses" can substitute for mutations. Guessing is not a hallmark of intelligence. Making guesses tends to happen when information and intelligence are insufficient to the task at hand - intelligence comes in more in learning from mistakes that result from poor guesses.
Prior to modern genetics, nothing learned in life can become part of the genetic inheritance.
11) Development during a life cycle affects the genome via natural selection, not the reverse. Epigenetics does not really offer an alternative here, as epigenetic change has limited duration and presumably became an option via standard evolutionary pathways.
12) Presumably you are dissing natural selection again, but that is well documented in studies in the field and in the lab and in computer models.
13) You appear not to understand evo-devo.
14) Usefulness not yet demonstrated.
15) You have not yet demonstrated how standard interpretations fail in explaining "what we are and where we came from".
|
