Step aside Darwinism, say hello to "Dissipation-driven adaptive organization"

a reply to: Barcs
Hey Barcs:
What exactly have I made up? Please be more clear with your criticism.

And why are you so sensitive about being referred to as a neo-darwinist? You came off as a little insecure about it and I don’t know why. If it makes you feel better, its not a derogatory term in anyway. Nor is it a creationist tool, or an negative epithet of some sort.

In fact according to this: en.wikipedia.org...; Neo darwinism is defined in a number of dictionaries as being a reference to the modern synthesis, and has also been used by Dawkins and Gould. Neither of whom, last I checked, are creationists.

I tried but failed to find any reference to creationists when looking up this term in any official source.

So I’m sorry to say, but your entire post is completely misguided. Not everyone who disagrees with aspects of evolution is a creationist Barcs. Get over your paranoia, and put away the pitchforks. There’s no need for them here.

originally posted by: Barcs
a reply to: funkadeliaaaa

Do you have to be so combative and insulting about everything? Almost every post you make takes shots at other users or addresses them in a condescending manner. If you disagree with what I said, then show me why instead of getting so offended. Let's have an adult conversation about this instead of getting upset and belittling anybody that asks questions about it.

All I can say is bring it. This theory stands for itself and I've got nothing to loose by taking trolls who refuse to think to town.

Bring what? It's not a theory, it's an unproven hypothesis, so no, it doesn't stand on it's own yet.

Then why did it give me so many profound insights???

I'm not a troll, I'm a critical thinker.

well unfortunately merely being critical of an early stage hypothesis doesnt cut the mustard here. First you have to at least demonstrate some capacity to be creative in attempting to understand with so little evidence supporting it at this stage.

. I'm trying to reconcile this idea with evolution, but it seems you are already set in your ways that evolution is wrong and will accept nothing less.

lol it will take scientists many years to reconcile this one with their current paradigm of thinking about evolution. That's why you need to be creative and think outside the box to comprehend. I expected ATS members would be up to the task. I was wrong, and i didn't expect such negative responses in all honesty. Especially not being as shallow and nit picky as you are. Sonwhat thebword thepry was used instead of hypothesis. So what that its a business article? If you don't want to be treated like a child don't behave like one.

Maybe i should learn chinese on this forum. Is this a chinese forum? Are we all speaking chinese? "IT" you mean DDAO would not be anything. It either is or isnt. Dont use the word creature here either, its too specific.

You need to post less filler, and more substance.

I shouldn't have to read through 4 lines of condescending drivel just to get to your point.

I'll use the word creature if I see fit. Of course I know it could apply to all life and all matter.

then why limit its scope to complex life forms?

The point was it won't REPLACE natural selection, it will work alongside of it. The article even says exactly that.

I disagree. Also... There is every reason to believe he was saying that only to avoid controversy and like any sensible scientist would he's taking the diplomatic approach because of how sensitive this could be regarding research funding etc... However seeing as this is NOT that kind of forum, I thought why not extrapolate a little where he shies away, this is after all a discussion forum. In my view its either that or he himself as a scientist has not contemplated the full implications of this hypothesis... That's what I was hoping this thread would do. And no I can't change the title. I had 120 minutes after posting the thread to change the title and the time ran out.

They adapt according to this theory not due to Darwinian concepts of natural selection, but due to entropy based dissipation theory.

Why couldn't it be both?

Because theyre different paradigms, that I dont think are as compatible as you seem to think they are. So, let me ask you, why do you think they are they compatible?

Weaker does not necessarily mean less well adapted, and no one is saying any such nonsensical thing.

You don't need to correct me on evolution. I understand it, extensively. Well adapted is temporary and doesn't necessarily mean physically more muscular than another.

Apadtation implies a change in an organism that improves it chances of survival in its environment, correct? What is the Darwinian explanation for that adaptation occuring in the first place? There isn't one, correct?

I put in the word weaker to shorten the sentence. If you would actually address my concerns instead of nitpicking my terminology, we might get somewhere with this discussion.

Let's discuss instead of accusing me of not thinking, insulting my intelligence and claiming I didn't read it. You clearly posted this thread with a bone to pick, I'm just not sure why.

Also, you said that you were going to change the thread title, but it hasn't happened yet. Trust me, if you don't want the entire pro evolution crowd in here, all you have to do is remove Darwinism from the title. Hopefully it's not too late.

DDAO refutes that by saying it is survival of the most dissipation driven adaptive organism

Please explain the last part of this statement in layman's terms. What exactly does that mean? Without the insults this time, please.

Thanks.

It means there is no natural compunction to survive outside of the dissipation driven adaptation hypothesis.

Characteristics traditional darwinian evolutionary theory could not deal with or explain. Not only that, Darwinian theory also fails to explain the meaning / purpose of evolutionary processes unlike DDAO. And it is a theory as well as a hypothesis because the theory can already be backed up by a lot of evidence whereas the hypothesis about organisms requires probably a lot more research to be fully explained.

The meaning or purpose might not exist. Saying that evolution (NOT DARWINIAN THEORY, NO SUCH THING) FAILS to explain a purpose, is silly, because it doesn't need to. That isn't a shortcoming of the theory, it actually has nothing to do with this. The process the hypothesis is based on is not confirmed, therefor it's not a theory. It can't be both. Theories can contain hypotheses that are actively being tested, but last I checked this wasn't confirmed.

There might be a valid case for already calling it a theory purely in the realm of physics. But I don't know. The DDAO interpretation of the orgins of life is certainly still only a hypothesis at this stage I am not denying that.

a reply to: PhotonEffect
I think most people would struggle to understand how someone doesn't understand natural selection. It is surely the most simple and obvious part of evolution.
In the very simplest example if you have a cage of a hundred monkeys and give them food through the roof of the cage but only enough to keep half alive then on average the survivors will be the tallest. As the survivors breed then the next generation will be more likely to be tall. . If you make it a puzzle to get food the smartest will(on average)survive etc etc.
Nature is just the same but with far more variables.
This hypothesis doesn't in anyway replace this fundamental idea. Just may if correct fill in some gaps that natural selection does not explain.
Note no guidance, plan, creator, or selecting force required. Just the environment the organism lives in.

a reply to: funkadeliaaaa

This is a very interesting article (though its just that an article not a scientific paper). However it has no bearing on the theory of evolution. I know you've disagreed when others have said this, but honestly it will not refute or accentuate that theory, its not dealing with diversification (evolution) of life, hence its not pertinent.

Edit (forgot to say this): Darwinism is not really a thing in the scientific community anymore. The theory of evolution has evolved (sorry bad pun) beyond the original theorem of Darwin's. You would really hope so too. Seldom are the first ideas the correct ones.

a reply to: ScepticScot

Yes natural selection had to assume a new definition under the modern synthesis to the differential survival and reproduction rate between organisms. I understand it just fine even though to me that means nothing. I don't agree with the power it's given as the driver of evolution.

All you've demonstrated with your monkey example is the tendency towards telling just so stories. Either that or you gave us an example of artificial selection. In a controlled lab test, sure, you can create an environment that will direct which phenotypic traits may prevail.

However in the open natural world, I would find it difficult to accept what someone claims to be the trait that got selected for whatever reason. There is no way to verify that, which makes it non science, or is it nonsense. Regardless, nature is not the same as your monkey example for the very reason you cited. There are to many other variables at play.

Not only that, natural selection says nothing about generating novelty. It is not a generative theory, and that's what the focus should be on. But here's where you probably tell me that it's all mutation based.

originally posted by: PhotonEffect

This should be easy for you since I gather you know what you’re talking about.

An organism mutates its DNA slightly with each subsequent generation. Mutations are either benign, harmful, or helpful in helping that organism survive. If the mutation doesn't out and out kill the organism, it will likely live to birth a new generation passing on that gene. If that gene happens to help it survive better, the chances of the gene being passed down increase. This can appear like it is being selected, but that isn't true. It just has a higher percentage of being passed on. These mutations accrue over many generations, changing the makeup of the organism over time.

Is that good enough for you?

I'm sorry, maybe I wasn't clear.
You said: “It [natural selection] actually DOES say that it [evolution?] is being driven by natural laws of mechanics and biology”

I asked you to explain this since the theory of natural selection says no such thing that I’m aware of. At least not in those words.

I don’t need you to explain evolution to me, just asking that you please clarify your post so I can gauge what you actually know about evolution.

See above.

This thread references “Darwinism” which is evolution by natural selection, so everything I've said so far or may continue to say here re: natural selection is very much on topic. But why not let the mods decide from here on out, this way we can focus on having a debate.

The OP made a mistake in calling it Darwinism, that is outdated. We aren't trying to discuss that theory because it has already been replaced with modern evolutionary synthesis. But in any case, I wasn't the one talking about you calling it Darwinism, but it sounds like you are trying to argue semantics here. Why pursue a useless conversation?

a reply to: Krazysh0t

No, natural selection can still exist under this hypothesis.

Better stated: this hypothesis extends natural selection to nonliving matter. Aggregations of matter that are better at promoting entropy are naturally selected for.

a reply to: PhotonEffect

It's because Neo-Darwinists (aka "Modern Synsthesists") think that natural selection is the main "mechanism" driving evolution. Well, natural selection does no such thing. There's nothing to it actually.

I seem to recall you failing to justify this claim in an argument you had with me some time ago. Surprised to see you still clinging to it.

And no, I don't propose to rehearst the argument again. I just want people to know that you're arguing from premises that have been demonstrated to you to be false.

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: Krazysh0t

No, natural selection can still exist under this hypothesis.

Better stated: this hypothesis extends natural selection to nonliving matter. Aggregations of matter that are better at promoting entropy are naturally selected for.

Exactly, that's why I made the reference to set theory. Evolution would be the subset of the set that is this hypothesis. I'm not sure why that is so hard for the OP to get.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I'm not sure why that is so hard for the OP to get.

I think it's because he hasn't looked at my old thread on the same subject: Abiogenesis not probable but inevitable, says physicist

And to think I used to work in advertising. How have the mighty fallen!

a reply to: funkadeliaaaa

Thank you

I see matter and consciousness as two different things, things of a different 'dimension' of a different world. Probably humans ever will be able to put their consciousness in something else, let's say in a computer or an animal. But at that moment the computer or the animal becomes us.
The day humans really understand the quantum world they will understand a lot more about God.
At that day they will be able to separate mind and body. They will be able to put all minds together in a ‘cloud’ that feeds itself with magnetism and that travels through wormholes between Galaxies.
Those clouds exist already in other Galaxies or in ours (some of them are the so called UFO’s), but they never could have formed on planet earth because earth is to hostile. Here consciousness never had enough time to grow to the point where it reached the level of the human being.

Darwin was right for a great part (about life on earth) but Wallace was more right: ‘Human consciousness doesn’t come from this world’.

www.evawaseerst.be... Read the red dots

a reply to: PhotonEffect

Show me a single scientific paper or academic in the field that uses the term "neo-Darwinism".

Or is it a term you've pulled out of your prison pocket?

a reply to: PhotonEffect

Ok this is the FOURTH time I'm trying to type this. The site keeps timing out and it's really getting annoying. If I rush through my points in this I apologize.

I did a google search for neo darwinist. Nothing came up, only links to "neo darwinism", which CAN actually refer to modern synthesis. However, the term is archaic and outdated and today is only used by science deniers to attack evolution and paint it to be some kind of religion. It is not used by the majority of scientists. I'd wager that you couldn't find a single evolutionary biologist today that actually refers to himself or herself as a neo darwinist. Yes the terms exist, but they aren't scientifically valid. It is the equivalent of calling an American American a colored person. It's degrading, insulting, shows poor form and overall poor knowledge of evolution.

Read a scientific research paper on evolution and then read one of those creationist attack sites. It's clear based on the terminology they use. The term darwinist or darwinism is an immediate red flag that you are dealing with a scientifically illiterate science denier, in the large majority of cases. Why are they are afraid to call it "evolution?" I'll tell you why. They want to paint it into a belief system, but it's not, so they are wrong.

What is the STRICT definition of natural selection? If you could please explain what it is or how it “operates” on organisms without relying on its typical metaphorical constituents [i.e select, selected for, favored, mechanism, process or force] that would be most appreciated here.

There is nothing metaphorical about better adapted organisms being more likely to survive a given environment. You are getting hung up on the terminology, not the actual meaning.

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: Krazysh0t

No, natural selection can still exist under this hypothesis.

Better stated: this hypothesis extends natural s
election to nonliving matter. Aggregations of matter that are better at promoting entropy are naturally selected for.

Thats false.

Is a rock NATURALLY SELECTED to fall to ground by the earth gravitational pull? Is a helium balloon NATURALLY SELECTED to float into the sky?

NO

a reply to: funkadeliaaaa

Glad you brought this idea back into the ATS limelight. It took a bit of a beating last February - but really does merit serious attention.

A challenge to the genetic interpretation of biology

A proposal for reformulating the foundations of biology, based on the 2nd law of thermodynamics and which is in sharp contrast to the prevailing genetic view, is published today in the Journal of the Royal Society Interface under the title "Genes without prominence: a reappraisal of the foundations of biology".

…the prominent emphasis currently given to the gene in biology is based on a flawed interpretation of experimental genetics and should be replaced by more fundamental considerations of how the cell utilises energy. There are far-reaching implications, both in research and for the current strategy in many countries to develop personalised medicine based on genome-wide sequencing.

.....

F&S&

a reply to: GetHyped

Show me a single scientific paper or academic in the field that uses the term "neo-Darwinism".

No problem.

1979: Beyond neo-Darwinism--an epigenetic approach to evolution.

1996: Neo-Darwinian developmental evolution: can we bridge the gap between pattern and process?

2010: Neo-Darwinism, the Modern Synthesis and selfish genes: are they of use in physiology?

2013: Some Current Concerns of Neo-Darwinism:Gene Introgression Throughout a Species Border

a reply to: soficrow

No problem.

There is a huge problem!

OMICS is included in the "Beall's List", which documents publishers who are predatory publishers that "take advantage of academics desperate to get their work published." The journals are not actually peer-reviewed as advertised, often contain mistakes and that its fees are excessive. OMICS journal authors pay a publication fee of up to $2,700.

Some observers have described the publisher as "predatory", insofar as authors who have submitted papers have been sent invoices after their manuscripts were accepted for publication despite the lack of a robust peer-review process. Charges may be as high as US$3600.[5] One author received an invoice for US$2700 after her paper was accepted; this fee was not mentioned in the email message OMICS sent her to solicit a submission.[2] These observations have led critics to assert that the main purpose of the publisher is commercial rather than academic.

[5][6] Other criticisms of OMICS include the publication of pseudoscientific articles,[5] deceptive marketing practices,[4][7] targeting of young investigators or those in lower income regions,[7][8] and the advertising of academic or government scientists as speakers or organizers for OMICS conferences without their agreement.[7] In 2012, an OMICS journal rejected a paper after the reviewer noticed it was plagiarised from a paper he had previously co-authored; another OMICS journal published the same paper later that year. The paper was removed from OMICS' website in 2014.[11] In 2013, an OMICS journal accepted a bogus and obviously flawed publication submitted as part of a "sting" operation by Science.[

Link

The term "neo-Darwinism" should have been your first clue OMICS journal accepts bogus publications.

originally posted by: funkadeliaaaa
Then why did it give me so many profound insights???

Such as?

well unfortunately merely being critical of an early stage hypothesis doesnt cut the mustard here. First you have to at least demonstrate some capacity to be creative in attempting to understand with so little evidence supporting it at this stage.

I wasn't being critical of the hypothesis itself, I didn't agree with your assessment about it replacing natural selection.

it will take scientists many years to reconcile this one with their current paradigm of thinking about evolution. That's why you need to be creative and think outside the box to comprehend. I expected ATS members would be up to the task. I was wrong, and i didn't expect such negative responses in all honesty. Especially not being as shallow and nit picky as you are. So what the word theory was used instead of hypothesis. So what that its a business article? If you don't want to be treated like a child don't behave like one.

How did I behave like a child? I said that the hypothesis was more about origins than evolution and the article seems to agree with that. You jumped me over that statement but haven't explained why yet, and now you are calling me shallow. I'm not the one who has insulted the intelligence of several posters, or talked down to folks about speaking in Chinese. The main reason for the negativity was the "step aside Darwinism" part in the title. It doesn't make sense to fight misunderstandings with insults. You correct the information that is wrong and explain it. That's what I do at least.

Also theory and hypothesis are vastly different in science. I didn't think it would be considered "childish" to point that out.

then why limit its scope to complex life forms?

I'm pretty sure I haven't done that.

They adapt according to this theory not due to Darwinian concepts of natural selection, but due to entropy based dissipation theory.

Why couldn't it be both?

Because theyre different paradigms, that I dont think are as compatible as you seem to think they are. So, let me ask you, why do you think they are they compatible?

You're really going to just dodge the question like that? You seem to understand this hypothesis pretty well, and have predicted it will be proven, so please break it down for me. I'm just trying to improve my understanding here. To me, it sounds like it won't replace natural selection, but instead NS will be part of of it. Kind of like how Einstein's relativity didn't replace gravity, but gravity is part of it. I don't see why both couldn't effect evolution in different ways. The article said that natural selection could not explain every single transition. That doesn't mean it can't explain any. Better adapted organisms will still pass down more genes, so I don't see natural selection going anywhere. It's not all or nothing.

Apadtation implies a change in an organism that improves it chances of survival in its environment, correct? What is the Darwinian explanation for that adaptation occuring in the first place? There isn't one, correct?

Genetic mutation.

DDAO refutes that by saying it is survival of the most dissipation driven adaptive organism

Please explain the last part of this statement in layman's terms. What exactly does that mean? Without the insults this time, please.

It means there is no natural compunction to survive outside of the dissipation driven adaptation hypothesis.

I asked for layman's terms, you just repeated the name of the hypothesis. I'm guessing you mean competition rather than compunction. Why is there no natural competition? Why does it no longer apply? Break it down for me.

a reply to: Barcs

I meant African American not American American LOL. Sorry about that.

a reply to: funkadeliaaaa im strruggeling to see how entropy could fit in this picture. Perhaps, a system at any snap shot period of time may appear organized and structurally complex, but ultimately said complexity is just a point in the process of entropy. ultimately leading to a energy stagnant universe.