Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

a new paradigma in evolution theory


  • Please log in to reply
26 replies to this topic

#1 Zbigniew Lisiecki

Zbigniew Lisiecki

    Lepton

  • New Members
  • 9 posts
  • LocationWarsaw / Poland

Posted 5 June 2015 - 07:01 AM

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
  • 0

#2 Robittybob1

Robittybob1

    Primate

  • Senior Members
  • 2,910 posts
  • LocationNew Zealand

Posted 5 June 2015 - 07:24 AM

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 by Robittybob1, 5 June 2015 - 07:26 AM.

  • 0

#3 Zbigniew Lisiecki

Zbigniew Lisiecki

    Lepton

  • New Members
  • 9 posts
  • LocationWarsaw / Poland

Posted 5 June 2015 - 09:23 AM

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 by Zbigniew Lisiecki, 5 June 2015 - 09:24 AM.

  • 0

#4 swansont

swansont

    Evil Liar (or so I'm told)

  • Moderators
  • 36,711 posts
  • LocationWashington DC region

Posted 5 June 2015 - 10:05 AM

!

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.


  • 2

Minutus cantorum, minutus balorum, minutus carborata descendum pantorum          To go to the fortress of ultimate darkness, click the up arrow ^

I am not a minimum-wage government shill.             Forget it, Jake — it's Crackpottown.

My SFN blog: Swans on Tea                                                           

 

 

                                                                                                                     

 

 


#5 Phi for All

Phi for All

    Chief Executive Offworlder

  • Moderators
  • 16,778 posts
  • LocationCO, USA

Posted 5 June 2015 - 02:56 PM

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.


  • 0
"You knew the job was dangerous when you took it, Fred!" -- Super Chicken
 

My biggest problem is the absolute ignorance of the others who post here.


#6 Arete

Arete

    Biology Expert

  • Resident Experts
  • 1,494 posts
  • LocationUSA

Posted 5 June 2015 - 06:21 PM

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? 


  • 0

#7 Endy0816

Endy0816

    Primate

  • Senior Members
  • 2,074 posts
  • LocationOrlando

Posted 6 June 2015 - 01:41 AM

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


  • 0

#8 Zbigniew Lisiecki

Zbigniew Lisiecki

    Lepton

  • New Members
  • 9 posts
  • LocationWarsaw / Poland

Posted 7 June 2015 - 06:39 AM

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.
  • 0

#9 Robittybob1

Robittybob1

    Primate

  • Senior Members
  • 2,910 posts
  • LocationNew Zealand

Posted 7 June 2015 - 06:46 AM

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?


  • 0

#10 Zbigniew Lisiecki

Zbigniew Lisiecki

    Lepton

  • New Members
  • 9 posts
  • LocationWarsaw / Poland

Posted 7 June 2015 - 01:22 PM

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 by Zbigniew Lisiecki, 7 June 2015 - 01:28 PM.

  • 0

#11 Phi for All

Phi for All

    Chief Executive Offworlder

  • Moderators
  • 16,778 posts
  • LocationCO, USA

Posted 8 June 2015 - 04:31 PM

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.


  • 2
"You knew the job was dangerous when you took it, Fred!" -- Super Chicken
 

My biggest problem is the absolute ignorance of the others who post here.


#12 Zbigniew Lisiecki

Zbigniew Lisiecki

    Lepton

  • New Members
  • 9 posts
  • LocationWarsaw / Poland

Posted 9 June 2015 - 02:03 AM

> 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 by Zbigniew Lisiecki, 9 June 2015 - 02:05 AM.

  • 0

#13 Strange

Strange

    SuperNerd

  • Senior Members
  • 13,092 posts
  • Location珈琲店

Posted 9 June 2015 - 07:17 AM

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 by Strange, 9 June 2015 - 07:18 AM.

  • 0

#14 Zbigniew Lisiecki

Zbigniew Lisiecki

    Lepton

  • New Members
  • 9 posts
  • LocationWarsaw / Poland

Posted 9 June 2015 - 08:14 AM

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.


  • 0

#15 Strange

Strange

    SuperNerd

  • Senior Members
  • 13,092 posts
  • Location珈琲店

Posted 9 June 2015 - 09:08 AM

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.


  • 0

#16 Phi for All

Phi for All

    Chief Executive Offworlder

  • Moderators
  • 16,778 posts
  • LocationCO, USA

Posted 9 June 2015 - 01:39 PM

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. 


  • 0
"You knew the job was dangerous when you took it, Fred!" -- Super Chicken
 

My biggest problem is the absolute ignorance of the others who post here.


#17 Zbigniew Lisiecki

Zbigniew Lisiecki

    Lepton

  • New Members
  • 9 posts
  • LocationWarsaw / Poland

Posted 9 June 2015 - 06:10 PM

... 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 ?


  • 0

#18 Arete

Arete

    Biology Expert

  • Resident Experts
  • 1,494 posts
  • LocationUSA

Posted 9 June 2015 - 06:23 PM

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...


  • 0

#19 Strange

Strange

    SuperNerd

  • Senior Members
  • 13,092 posts
  • Location珈琲店

Posted 9 June 2015 - 08:11 PM

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.


  • 0

#20 Zbigniew Lisiecki

Zbigniew Lisiecki

    Lepton

  • New Members
  • 9 posts
  • LocationWarsaw / Poland

Posted 9 June 2015 - 10:18 PM

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 by Zbigniew Lisiecki, 9 June 2015 - 10:20 PM.

  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users