How old were you when you realized that the Neo-Darwinian account of evolution was incorrect?

How old were you when you realized that the Neo-Darwinian account of evolution was incorrect?
> pic related

Other urls found in this thread:

cosmicfingerprints.com/evolution/
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_genetic_engineering
cosmicfingerprints.com/dna-atheists/
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_A._Shapiro
yourgenome.org/stories/fruit-flies-in-the-laboratory
twitter.com/AnonBabble

bump. Does no one know about this book?
cosmicfingerprints.com/evolution/
> BTFO of materialist atheists
> BTFO of scientifically illiterate suburban and rural retards
> BTFO of Random mutations + natural selection + time = evolution
> Adaptive variations, not random
> Epigenetics, transposition, horizontal gene transfer, genome duplication and retroviruses

Dude you can't bump your own post.
I'm interested.
Bamped

Thanks user. I was originally skeptical of the idea that anything was wrong with evolutionary theory, but he shows pretty convincingly that the modern evolutionary synthesis does not provide any explanation for the origin of information, and fails to adequately account for the resurgence of "Lamarkian" processes such as DNA methylation, epigenetics, symbiogenesis, transposition, horizontal gene transfer, genome duplication, and endogenous retroviruses. Breddy interesting, desu.

Basically argues that the neo-Darwinians have been militantly promoting the dogma that random mutations + natural selection + time are the only inputs into the biological picture, but information entropy demonstrates pretty handily that you don't (almost?) ever get useful iterations of anything by arbitrarily changing it's underlying data.

The majority of people that claim Darwinism is incorrect never even read his book to begin with.
The majority of schools that teach Darwinism don't even know what he wrote about, they just teach random bs that's been watered down throughout wikipedia and sparknotes.

For example, Darwin never stated reproduction was necessary for evolution yet nearly every high school in NA and EU says that's what Darwin said. He actually had a lot of rudimentary game theory that he proposed for evolutionary success. But those theories were too difficult to teach so schools latched onto reproduction and ignored the last 1/4 of his book because students wouldn't understand game theory.

I'm interested, desu. Got any links/specific examples? I'm still trying to digest the implications for a non-random view of evolution.
> have a common pepe

Darwin's entire theory was random, he stated evolution has no purpose, no goal, and that evolutionary success was a combination of numerous statistical factors that inevitably lead to a local minima. You were not guaranteed to escape a local minima and in that case evolution would cease and the population fails.
At no point did he claim evolution produces a perfect species, it never does because it's very rare you find the global minima, it's so rare that it's statistically impossible (it's a situation of 1/infinity which is a 0% chance of occurring). There is no universe capable of evolving to a perfect species.

This is all basic evolutionary theory and is used in numerous fields. I guess the easiest mathematical description would be to look at the wikipedia page for genetic algorithms.

That's precisely what Marshall takes aim at in Evolution 2.0 tho; the idea that evolution is entirely random is being found wanting.

Also he stated local minimas could be escaped by mutational momentum. We could escape a local minima by rapid mutation which would lead to the next local minima which was closer to the global minima.
Via mutations we increase our evolutionary momentum and move against the trend of finding a local minima, we actually decrease evolutionary success and hopefully find the next local minima which ideally is closer to a global minima. But as I said, the global minima in terms of actual evolution is statistically impossible to find, we simply hop from local minima to local minima.

>agree somewhat
>implying anyone today would be considered scientifically literate 200 years ago in academia
>Wrong. The random mutations are selected by natural selection. There is absolutely no way for genes to edit themselves, all genes are hit by radiation, elementary particles, diseases etc which cause these random mutations, and 99% of them are immediately repaired by our genome
>the only part thats adaptive is mate selection while amplifies the natural selection
>gene transfer theory=/=evolution

Evolution isn't really that unknown though. It's just that finding a global minima is statistically impossible in situations of anything beyond 3-dimensional vectors.
In terms of the real world you're working with billion dimensional vectors and you're trying to find a global minima. It is 1/infinity, it's impossible. We hop from local minima to local minima until the species is dead.

This is what Darwin originally said though and if "neodarwanism" is even a thing, it's mostly just that people didn't actually read Darwins book. He talked a lot about game theory, before game theory was even a thing. He talked about the statistical improbability of finding the global minima before local and global minimas were even a thing, and he talked about statistical and mathematical theories of 1/inf before that even existed as well.
He covered it all actually it's just that nobody read his fucking book lol

t. jew

> There is absolutely no way for genes to edit themselves
Not sure what to make of that when this exists
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_genetic_engineering

>the idea that evolution is entirely random is being found wanting
Then why isn't all life one species? If there wasn't even the slightest bit of randomness to it we would all have followed the same path and ended up in the same place.

The idea that we were intelligently designed by a being perfect enough to intelligently design a universe but was not intelligently designed himself just ups the buck another level in an attempt to prove other ideas you have right.

>Natural genetic engineering (NGE) is a class of process proposed by molecular biologist James
(((Shapiro))) to account for novelty created in the course of biological evolution.
>The jew cries out in pain as he strikes you.
You can turn off the proxy now samefag.

Breh, at least check out his arguments.
cosmicfingerprints.com/dna-atheists/
> inb4 he never does
I understand that new information can be difficult to absorb. It's okay, you're not a bad person.

>look, a bunch of internet atheists couldn't discredit my bullshit, therefore every biologist on the planet is wrong
The book is two years old, so you aren't being paid. Stop being a retard.

Nice, would you care for citations from non-Jews who also say the same thing?
“The Linguistics of DNA: Words, Sentences, Grammar, Phonetics and Semantics” by Sungchul Ji
> “Many ways to induce mutations are known but none lead to new organisms. Mutation accumulation does not lead to new species or even to new organs or new tissues… Even professional evolutionary biologists are hard put to find mutations, experimentally induced or spontaneous, that lead in a positive way to evolutionary change.”
-Lynn Margulis and Dorion Sagan, “Acquiring Genomes”

Unless you can prove that non-random hypotheses in evolution are connected to globalism or liberalism, get a fucking life.
> A bunch of people motivated to prove me wrong with access to the entire library of human knowledge couldn't discredit me
> somehow this is bullshit
Sad!

While Jewish, that guy is actually pretty vehemently anti-Creationist. He hates that his work is used by mouth-breathers as evidence of Intelligent Design.

>cosmicfingerprints.com/dna-atheists/
>For well over 5 years, I successfully advanced the Information Theory argument for design in DNA on Infidels, which from 2005-2010 was the world’s largest Atheist discussion forum
I can't. Sorry this is nothing but some autismo's obsession.

I am not an athiest. I am not of any human religion. I do think evolution is real presented with the evidence so far, while I have also deduced(supposedly) that the fabric of reality itself contains the potentiality of everything by default and if a space is open for that which fits it will to a certain extent. No need for any supernatural being powerful and smart enough, the universe itself is a supranatural expressive potential fabricator. But only because every other iteration of the universe the could have been and was before us has already collapsed, and who knows how stable ours actually is.

If you don't like him, at least take seriously James Shapiro's work.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_A._Shapiro
No mention of being raised in a Jewish household, excellent academic credentials. You are lying to yourself if you just ignore information that challenges your worldview.

You yourself are living proof that even with access to the entire library of human knowledge it's still possible to be an ignorant retard.

Marshall presents nothing new, he just rearranges things in order to trick gullible laymen into thinking the hideous complexity of molecular genetics is proof of God.

give me that quick rundown i'm actually curious

Sorry, but you haven't understood the jew then. Sit about it and think. And then think about the fact that I am never happy about (((coincidences))) and frankly am tired of them and wish it'd never happen again. But it does, every time.

...

>baww it doesnt provide anything on the origin of information
evolution is not a theory about that you fucking leaf nigger.
if you already failed this hard on what evolution even is, I already know nothing else you've posted is worth reading. if you want to disprove something, stick to what that thing actually fucking is instead of going off the handrails like your typical creationist kike.

Lel, your childhood hatred for God is showing. Origin of information is a serious argument, even if you're not willing to entertain it.
From his book (pg. 240)
> Neo-Darwinism says Random Mutation + Natural Selection + Time = Evolution
> Random mutation is noise. Noise destroys
> Cells rearrange DNA according to precise rules (Transposition)
> Cells exchange DNA with other cells (Horizontal Gene Transfer)
> Cells communicate with each other and edit their own genomes with incredibly sophisticated language
> Cels switch code on and off for themselves and their progeny (epigenetics)
> Cells merge and cooperate (Symbiogenesis)
> Species 1 + Species 2 = New species (Hybridization). We know organisms rapidly adapt because scientists produce new species in the lab everyday
> #Evolution in 140 characters or less: Genese switch on, switch off, rearrange, and exchange. Hybrids double; viruses hijack; cells merge; winners emerge.
> Adaptive mutation + Natural selection + Time = Evolution 2.0
> DNA is code. All code whose origin we know are designed.
> Where do codes and linguistic rules of DNA come from? Answering this is the evolution 2.0 prize
> Answering this question will produce billion-dollar medical and technological breakthroughs
Perry Marshall is a Christian, desu.

>Shapiro points out that multiple cellular systems can affect DNA in response to specific environmental stimuli. These "directed" changes stand in contrast to both the undirected mutations in the modern synthesis and (in Shapiro's interpretation) the ban on information flowing from the environment into the genome.

He just doesn't understand that DNA is a self copying machine. And that each peice of DNA itself is a machine. When a cell responds to stimuli, its a piece of DNA thats been copied and folded into a machine by the cell, probably as a detector of some sort, which is then unfolded and married back to the DNA(in a slightly different pattern) to express something else, not that it modifies the DNA structure in a spoopy sense.

Its just like a old SNES game thats built on and folded over itself to conserve as much space as possible, different patterns are overwritten each other to create more complex patterns and sounds, numbers are multiplied to get different levels etc.

Just like a human being goes though a simplified evolutionary process in the womb. The entire code hasn't been rewritten and optimized. It just loads every single update one by one.

>2

>Origin of information is a serious argument
For the origin of the universe theory, not for evolution.
>All code whose origin we know are designed.
If you can explain to me how the designer came about that doesn't involve moving the superstition up a level I'll concede. He has always existed is not an answer I'll take.

Does epigenetics take place throughout life? If someone goes from a sack of lazy shit, to an athlete and student in a STEM field, will their kids be more fit in these areas?

Well if you want to talk about the origin of life, we could do that too. Y is an eternally existing God not an option?
No idea, desu. I'm just a layman who read an interesting book. I have no idea if there are any scientific papers looking at this, but presumably; yes, those changes could get passed on to your kids in some way, whether through DNA methylation or some other process. You might also be interested in Roy Bhaskar and critical realism for a discussion on emergentism and downward causation.

The fact that evolutionary changes can't be explained without reference to teleological terms was enough to make me realise the theory was flawed; at least in its implications.

>Perry Marshall
>Reading Female non-fiction
>Someone nuke leaf pls.

Nah I don't want to talk about that, thats another discussion altogether.

Because if in the eternity of infinity there is a god to start it, there is also the possibility that something simple started it, and even furthermore a god could have moved the slightest something in the slightest direction with the slightest force to have happen everything that even has and will, or it could have happened by chance.

Neat, I hadn't seriously considered the implications of teleological terminology, but now that you mention it, you're right. Marshall also cites some fascinating work from Barbara McClintock and her experiments manipulating chromosomes in Maize (pg. 81 in his book)
> When asked about the difference between the fruit fly experiments and McClintock's maize experiments, her colleague, Dr. James Shapiro of the University of Chicago, explained it this way:
> X-rays break chromosomes, triggerig a built-in repair system that is used as a normal feature of life. So one would not expect much in the way of evolutionary innovation from X-ray exposure, although it does lead to chromosomal rearrangements.
> McClintock posed her plants an entirely different type of challenge, which resulted in the activation of transposable elements and other genome restructuring activities. She explains this, although in rather technical terms, in her Nobel Prize speech. Basically, she gave them a single broken end that could not be joined to another end until the chromosome had duplicated; the result of joining the two duplicated ends was a chromosome with two centromeres that would go to opposite daughter cells at division, creating a chromosome "bridge" that had to break for division to complete. This "breakage-fusion-bridge" cycle was a continuous genome instability that had to be resolve for normal growth to resume.
> Private correspondence between James Shapiro and Perry Marshall

Evolution does not challege God's creation.

I just challenges your simple ideas about it.

I think the fruit fly experiments they refer to are the experiments done by Theodosius Dobzhansky, who tried to induce random changes in fruit flies by bombarding them with radiation, but the results after 30 years (as summarized by Gordon R. Taylor) was that
> It is a striking, but not much mentioned fact that, though geneticists have been breeding fruit flies for sixty years or more in labs all round the world- flies which produce a new generation ever eleven days- they have never yet seen the emergence of a new species or even a new enzyme
In experiment after experiment, the trend was: mutations generated by radiation do damage and never lead to major improvements.

Bump
Most of mainstream science is not based upon the scientific method. Most of what people think we know about the world is not accurate. Random evolution is not scientific, keep it up leaf.

Thanks, burger. I might get James Shapiro's book, "Evolution: A view from the 21st century" since it so effectively BTFO of materialist atheists. Sup Forums knows that the rise of atheism has been one of the main contributors to the degradation of the West, so pushing back on neo-Darwinian orthodoxy is imperative to help bring God back into the universities and policy.

>mutations generated by radiation do damage and never lead to major improvements
Probably because there no need to add addition radiation, theres enough of it already. The proper way is direct genetic modification as in
yourgenome.org/stories/fruit-flies-in-the-laboratory
which is how they found pic related. Once they build a library of gene's it'll help them decipher more complex ones in more complex species.