I've been away from blogging while I've been busy moving, working, marriage-prepping, and trying to get my masters thesis ready for submission, but today's Nature has such a great article I couldn't resist commenting.
Doug Theobald from Brandeis University, whom some of you might know from his excellent FAQ on the TalkOrigins Archive entitled 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent, has published an extensive statistical evaluation of the Theory of Universal Common Ancestry. I don't have time to give much of an analysis, but at John Wilkins of Evolving Thoughts comments on the importance epistemology when testing the assumptions of evolution, while over at Panda's Thumb Nick Matzke gives a brief primer on some of the statistical foundations of the work. Its definitely worth a look!
EOTOE.
ReplyDeleteEmbarrassingly obvious TOE, expanding the horizon beyond Darwin And Einstein.
It is spacedistance, NOT spacetime, that does it:
Theory Of Everything Without Strings Attached.
Embarrassingly Obvious And Simple.
See the signature links.
A. First Large-Scale Formal Quantitative Test Confirms Darwin's Theory of Universal Common Ancestry
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/05/100512131513.htm
Life's Genesis Was Not Cells But First Gene's Self Reproduction.
Life Is Just Another Mass Format.
B. Since July 5 1997 I have developed and been proposing the following scenario of life's genesis:
* Life's genesis was not cell(s), but the self reproduction of yet uncelled ungenomed gene(s).
* There was NOT any "Pre-History Of Life" evolving in an archaic pre-modern life cell.
* Cells were definitely NOT life's genesis. Cells were products of evolution of Earth's primal organisms, of Earth's first stratum organisms, the RNA genes that have always been and still are running the show of life, the energy-storing biosphere survival, since Earth life's day one.
* A gene's self reproduction was distinctly an evolutionary, enhanced energy constraint event, above the earlier, random, radiated-energy-induced genes formations.
* Every evolutionary step is inherently an event of an enhanced energy constraint.
* Genomes, RNA and DNA, are functional organs evolved by the primary RNA genes. Cell membranes are also functional organs evolved by the primary RNA gene.
* Life is but one of the many many mass formats in the universe, and its evolution is driven as the evolution of all cosmic mass formats, to gain temporary enhanced energy constraint, i.e. to survive as long as possible.
Dov Henis
(Comments From The 22nd Century)
03.2010 Updated Life Manifest
http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/list/54.page#5065
Cosmic Evolution Simplified
http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/list/240/122.page#4427
Gravity Is The Monotheism Of The Cosmos
http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/list/260/122.page#4887
PS1:
This Theory Of Everything, with definition of evolution, covers also ALL aspects of anthropology. DH
PS2:
TOE: Religion Or Science?
(Fwd from the-scientist.com:)
I.
[quote=BobTS1162939] This is the Theory Of Everything In A Nutshell (TOEIANS):
Basic construction of the universe: 1. Particles 2. Strings 3. Frames.
Etc., ....
.[/quote]
II. My comment
A) Since Life is, by our sensory conception, a virtual reality affair, religion is a legitimate virtual reality tool for going through life. But I am not religious. My senses do not become affected by the above TOEIANS. I embarassingly admit that hard as I try I am unable to comprehend the above TOEIANS.
B) My own conception of TOE is scientific, not religious, based strictly on data recorded and observed, of ubiquitous cosmic phenomena. And in presenting my TOE conception I do not deal with mechanisms but with the base processes.
Dov Henis
(Comments From The 22nd Century)
Life is nothing how you describe it, at least once you strip away all of your questionable metaphysics. It's incredible how pseudo-scientific this "formal test" is. Organisms are a combination of genetic expressions. They are microcosms within the macrocosm, all of which are open systems (therefore evolution). But RNA as an organism? RNA has no way to process information about the environment or conserve energy on it's own. The idea is so incoherent as to be ridiculous. What you need is a complete genetic expression system. Why the hell would RNA molecules, if they indeed formed on their own in large quantities, be in the business of preserving energy and interacting with the environment beyond the chemistry of their haphazardly and accidental formation? In other words, where does the information come from for gene expression? How does a microcosm of the macrocosm organize molecular entities without a mechanism, without specified information? It's like you skip that part and just assume chemical evolution. But even our most intelligent chemists can't evolve a biological system or even reverse engineer it. All they can do is manipulate it, simulate adaptive response, or just mutate the hell out of it and make frankenstein cells.
ReplyDelete