Why is evolution even still a debate?

[cladking]

Where do you come up with these ridiculous ideas and interpretations of posts?

It was YOU who implied it by saying;

"Experts have the best evidenced answers. That's why they're experts."

Either only Peers are capable of interpreting experiment or they have their own experiments to which we aren't privvy.

Peers have always been wrong in the past but now we know everything. Anybody can review and interpret experiment. This is why they must be repeatable.

Nobody's opinion is of any value to science. Until you fashion your opinion into an hypothesis and an experiment is fashioned to test it opinion is worthless.

 

[cladking]

You keep saying this, but repetition is not evidence.

Did you ever see a whale die over 10 million years. Do you have any evidence that one was conceived or born over a long period. Do you have any evidence anything about life occurred over a protracted period. Of course you don't or would have presented it long ago.

 

[cladking]

And what behavior does it select for?

It selects for the behavior of the few individuals who survived a bottleneck. When this behavior is typical for a species no real change occurs. When the behavior is very unusual a new species is created by the survivors.

 

[Valjean]

It was YOU who implied it by saying;

"Experts have the best evidenced answers. That's why they're experts."

Either only Peers are capable of interpreting experiment or they have their own experiments to which we aren't privvy.

Peers have always been wrong in the past but now we know everything. Anybody can review and interpret experiment. This is why they must be repeatable.

Nobody's opinion is of any value to science. Until you fashion your opinion into an hypothesis and an experiment is fashioned to test it opinion is worthless.

The observations, research, tests, criticisms and challenges are all published for anyone to review. The conclusions and reasoning behind them are there for all to see and comment on.

 

[cladking]

Eventually, they come to agreement over matters of fact if they use the same method for deciding what is true about the world, which critical thinkers do.

This doesn't work when one is spouting heresy. No matter how much evidence and logic I present or experiment I cite I am still an heretic.

And if it's clear that they don't possess the skills and knowledge to do that, then yes, they are ignorant of what others have learned and consider important.

Much of what I know about biology I learned as a young child so am woefully out of date. I have kept up with many experiments however.

I never imagined any of my work would ever be directly related to biology again and I disagreed with bits and pieces here and there. I never believed in "intelligence" for instance and never approved of not studying consciousness. I was a heretic at a very young age.

I know of no experiment that contradicts any part of my theory.

We see this continually on RF, and it usually manifests as a comment like yours, some form of "you can't know" what is already known.

I do see that some arguments on both sides of the religion/ science divide are exceedingly weak or show a shocking disregard for metaphysics, mathematics, experiment, and (boy I don't want to say it) scripture.

But the fact is everything is unknowable. Yes, we can define things and experiment on them thereby making accurate statements based on our definitions and methods but this is not really the same thing as "understanding" or "knowing". It's nice to make true statements and it certainly facilitates an ability to invent technology but it is not the same type of understanding exhibited by all other life forms.

One doesn't need to suffer from some malady to reason in circles, it's automatic in our species. It's virtually impossible to avoid at virtually all times. We choose beliefs that are comfortable to us and then live those beliefs while being blind to everything that runs counter to them. I have somewhat different beliefs so I do not interpret every experiment the same way you do.

"Fauci's opinion is irrelevant." And in the climate science controversy.

Frankly I have little respect for Fauci or his opinion about biology and much less about his opinion of global warming.

While there are experiments in biology there are no experiments to support "global warming". Yes you can put greenhouse gasses in a box and get it to warm up but everyone's' models should support this observation. Computer models works exceedingly well for things like bridge or aircraft wing design but these things involve very few and easily quantifiable variables and this is why it works.

Computer modeling will not ever work for complex systems. It is bogus and whoever pays the light bills gets whatever science he wants.

 

[cladking]

The conclusions and reasoning behind them are there for all to see and comment on.

And I am commenting: They are wrong.

They are misinterpreting experiment and extrapolating results where they do nor apply.

 

[Viker]

Evidence from biology, paleontology, geology, archaeology, zoology, cosmology(if you want to talk about the universe too), etc has an over abundance of evidence.

The other side has the bible and stories of the past.

I'm not saying any god(s) do or do not exit. Heck maybe they do and one created life as a science experiment to see how it would turn out.

The whole evolution vs creation argument breeds hate and distrust world wide

That's my thoughts anyways.

People love beating dead horses, I suppose.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Much of what I know about biology I learned as a young child so am woefully out of date.

That's fine, but should you be arguing with those who do know the biology? How could you tell who that is without knowing what is correct unless you give some weight to the consensus of opinion you are seeing in this thread and elsewhere.

I know of no experiment that contradicts any part of my theory.

Is that important? Does your theory account for all of the relevant evidence? The scientific theory does. Does your theory predict anything different than the scientific one does, something that could be examined to tell which describes nature better?

But the fact is everything is unknowable. Yes, we can define things and experiment on them thereby making accurate statements based on our definitions and methods but this is not really the same thing as "understanding" or "knowing"

You must be using a different definition of knowing than I do. For me, knowledge is the set of all empirically determined and confirmed beliefs. This from an anonymous Internet source says it well:

"We should expect similar decisions made under similar circumstances to lead to similar outcomes. Pragmatism says that the ultimate measure of a true or false proposition lies in its capacity to produce expected results. If an idea is true, it can be used in the real world to generate predictable consequences. In other words, the ultimate measure of a true proposition is the capacity to inform decisions under the expectation of desirable consequences. All we need to know is that we have desires and preferences, we make decisions, and we experience sensory perceptions of outcomes. If a man has belief B that some action A will produce desired result D, if B is true, then doing A will achieve D. If A fails to achieve D, then B is false. Either you agree that truth should be measured by its capacity to inform decisions and produce results or you don't. If you agree, then we can have a conversation. And if we disagree about some belief, we have a means to decide the issue."

If by knowledge you mean more, such as what some people call ultimate truth, absolute truth, objective truth, then yes, they're talking about what exists outside of their minds. I agree that this cannot be known, since knowing is always through the filter of the mind, adding an element of subjectivity. But that's not what I'm calling knowledge. Knowledge of the world is always filtered through and generated by the nervous system, but this is the reality we need to understand. This outside world only matters to the extent that it manifests in consciousness.

One doesn't need to suffer from some malady to reason in circles, it's automatic in our species. It's virtually impossible to avoid at virtually all times.

But it is possible to recognize that that is undesirable, learn to recognize it, and avoid indulging in it either completely or nearly so. This is how all habits of thought are modified - refuse to indulge them, and they atrophy over time from disuse, as with raging in anger or smoking. Recognize that they are undesirable, and when the temptation wells up, as soon as it is noticed, refuse to indulge it.

We choose beliefs that are comfortable to us and then live those beliefs while being blind to everything that runs counter to them.

Same answer. We can understand the limitations and dangers in doing that, commit ourselves to avoid doing that, and learn to prefer the truth over comforting ideas by indulging in one kind of thinking - facing truth however uncomfortable - but not the other. Comforting ideas comfort in the short run, but replacing them with more accurate ideas will often result in more comfort over all. Leaving Christianity was such an experience. It was very uncomfortable, but allowed me to be more comfortable in the long run.

It's the same with anything else we do that is uncomfortable in the short run, but leads to more net satisfaction overall, such as staying in school, saving money, and exercising. Aren't all virtues in this category - courage, honesty, integrity, reliability, etc.? It might be more comforting in the moment to be otherwise, but long run satisfaction comes from resisting those temptations and taming them.

So, no, we don't have to choose beliefs because they are comforting in the short run if we can see a return for taking the uncomfortable path. This is wisdom, which I define as knowing what to want. Intelligence is figuring out how to get what you want - solving problems - but wisdom is knowing which problems need solving to facilitate long-term satisfaction. Intelligence is knowing how to accumulate money. Wisdom is understanding the limits of that and avoiding what will end up being the pursuit of unhappiness if one doesn't.

I have somewhat different beliefs so I do not interpret every experiment the same way you do.

Isn't that putting the cart before the horse? Beliefs should be derived from the evidence, not color how it is interpreted.

While there are experiments in biology there are no experiments to support "global warming"

I don't know what you mean by a global warming experiment, but you've got this one presently in progress: pour excessive amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere for decades, and look for results such as melting glaciers, rising sea levels, and more extreme and more frequent severe weather. If that doesn't happen, it's safe to ignore the warnings. There might be a better way of testing this hypothesis, but this one works. It will give you your answer.

 

[cladking]

That's fine, but should you be arguing with those who do know the biology?

You know I don't study astrology either because I believe they are mostly wrong. I don't pay much attention to Egyptology because I believe they are entirely wrong.

Why should I base any of my thinking on anything that I believe is wrong? I look at the work of biologists because they do some experiments and experiments can't really be "wrong". Evidence when correctly gathered is important. But opinions I don't share will not be the basis of anything I do.

You must be using a different definition of knowing than I do.

Probably.

I believe all real knowledge is visceral. If the only thing you know is something you read in a book then you don't really know it.


You have some great points in your post but I lack the time to respond right now.

 

[PureX]

So what is 'truth', and how are we to discern it? Is it possible to know truth at all?

The truth is 'what is'. This includes both the material (physical) realm and the conceptual (metaphysical) realm. Our discernment, limited as it is, and accurate or inaccurate, is still part of 'what is'; part of the 'whole truth'. Though not the whole truth. Just as the material realm alone is likewise not the whole truth. For example; imagination is "real", even if the content being imagined is purely conceptual. Just as a shadow is real even if it has no physical substance of it's own. Conceptual phenomena is real phenomena. This is where materialism and it's weird obsession with the fantasy of "objectivity" fails, dramatically.

 

[cladking]

Is that important? Does your theory account for all of the relevant evidence? The scientific theory does. Does your theory predict anything different than the scientific one does, something that could be examined to tell which describes nature better?

Theory is formed only from experiment so it is critical that no experiment contradicts it or an hypothesis. Of course there can be a fine line here since experiment must be interpreted.

There are always anomalies with any theory. I believe the part of my theory related to biology is less well supported than other parts but the logic is, I believe, sound and the importance of consciousness apparent. It has never been my contention that I must be right merely that it is possible to see everything from another perspective and that some things are more easily seen from another vantage. Some things that are obviously true or virtually axiomatic to reductionistic science appear to be wholly false or true from only some perspectives.

I believe the fact that all observed change in life is sudden (ranging from nanoseconds to less than a couple generations) is exceedingly important and a tell that we have it wrong. I believe the growing awareness of the intelligence of animals, plants, and even single celled organisms shows that what we call "intelligence" doesn't even exist and that it is consciousness that drives life because life and consciousness are the exact same thing. The more we learn about how humans function the more it appears "intelligence" plays no role.

We have built up an entire reality founded on abstractions and reductions that don't always apply to the real world. Then to convince ourselves we know everything we point to the great comfort that our machines provide for us despite the fact that technology is an artefact more of theory and experiment than it is knowledge or understanding.

All experiment and observation are encompassed by my theory because it comes from all experiment. There's no one experiment that I can point at and say "see". Everything fits into a single highly complex pattern just like reality. In reality all things affect all other things in real time and through time. Cause preceded effect but outcomes are always unpredictable because just as reality can't be quantified neither can causes and effects. We have a tendency to ignore things and theory except for the specific question we are pondering but the "law" of gravity applies even counting rabbits. Consciousness always applies just as gravity always applies. We reduce reality to study and neglect to ever put it back together again.

But it is possible to recognize that that is undesirable, learn to recognize it, and avoid indulging in it either completely or nearly so.

Yes, and good scientists are often quite adept at this. Even the best scientists tend toward it anyway because beliefs underlie the way we think and what we think. You can't run around the house three times without thinking of "elephant". It never occurs to us that other species aren't like this, don't think this way, and don't even experience thought. For most practical purposes all thought is the comparing of perception to beliefs and models.

Same answer. We can understand the limitations and dangers in doing that, commit ourselves to avoid doing that, and learn to prefer the truth over comforting ideas by indulging in one kind of thinking - facing truth however uncomfortable - but not the other.

I tend to disagree here. We can choose better beliefs but we still must adopt beliefs to function and to learn language. It is language which defines the way we think. One can choose to be very careful with beliefs but we still choose them.

So, no, we don't have to choose beliefs because they are comforting in the short run...

I may have misled you here. "Beliefs" don't have to be comforting for us to select them. Some will be uncomfortable believing in a vengeful God or believing the earth under him will someday split open but everyone has some vested interest in being right. I merely meant the number one reason for adopting specific beliefs is that they are comforting, God will find us worthy and the earth won't split open here for millions of years. All beliefs are not comforting even for Pollyanna.

Isn't that putting the cart before the horse?

Not at all. If you understand how the experiment is configured and executed then any logical conclusion can be equally valid. Just as experimenters make errors so too do interpreters.

There might be a better way of testing this hypothesis, but this one works.

We certainly agree here. Paying CEO's ever more to compete less and to make ever crappier products and produce ever more CO2 in the only home we have available is sheer madness.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

until homo omnisciencis arose

There is no such thing.

and with us its determined by consciousness and what we have previously chosen to believe. While this can lead us literally anywhere at all it always leads us in circles in the short run. Even in the long run most individuals maintain the same beliefs their entire lives. Science and the status quo change one funeral at a time. You might say it "evolves" much like many believe species do except there are obvious differences.

All that is neither here nor there...

 

[cladking]

There is no such thing.



All that is neither here nor there...

Yes. Exactly! Homo omniscience don't need no stinkin' consciousness to study or understand nothing.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Yes. Exactly! Homo omniscience don't need no stinkin' consciousness to study or understand nothing.

I like pie.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

It has never been my contention that I must be right

Then you don't say that the scientific theory you reject must be incorrect?

If you understand how the experiment is configured and executed then any logical conclusion can be equally valid

Here's where I part ways with many RF posters. Logic is constrained, like the rules of arithmetic, which is pure logic. There's a little more wiggle room (room for subjectivity) in the logic of in a linguistic argument than an arithmetic problem, but it is still quite constrained, meaning that most conclusions one could arrive at beginning with any specific evidence will be unsound, and one will be sound, just as most additions that violate the rules of arithmetic result in incorrect sums, and only one is correct.

Imagine not knowing that and going through life thinking that all sums are equally valid. It might be a problem when it comes to paying at the register at the market when their machine says one total and customer says that his lower total is equally valid because he doesn't understand that addition is constrained and he hasn't learned the rules of addition because he doesn't realize there are any.

I believe the fact that all observed change in life is sudden (ranging from nanoseconds to less than a couple generations) is exceedingly important and a tell that we have it wrong.

I've already mentioned that the imprecision of the word sudden is a problem here. Yes, genetic change does occur over generations, but that change is generally imperceptible. And it continues over geological time, creating much greater changes that are apparent.

I also don't know why the rate of change of species is an issue for you. You refer to it like it's a point of departure between your theory and the scientific one, like suddenness as you define it refutes Darwin. I mentioned that this reminds me of the creation apologist's comment that the Cambrian explosion is evidence for the divine creation of kinds, because evolution is slow and only divine creation is sudden.

I believe the growing awareness of the intelligence of animals, plants, and even single celled organisms shows that what we call "intelligence" doesn't even exist

What I call intelligence plainly exists. I suppose it depends on one's definition. For me, intelligence is a quality of conscious agents to identify and solve problems, and to accumulate new knowledge to do that better in the future. Plants don't do that, but many animals do.

I saw an episode of Nova recently about slime molds claiming that they were intelligent because they solved problems like finding food and going through a maze. Here's a brief trailer. I remember my wife and I agreeing that what we were witnessing should not be called intelligence, since the creatures don't appear to be aware. You might disagree with that definition:

it is consciousness that drives life because life and consciousness are the exact same thing

Again, I suppose that depends on definitions of the two. Perhaps you mean some universal intelligence imbuing space in encroaching into matter to make it live. If so, I see a religious tendency there predicated on the idea that disembodied mind is the source of life.

We have built up an entire reality founded on abstractions and reductions that don't always apply to the real world.

Not if one sticks to a strictly empiricist epistemology. Remember the correspondence theory of truth: "the truth or falsity of a statement is determined only by how it relates to the world and whether it accurately describes (i.e., corresponds with) that world." If one resists calling ideas not meeting that criterion truth or reality, one's map of reality contains no false roads.

When we moved to Mexico, we brought our Garman GPS, which map of Mexico was inaccurate. We only used it this once, because that one time, we ended up in the wrong place - a major inconvenience that had us backing up from a toll booth to road leading to a neighboring state. It's a good metaphor for navigating life. The map really needs to be isomorphic with a photograph of the roads, and this is done empirically - by looking at the roads and abstracting a geometric figure to represents their directions and intersections when mapmaking.

It never occurs to us that other species aren't like this, don't think this way, and don't even experience thought.

Once again, your definition of thought must be different than mine. I can see my dog's thoughts. Buddy's a pug, and as soon as he realize I'm fixing his bowl, he begins spinning and crying. Grab his harness, and he knows it's time to go to the park for a walk. He becomes so excited that it's hard to get his front paws through the armholes. And no hummingbirds better come in the yard unless they want a piece of Buddy's mind. He doesn't care for intruders.

Another poster was arguing just this week that only humans have emotions, a sign of God. Really? He needs to meet Buddy.

Perhaps by thought you mean linguistic thought, or thinking in words. If so, I agree. But my definition of thought includes various nonlinguistic phenomena of consciousness such as recollections and desires. Buddy remembers the sound of the car and knows when we're home to come wagging to greet us. Memory triggered desire triggered action. That's thought to me.

 

[cladking]

Then you don't say that the scientific theory you reject must be incorrect?

No. I am saying that I believe the "theory of evolution" has major flaws that completely misapprehend the causes and mechanisms of change in species. It is caused by applying beliefs to the study of change, misinterpretation of experiment, and the nature of reductionistic science to be almost wholly incapable of understanding "consciousness", at least to date. Consciousness underlies the cause and nature of change in species and we lack even a working definition for it.

Biology is so used to defending Darwin's flawed assumptions from creationists they never noticed he was wrong. This was made possible by the fact that there is no such thing as "human intelligence" and we all operate on our beliefs.



-later.

 

[cladking]

Logic is constrained, like the rules of arithmetic, which is pure logic. There's a little more wiggle room (room for subjectivity) in the logic of in a linguistic argument than an arithmetic problem, but it is still quite constrained, meaning that most conclusions one could arrive at beginning with any specific evidence will be unsound, and one will be sound, just as most additions that violate the rules of arithmetic result in incorrect sums, and only one is correct.

OK, one more before I go.

There's almost no such thing as a logical argument. There can be no logic expressed in any language of homo omnisciencis because all languages are parsed. Math is logic quantified and can not be parsed but language has no meaning until it is parsed and every observer takes a different meaning.

An individual can invent "logical" statements because he can apply his consciousness to his thinking (not always) and because he knows exactly what meanings of the words are intended. One must be cautious even here because the invented logic is still subject to sample bias and perspective.

Most of the problems with logic in language can be mitigated in various ways but until we understand consciousness we can't even begin to work on the issues.

 

[tas8831]

Depends what you mean by evolution.
No one has shown that we evolved from a single celled organism.

Remind me - who has shown that we were created from dust of the ground no more than 10000 years ago?

Oh - and I grow tired of posting this, but creationists always seem to ignore it for some reason :

I forget now who originally posted these on this forum*, but I keep it in my archives because it offers a nice 'linear' progression of testing a methodology and then applying it:

The tested methodology:

Science 25 October 1991:
Vol. 254. no. 5031, pp. 554 - 558

Gene trees and the origins of inbred strains of mice

WR Atchley and WM Fitch

Extensive data on genetic divergence among 24 inbred strains of mice provide an opportunity to examine the concordance of gene trees and species trees, especially whether structured subsamples of loci give congruent estimates of phylogenetic relationships. Phylogenetic analyses of 144 separate loci reproduce almost exactly the known genealogical relationships among these 24 strains. Partitioning these loci into structured subsets representing loci coding for proteins, the immune system and endogenous viruses give incongruent phylogenetic results. The gene tree based on protein loci provides an accurate picture of the genealogical relationships among strains; however, gene trees based upon immune and viral data show significant deviations from known genealogical affinities.

======================

Science, Vol 255, Issue 5044, 589-592

Experimental phylogenetics: generation of a known phylogeny

DM Hillis, JJ Bull, ME White, MR Badgett, and IJ Molineux
Department of Zoology, University of Texas, Austin 78712.

Although methods of phylogenetic estimation are used routinely in comparative biology, direct tests of these methods are hampered by the lack of known phylogenies. Here a system based on serial propagation of bacteriophage T7 in the presence of a mutagen was used to create the first completely known phylogeny. Restriction-site maps of the terminal lineages were used to infer the evolutionary history of the experimental lines for comparison to the known history and actual ancestors. The five methods used to reconstruct branching pattern all predicted the correct topology but varied in their predictions of branch lengths; one method also predicts ancestral restriction maps and was found to be greater than 98 percent accurate.

==================================

Science, Vol 264, Issue 5159, 671-677

Application and accuracy of molecular phylogenies

DM Hillis, JP Huelsenbeck, and CW Cunningham
Department of Zoology, University of Texas, Austin 78712.

Molecular investigations of evolutionary history are being used to study subjects as diverse as the epidemiology of acquired immune deficiency syndrome and the origin of life. These studies depend on accurate estimates of phylogeny. The performance of methods of phylogenetic analysis can be assessed by numerical simulation studies and by the experimental evolution of organisms in controlled laboratory situations. Both kinds of assessment indicate that existing methods are effective at estimating phylogenies over a wide range of evolutionary conditions, especially if information about substitution bias is used to provide differential weightings for character transformations.



Application of the tested methodology:


Implications of natural selection in shaping 99.4% nonsynonymous DNA identity between humans and chimpanzees: Enlarging genus Homo

"Here we compare ≈90 kb of coding DNA nucleotide sequence from 97 human genes to their sequenced chimpanzee counterparts and to available sequenced gorilla, orangutan, and Old World monkey counterparts, and, on a more limited basis, to mouse. The nonsynonymous changes (functionally important), like synonymous changes (functionally much less important), show chimpanzees and humans to be most closely related, sharing 99.4% identity at nonsynonymous sites and 98.4% at synonymous sites. "



Mitochondrial Insertions into Primate Nuclear Genomes Suggest the Use of numts as a Tool for Phylogeny

"Moreover, numts identified in gorilla Supercontigs were used to test the human–chimp–gorilla trichotomy, yielding a high level of support for the sister relationship of human and chimpanzee."



A Molecular Phylogeny of Living Primates

"Once contentiously debated, the closest human relative of chimpanzee (Pan) within subfamily Homininae (Gorilla, Pan, Homo) is now generally undisputed. The branch forming the Homo and Pan lineage apart from Gorilla is relatively short (node 73, 27 steps MP, 0 indels) compared with that of thePan genus (node 72, 91 steps MP, 2 indels) and suggests rapid speciation into the 3 genera occurred early in Homininae evolution. Based on 54 gene regions, Homo-Pan genetic distance range from 6.92 to 7.90×10−3 substitutions/site (P. paniscus and P. troglodytes, respectively), which is less than previous estimates based on large scale sequencing of specific regions such as chromosome 7[50]. "

Just tests of a method followed by applications of the method, all pointing to the reality of evolution.

 

[wellwisher]

One of the problems with the contemporary version of evolution, is it violates the 2nd law, which is Entropy.

Entropy is state variable meaning, any given state of matter has a very specific amount of entropy. For example, water at 25C and 1 atmosphere of pressure has a measured entropy value of 188.8 Joules/(mole K). This measured value is the same no matter which science team does the experiments. It is always the same constant.

If we take a mole of liquid water; 6.02214076 × 1023 water molecules or about 18 grams of water, science models this dynamic situation; at the nanoscale, using probability and wave functions. These models suggest randomness.

Yet all this randomness is also defined by a constant entropy value for that state. This paradox tells us this approximation method is not exactly correct. The question is how can all that assumed randomness, always add up to that same constant entropy value? It implies tons of randomness always leading to a single constant that is always the same. Talk about mystical magic.

The only way both of these conditions would be possible is that the constant entropy of that state is leading the randomness and not the other way around as assumed by science. In other words, any random change in one place, always needs to be balanced, elsewhere. This needs to occur for all 6.02214076 × 1023 water molecules. There is a determinism; entropic state, leading even apparent randomness.

One way to visualize this is to look at a 3-D sphere or ball; integral concept call the entropic state. This can be approximated by an infinite number of 2-D planes, all with a common center point; constant entropy, but with each 2-D plane at different angles. All together these 2-D planes will approximate the 3-D ball called the entropic state. However, only the 3-D state is real, while the 2-D planes is an approximation used to fill in the entire volume.

The random; statistical approach leading, used by biology to define evolution, is half baked, since it does not take into account how all this randomness, at any given time, for any given state of matter, has to always equal a constant. This bad premise allows for magic outcomes; missing links, instead of deterministic outcomes, that should be based on the constant 3-D state entropy, leading.

Mutations can still occur on the DNA, but these are not truly random out of the context of 3-D. They may appear random to the untrained 2-D eyes of last century biology. The constant 3-D entropy of any given cellular state implies that mutations need to be part of this dynamic 3-D entropy state, dependent on other 2-D adjustments that occur, due to the interaction of a cell with its environment. The mutation is part of an entropic balance. This is how life evolves and gets better with time.

I cannot accept the current state of bad biological science that thinks it can violates one of the few laws of science; 2nd law and entropic states. The continues existence of this bad science is more about money and politics, and not the true spirit of science; search for truth in nature.

 

[tas8831]

Much of what I know about biology I learned as a young child so am woefully out of date.

Clearly - yet, that doesn't stop you from pontificating on things that you cannot even spell correctly, much less understand.

I have kept up with many experiments however.

No you haven't.