I'm re-writing the Theory of Evolution

Post Reply New Topic

Make sure all your hypotheses lead to empirically testable predictions.

ruveyn

Remember too that testable does NOT mean "Tortured into submission by convoluted verbosity".

Here's a link to My Blog. The relevant article is the second one, although the first one might raise a few hackles, as well.

Hence the phrase -empirically- testable. No apriori arguments are welcomed.

A priorism leads to debates and disputations popular during the Middle Ages.

ruveyn

Such as how many teeth a horse should have, the value of Pi, or whether or not the Earth orbits the Sun?

One thing I would really like for someone with a background in Biology and Evolution to explain to me is, how on earth does the platypus fit in your theories? Those little devils have genetic code in common with fish, reptiles, birds and mammals. I dont see how something like that could have come about through natural breeding. I suppose if it occured through lots of mutation, the kind of thing that would happen if they lived in an area rich in radioactive material, causing the platypus fetus to mutate in such a way that it coincidentialy copied the genetics of other Earth-dwelling species. Any information on how they may have evolved would be most appreciated. Until that point, I am going with my theory of extraterrestrial bio-engineers.

^ Argument From Incredulity ^

This type of argument usually takes take the following form: "This is too incredible to be true, therefore it must be false", or "I cannot imagine how it could possibly be true, therefore it must be false". These arguments are similar to Arguments From Ignorance in that they ignore and do not properly eliminate the possibility that something can be both incredible and still be true.

Just as belief proves nothing, so does disbelief. In fact, reality exists whether you believe in it or not!

(Try to wrap your mind around that one! )

Ahh... Very well put! I know that they do exsist. I simply wish to know how, and why they do. I seek not to disprove the fact they did evolve naturally, I just wish to know how it happened. It is mere curiousity. By discovering how such diverse beings came to exsist, we may one day learn how beings of perfection, can exsist. By this I mean, how one might use genetic splicing to create something that has the greatest traits of all Earth-dwelling organisms. We may be smarter that other creatures in some ways, but we are woefully unequipt to adapt to major changes.

What about the platypus? Australia is home to all sorts of exotic evolutionary side branches. It's a curiosity, but not a challenge to evolutionary theory in any way.


Um... so does literally every other living thing on the planet. What's your point?

I guess there really isnt much of a point to it aside from my curiousity and desire to learn more. And while genetic similarity exsists, I have not yet heard of another animal that lays eggs, feeds its young milk (Without having teats mind you!) and has a bill. If you can tell me about something as peculiar as that, I applaud you.

So do you.

You also have rather a lot of genetic code in common with a cabbage.

I would like you to read, or at least have a quick look at the picture in this recent article:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/evol ... icken.html

Done that?

Good.

Take a close look at the two pictures, the one on the left looks like a chicken and it is a chicken. With me so far?

The one on the right looks like an alligator but it is a chicken. Confused yet?

The mad scientists that did this did not take a load of alligator DNA and inject it into a chicken to see what would happen, the ONLY thing that they did was to interrupt the timing of gene expression in a maturing chicken egg.

The beastie on the right is 100% chicken, the only thing difference is that tiny changes were made in gene expression during development.

The body plan for every single mammal on earth, be that you, me, a mouse, a platypus or a whale, is virtual identical. The only difference (almost) in whether you get a creature that looks like a whale or a mouse is how the genes are expressed in the embryo.

It's difficult to understand, (or perhaps I'm just bad at explaining things) but try this poor analogy.

You give 2 people $10,000, tell them they have to invest it and they can only invest in 50 different companies that you specify.

You come back 20 years later, one of those people is a billionaire and one is broke.

How can this happen? Because there are an infinite number of ways they could have chosen to invest over those 20 years and the timing of when they bought and when they sold is incredibly important.

Timing is (almost) everything.

This is the most ass-backward thing ive ever read.

First: Why would extraterrestrials bother to breed duck billed platypy?



Second: The existence of intermediate forms between groups of organisms is evidence for, not against evolution.



Mammals are thought to have evolved from reptiles so one would expect the fossil record to have critters that combined reptile and mammal traits.
And a living creature that combines traits would be further evidence.

The fossil record does indeed have "mammal like reptiles" from prior to the age of true mammals, and the living platypus is a furry mammal that retains the reptilian habit of laying eggs. So one might guess that the platypus is a remnant of some primitive group of animals that had just crossed the line into mammalhood from the reptiles.

In fact the platypus and the Australian spiny anteater(which also lays eggs) are both thought to be the last remnants of a fossil group of outwardly rodentlike animals of the days of the dinosaurs called "multiberculates" - true mammals- but more primitive than either placental or the marsupial mammals that dominate today ( the diagnostic trait of multiberculates are their teeth- but niether this anteater nor the platypus have teeth so this theory cant be clinched).

Many wierd critters have survived in Australia.

I wasnt trying to say I think the platypus disproves evolution. I was just trying to ask how something like that could come about. As all the basic research, online, and in encyclopedias, has turned up more questions than answers. Im sorry if my personal intrest has caused you some sort of offence.

No offence taken. I didn't think that I was coming across as hostile to you, I wasn't trying to be.

If you are really interested in evolution try going to academic earth and watching the course on evolution.

http://academicearth.org/courses/evolut ... d-behavior

The internet has an awful lot of people spouting complete crap about all branches of science, but the subject of evolution in particular has a lot of mis information and hogwash spread because of certain religion's obsession with it.

You might want to start with this video if you wavering between creationism and evolution but would like to settle on 'the truth'. It's a lecture by a devout catholic btw.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVRsWAjvQSg

The echidna does and they don't look remarkable...

The platypuss bill is very functional also and much needed in its natural enviroment, to sift through silt on the bottom of streams.

What's your point?

If you have discovered a new set of laws I'm guessing you must have tested these laws repeatedly against thousands of datasets by now if you are confident enough in them to publish, could you name a couple of the datasets you have used in your proof?

That way you don't need to give us a peek at the laws.

wrt the OP: a hypothesis that cannot be falsified is a hypothesis of nothing.

wrt. platypusses:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monotrematum_sudamericanum