The Great RPF Origin Of Species Poll

[Queequeg]

Curious about the RPF views on evolution. I have found my beliefs completely change in the last few years. Damn you Youtube.

At this point I believe that the normal neoDarwinian theory of evolution is completely unsupported by the fossil record. I would also say that even if Lamarkian evolution is included there is still very little proof. Some major issues I have are:

1) There is no fossil record of a tree of life; it is more like a garden of life with many root organisms from the various phylum and then many species evolving from them. There are so many missing intermediary species that evolution just doesn't seem to be supported by the facts, even for punctuated evolution.

2) many parts of living organisms are a package deal. They aree multi-component systems that cant evolve gradually piece by piece. The most common example is the bacterial flagellum

3) There has never been any observed example of macro evolution of a new species, just minor changes to an existing species.

plus many more

 

[AJC]

Can you share some of the resources you've been getting into? This is an area of interest to me--especially after being exposed to some of Goethe's work regarding plant and animal morphology.

 

[yerrag]

At first I thought ticking off 2 would be too much, then I realized that the remaining choices aren't mutually exclusive to the choices I made. For example, I could believe in Intelligent Design yet believe that Lamarkian development is part of intelligent design, but that the idea of micro evolution would not necessarily be in contradiction with the former two ideas. But again, I'm just not sure what micro evolution really means. Is micro evolution the idea that higher life forms evolved out of very simple life forms, and over time grew in complexity?

 

[biffbelvin]

I remember in school we were taught about Darwinism and Lamarkism. The exercise was intended to show how a phenomena can be explained by two different theories, with the teacher 'hinting' that Darwin was correct.

Nowadays i am under the impression that our environment has a significant effect on our bodies (aside from the natural selection mechanism) and that both Darwin and Lamark are correct.

Queequeg, below are my general thoughts to some of your arguments.

1) There is no fossil record of a tree of life; it is more like a garden of life with many root organisms from the various phylum and then many species evolving from them. There are so many missing intermediary species that evolution just doesn't seem to be supported by the facts, even for punctuated evolution. I think it's sufficient. The granularity of such a system is subjective anyway. Furthermore, i think it would be unrealistic to expect to find fossil records for every single species that has existed, considering fossilization of a corpse isn't a guarantee.

2) many parts of living organisms are a package deal. They aree multi-component systems that cant evolve gradually piece by piece. The most common example is the bacterial flagellum
I'm not sure about this myself but i found this with respect to your claim on flagellum.

3) There has never been any observed example of macro evolution of a new species, just minor changes to an existing species.
What is meant by macro evolution of a new species? I mean, we're obviously not going to see anything dramatic in the 100 or so years that we've been paying attention to this.

 

[Queequeg]

Can you share some of the resources you've been getting into? This is an area of interest to me--especially after being exposed to some of Goethe's work regarding plant and animal morphology.

I haven't really done a deep dive on this but I have found this documentary does a great job summing up the many issues with Darwinism.


What does Goethe have to say on the subject?

 

[AJC]

Cool, looks interesting.
And sorry, I've just finished reading a whole book on the subject of Goethe's scientific endeavors ("Nature's Open Secret" by Rudolf Steiner), and so the ideas are not quite articulatable in my head right now and I don't want to pull things out of context, as his entire worldview is one big coherent artistic theory (similar to the way some people say Peat's is). I do recommend the book though.

 

[Queequeg]

At first I thought ticking off 2 would be too much, then I realized that the remaining choices aren't mutually exclusive to the choices I made. For example, I could believe in Intelligent Design yet believe that Lamarkian development is part of intelligent design, but that the idea of micro evolution would not necessarily be in contradiction with the former two ideas. But again, I'm just not sure what micro evolution really means. Is micro evolution the idea that higher life forms evolved out of very simple life forms, and over time grew in complexity?

Yeah it was tough to word the options so that they were mutually exclusive and covered everything I could think of. You get two votes so it hopefully you can accurately express your viewpoint. I am curious what other options there are besides the ones I listed. I guess I could have included genetic engineering by the Annunaki but I think that can be covered by intelligent design.

Microeveolution typically covers small changes within the same species. Think of a bacteria developing anti-biotic resistance or animal species growing smaller or bigger depending on environmental factors. I would also include new but related species such as dogs evolving from wolves.

 

[Drareg]

I'm personally selected looking for a different idea.

Plant evolution has always been an elephant in the room,never allowed into the room more like,was slaughtered and had horns used to inscribe neo Darwinist dogma on a church door.

I think the similarity between creatures and plants,how for example we can create metaphors/analogy for brain and and tree branches ,lungs and a tree,the universe and a tree,the human brain and the universe.
This says to me the holographic theory or metaphor is worth noting when considering everything. Every party contains the whole,interlinked at every level.

 

[Queequeg]

I remember in school we were taught about Darwinism and Lamarkism. The exercise was intended to show how a phenomena can be explained by two different theories, with the teacher 'hinting' that Darwin was correct.

Nowadays i am under the impression that our environment has a significant effect on our bodies (aside from the natural selection mechanism) and that both Darwin and Lamark are correct.

Queequeg, below are my general thoughts to some of your arguments.

I'm still kind of figuring out what I really believe but it seems to me that there are far too many issues with evolution as we know it for it to be true. There has also been so many fraudulent "discoveries" that it seems like another agenda is at work other than just trying to discover the truth. Reminds me of global warming "science." Try to watch the documentary I posted. It's actually very interesting what the other side has to say.

1) There is no fossil record of a tree of life; it is more like a garden of life with many root organisms from the various phylum and then many species evolving from them. There are so many missing intermediary species that evolution just doesn't seem to be supported by the facts, even for punctuated evolution. I think it's sufficient. The granularity of such a system is subjective anyway. Furthermore, i think it would be unrealistic to expect to find fossil records for every single species that has existed, considering fossilization of a corpse isn't a guarantee.

It's not that they are missing intermediate species for some species but that they are missing the links for just about all of them. Even Darwin thought that this was the biggest problem with his theory.

2) many parts of living organisms are a package deal. They aree multi-component systems that cant evolve gradually piece by piece. The most common example is the bacterial flagellum
I'm not sure about this myself but i found this with respect to your claim on flagellum.

Not sure I am qualified to figure out what is true for flagellum but there are many other body parts that are also "irreducibly complex" including the eye and cilia. But either way this is just one of many other issues with evolution.

3) There has never been any observed example of macro evolution of a new species, just minor changes to an existing species.
What is meant by macro evolution of a new species? I mean, we're obviously not going to see anything dramatic in the 100 or so years that we've been paying attention to this.

True for most animals but for organisms like bacteria you can have many thousands of generations pass in a relatively short time and I dont think they have seen any major changes that would qualify as Darwinian evolution. No single cell organisms have evolved to become become multicellular for example.

 

[pimpnamedraypeat]

I'm personally selected looking for a different idea.

Plant evolution has always been an elephant in the room,never allowed into the room more like,was slaughtered and had horns used to inscribe neo Darwinist dogma on a church door.

I think the similarity between creatures and plants,how for example we can create metaphors/analogy for brain and and tree branches ,lungs and a tree,the universe and a tree,the human brain and the universe.
This says to me the holographic theory or metaphor is worth noting when considering everything. Every party contains the whole,interlinked at every level.

I don't think so about the holographic universe. The reason everything in the universe is so similar is because there is one dominant force in the universe. I think life is an electric phenomena and the similarities and repeating patterns found in completely different forms of life all point to this conclusion.

Plato was right when he said material things are dim, flawed representations of a non material ideal.

I believe that life, in all it's varying forms, is just a physical manifestations of electrical phenomena. This is most obvious with plant life due to their simpler construction.

Take a look at these mris of fruit. They look like still images of electro-magnetic fields because in a certain sense they are.

I also believe that the process of life and death, within an individual or a whole population, is also dictated by electric interactions, albeit in ways we cannot fathom.

This mri of brocolli looks like a video of bacteria or fungi growing, reaching peak population, then dying off.

The same exponential growth and rapid dieoff that takes place in a bacterial population also takes place in a stalk of brocolli. I find that fascinating.

Look at this picture of microtubules branching off each other and tell me it doesn't look like an electrical phenomenon.

Theres no denying the electic influence in the morphology of life. Branches and root systems and nerves and veins mimic lightning. As does the path water takes

This could also be a family tree, and in a way it is. The exponential natue of population growth mimics the exponential nature of lightning growth because they are both electric phenomena.


Electricity is the only force in the universe that is self similar across such vast scales. That is why you will find the same forces at work at the micron level that you will at the cosmic level.

Plant

Galaxy hurricane seashell etc

 

[DaveFoster]

Darwinism and Lamarckism aren't entirely mutually exclusive.

I don't think so about the holographic universe. The reason everything in the universe is so similar is because there is one dominant force in the universe. I think life is an electric phenomena and the similarities and repeating patterns found in completely different forms of life all point to this conclusion.

Plato was right when he said material things are dim, flawed representations of a non material ideal.

I believe that life, in all it's varying forms, is just a physical manifestations of electrical phenomena. This is most obvious with plant life due to their simpler construction.

Take a look at these mris of fruit. They look like still images of electro-magnetic fields because in a certain sense they are.

I also believe that the process of life and death, within an individual or a whole population, is also dictated by electric interactions, albeit in ways we cannot fathom.

This mri of brocolli looks like a video of bacteria or fungi growing, reaching peak population, then dying off.

The same exponential growth and rapid dieoff that takes place in a bacterial population also takes place in a stalk of brocolli. I find that fascinating.

Look at this picture of microtubules branching off each other and tell me it doesn't look like an electrical phenomenon.

Theres no denying the electic influence in the morphology of life. Branches and root systems and nerves and veins mimic lightning. As does the path water takes

This could also be a family tree, and in a way it is. The exponential natue of population growth mimics the exponential nature of lightning growth because they are both electric phenomena.


Electricity is the only force in the universe that is self similar across such vast scales. That is why you will find the same forces at work at the micron level that you will at the cosmic level.

Plant

Galaxy hurricane seashell etc

Have you seen Koyaanisqatsi?

 

[michael94]

I don't think so about the holographic universe. The reason everything in the universe is so similar is because there is one dominant force in the universe. I think life is an electric phenomena and the similarities and repeating patterns found in completely different forms of life all point to this conclusion.

Plato was right when he said material things are dim, flawed representations of a non material ideal.

I believe that life, in all it's varying forms, is just a physical manifestations of electrical phenomena. This is most obvious with plant life due to their simpler construction.

Take a look at these mris of fruit. They look like still images of electro-magnetic fields because in a certain sense they are.

I also believe that the process of life and death, within an individual or a whole population, is also dictated by electric interactions, albeit in ways we cannot fathom.

This mri of brocolli looks like a video of bacteria or fungi growing, reaching peak population, then dying off.

The same exponential growth and rapid dieoff that takes place in a bacterial population also takes place in a stalk of brocolli. I find that fascinating.

Look at this picture of microtubules branching off each other and tell me it doesn't look like an electrical phenomenon.

Theres no denying the electic influence in the morphology of life. Branches and root systems and nerves and veins mimic lightning. As does the path water takes

This could also be a family tree, and in a way it is. The exponential natue of population growth mimics the exponential nature of lightning growth because they are both electric phenomena.


Electricity is the only force in the universe that is self similar across such vast scales. That is why you will find the same forces at work at the micron level that you will at the cosmic level.

Plant

Galaxy hurricane seashell etc

 

[lollipop]

I don't think so about the holographic universe. The reason everything in the universe is so similar is because there is one dominant force in the universe. I think life is an electric phenomena and the similarities and repeating patterns found in completely different forms of life all point to this conclusion.

Plato was right when he said material things are dim, flawed representations of a non material ideal.

I believe that life, in all it's varying forms, is just a physical manifestations of electrical phenomena. This is most obvious with plant life due to their simpler construction.

Take a look at these mris of fruit. They look like still images of electro-magnetic fields because in a certain sense they are.

I also believe that the process of life and death, within an individual or a whole population, is also dictated by electric interactions, albeit in ways we cannot fathom.

This mri of brocolli looks like a video of bacteria or fungi growing, reaching peak population, then dying off.

The same exponential growth and rapid dieoff that takes place in a bacterial population also takes place in a stalk of brocolli. I find that fascinating.

Look at this picture of microtubules branching off each other and tell me it doesn't look like an electrical phenomenon.

Theres no denying the electic influence in the morphology of life. Branches and root systems and nerves and veins mimic lightning. As does the path water takes

This could also be a family tree, and in a way it is. The exponential natue of population growth mimics the exponential nature of lightning growth because they are both electric phenomena.


Electricity is the only force in the universe that is self similar across such vast scales. That is why you will find the same forces at work at the micron level that you will at the cosmic level.

Plant

Galaxy hurricane seashell etc

Great Post @pimpnamedraypeat.

 

[pimpnamedraypeat]

Darwinism and Lamarckism aren't entirely mutually exclusive.

Have you seen Koyaanisqatsi?

No I had never heard of it. I google it and it says it shows time lapse images of cities and natural landscapes. Seems like an art house film.

The growth of human population and the development of population hubs when seen from a distance and a large time scale resemble bacterial life and other biological phenomena, which of course resemble electricity.

Major cities cluster around coastal areas with population density falling at square of distance from population hubs

Cow paths become main roads become major routes. Back before planned highways and construction when things happened organically this is what roads looked like

That's 'all roads lead to Rome" from a wayfinding company that used a computer to map the best way to major cities in Europe. It looks like a circulatory system because in an abstract sense it is

This is geo-located tweets from new york. It depicts the population density and flow of tweeters, one of the lowest forms of life.

This is a map from 1837 showing the population flow from dublin to the rest of Ireland

This is grass on a golf course after a lightning strike

This is the missisipi river that bisects the us

This is a geotag map from san-Francisco showing places where pictures have been taken. Notice the filamentary nature

This is electric discharge from a tesla coil. Notice the filamentary nature

This is more electric discharge notice the root structure

This is fungal root system called mycelium

This is a simulation of the cosmic web, that shows the three dimensional distribution of galaxies over time. based off a sample of 40,000 galaxies

Do you see?

@michael94 @lisaferraro thanks

 

[Queequeg]

I hate to be the party pooper but these patterns in nature form for a variety of reasons and is not necessarily due to some inherent electrical nature found in everything. For example a river deltas branching has nothing to do with any electrical properties of water and sand but rather has to do with the water following the path of least resistance to the ocean and follow laws of fluid mechanics. A tree’s branching has to do with the effects of light sensitive hormones that cause each bud to grow in the direction of the light and away from the shade of nearby growth. Spirals and fractals can be explained by the fact that they represent the lowest energy state achievable and are a result of a few rules/patterns of growth repeated over and over. With that said I am still a fan of the electric universe.

 

[pimpnamedraypeat]

I hate to be the party pooper but these patterns in nature form for a variety of reasons and is not necessarily due to some inherent electrical nature found in everything. For example a river deltas branching has nothing to do with any electrical properties of water and sand but rather has to do with the water following the path of least resistance to the ocean and follow laws of fluid mechanics. A tree’s branching has to do with the effects of light sensitive hormones that cause each bud to grow in the direction of the light and away from the shade of nearby growth. Spirals and fractals can be explained by the fact that they represent the lowest energy state achievable. With that said I am still a fan of the electric universe.

Yes it does have to do with electric properties of water. Water is electric. Why do you think it is prerequisite for life. What do you think propels the motion of water? Gravity is an electrical phenomenon.

I know how trees grow, thank you. Does a river branching have to do with photo sensitive cells? What about a root system or nerves? My point was that the specifics don't matter. That process ends up looking the same as all the other forms of fractal growth because it follows the same basic rules and is driven by the same type of energy.

What form of energy are you reffering to when you say fractals represent the search for the lowest energy state possible? In that vein why does lightning happen?

 

[Queequeg]

Darwinism and Lamarckism aren't entirely mutually exclusive.

I think Darwinism excludes Lamarc

Yes it does have to do with electric properties of water. Water is electric. Why do you think it is prerequisite for life. What do you think propels the motion of water? Gravity is an electrical phenomenon.

I know how trees grow, thank you. Does a river branching have to do with photo sensitive cells? What about a root system or nerves? My point was that the specifics don't matter. That process ends up looking the same as all the other forms of fractal growth because it follows the same basic rules and is driven by the same type of energy.

What form of energy are you reffering to when you say fractals represent the search for the lowest energy state possible? In that vein why does lightning happen?

My point is that just because these phenomenon look similar to a lightning strike it doesn't mean that they are all electrical in nature. How exactly does electricity cause plants to grow in such a way that it maximizes sunlight? If gravity were electric then why does it exert the same force on every object regardless of its electric charge? More specifically it doesn't matter if you run a positive or negative current through a body of water it will still work its way by gravity to lower ground and branch out when the resistance of the land is greater than the surface tension of the fluid.

As far as objects seeking their minimum energy state, this is just a restatement of the second law of thermodynamics and applies to all systems.

 

[DaveFoster]

I think Darwinism excludes Lamarck

Lamarckism and natural selection can both be present. Heritability of acquired behaviors can accompany gradual, seemingly "random" variation over time as in natural selection.

 

[pimpnamedraypeat]

I think Darwinism excludes Lamarc

My point is that just because these phenomenon look similar to a lightning strike it doesn't mean that they are all electrical in nature. How exactly does electricity cause plants to grow in such a way that it maximizes sunlight? If gravity were electric then why does it exert the same force on every object regardless of its electric charge? More specifically it doesn't matter if you run a positive or negative current through a body of water it will still work its way by gravity to lower ground and branch out when the resistance of the land is greater than the surface tension of the fluid.

As far as objects seeking their minimum energy state, this is just a restatement of the second law of thermodynamics and applies to all systems.

Electricity causes plants to grow in such a way that they maximize access to sunlight. Electricity causes lighting bolts to spread out so that they equalize the charge between the clouds and the ground.

This leads me to believe that a plants growth is the result of an imbalance between a plants energy requirements and it's energy access. Plants use sunlight which is em radiation. A tree is a reified lightning bolt, my friend. It seeks equilibrium.

You say gravity treats all objects ewually but there is quite a difference between how gravity treats the water on the ground vs the water in the clouds.

Gravity does not exert the same force on an object regardless of energy level. If it did you wouldn't be able to get up in the morning. You expend EM energy to counteract the effects of EM gravity every day.

The reason charged water runs downhill is because it has so called "potential energy" which is, of course, electric. And anyways if you were able to sufficiently increase the energy store of a body of water it would stop flowing downhill and instead float up into the clouds.

The reason the laws of thermodynamics apply to all systems is because all systems run on electricity. Heat is electromagnetic radiation.

 

[Drareg]

I don't think so about the holographic universe. The reason everything in the universe is so similar is because there is one dominant force in the universe. I think life is an electric phenomena and the similarities and repeating patterns found in completely different forms of life all point to this conclusion.

Plato was right when he said material things are dim, flawed representations of a non material ideal.

I believe that life, in all it's varying forms, is just a physical manifestations of electrical phenomena. This is most obvious with plant life due to their simpler construction.

Take a look at these mris of fruit. They look like still images of electro-magnetic fields because in a certain sense they are.

I also believe that the process of life and death, within an individual or a whole population, is also dictated by electric interactions, albeit in ways we cannot fathom.

This mri of brocolli looks like a video of bacteria or fungi growing, reaching peak population, then dying off.

The same exponential growth and rapid dieoff that takes place in a bacterial population also takes place in a stalk of brocolli. I find that fascinating.

Look at this picture of microtubules branching off each other and tell me it doesn't look like an electrical phenomenon.

Theres no denying the electic influence in the morphology of life. Branches and root systems and nerves and veins mimic lightning. As does the path water takes

This could also be a family tree, and in a way it is. The exponential natue of population growth mimics the exponential nature of lightning growth because they are both electric phenomena.


Electricity is the only force in the universe that is self similar across such vast scales. That is why you will find the same forces at work at the micron level that you will at the cosmic level.

Plant

Galaxy hurricane seashell etc

This is exactly the type of thing I was thinking about ,layers and layers of similarity,it's possible the motion and change of it all is just how the universe always has been,it's only the motion and movement of change that creates the illusion of life and death,what dies is the question? For overall reality it never dies ,this reality we speak of is an organism potentially always existing with said motion,all creatures are just temporary waves like mountains and the rest you highlight. Everything has its own tempo,vortex within vortex.
There may be no outside of it.

I think something like a magnetic laser,a coherent beam is locked into some sort of folding,there potentially is no ideal form which comes before which I think Plato is getting at? The laser is interlocked with the folding,they can't separate and that's how it's always been,no start or finish.

All of this still begs the question of why? Is it just an ocean of ever lasting energy folding and creating similarity,if so why do we have appearances and disappearances,life and death at lower levels of the overall organism,if we claim similarity at all levels then at the overall level this appearance and disappearance must apply which renders the theory of always existing reality incorrect?
We desire it to mean something,meaning an intrinsic property also present at all levels, this is why we ask "why",we then relate the why to our past experiences and built up meanings. This is why humans will have meaning for everything that appears outside of us,all have different packages of meaning they contain,some things contain more meaning than others,maybe plants do contain more meaning than humans for example.