Home > Resources, Diet, Testimonials, Logs > Ray Peat Topics > Science > Science Basics > The Third Way Of Evolution

The Third Way Of Evolution

  1. Cool site supporting recent finding debunking neo-darwinism

    Home | The Third Way of Evolution

    "The vast majority of people believe that there are only two alternative ways to explain the origins of biological diversity. One way is Creationism that depends upon intervention by a divine Creator. That is clearly unscientific because it brings an arbitrary supernatural force into the evolution process. The commonly accepted alternative is Neo-Darwinism, which is clearly naturalistic science but ignores much contemporary molecular evidence and invokes a set of unsupported assumptions about the accidental nature of hereditary variation. Neo-Darwinism ignores important rapid evolutionary processes such as symbiogenesis, horizontal DNA transfer, action of mobile DNA and epigenetic modifications. Moreover, some Neo-Darwinists have elevated Natural Selection into a unique creative force that solves all the difficult evolutionary problems without a real empirical basis. Many scientists today see the need for a deeper and more complete exploration of all aspects of the evolutionary process."
  2. Thanks for posting this. I didn't spent a lot of time on the site, but it seems to me that most of the ideas that are put forward as alternatives to mainstream evolutionary theory have been proposed and accepted by mainstream evolutionary theorists.
  3. I have linked up some of the publications of one of the authors, Arnold de Loof, here on RPF already. His approach sounds much alike to Peat‘s way of thinking:

    „De Loof worked as professor of biology at the University of Leuven (KU Leuven) in Belgium since 1973. His major interest is the evolution and mode of action of the endocrine system of animals. Not only in animals, but in all living systems, the sender-receiver or communicating compartment is the universal unit of structure and function. The prokaryotic cell is the smallest such unit. This approach enables to plausibly define ‘Life’ and to deduce the various parameters instrumental to the evolution of communication activity, which represents the very essence of being alive. To evolve into an all-round theory of evolution, the neo-Darwinian Modern Synthesis needs a ‘software upgrade’.“

  4. This is much more fun
  5. 1 Timothy 6:20 O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:

    21 Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with thee. Amen.

    Northwest Creation Network

    Science “So Called”
  6. I spent about 20 minutes looking at the "Northwest Creation Network." Like most Young Earth Creations (who believe the Earth is between 6,000 to sometimes up to 10,000 years old) BOTH the scientific and scriptural arguments are very poor.

    It's disingenuous on multiple levels to translate the ancient Hebrew word for knowledge as "science," considering that the scientific method was only developed a few centuries ago. @marcar72 seems to have carefully chosen a translation that avoids the obvious meaning of the verse. Don't contradict knowledge God has given.

    So, assuming you take the Scriptures to be legitimate in some sense, has God given us knowledge that the Earth is 6,000 years old? Nope. There is literally NO tradition contemporary with early Judiasm or Christianity claiming a young Earth.... like one Jewish dude speculated about it around 1000 A.D., but most of this nonsense arose after modern science got going in the 18th Century.

    Why do they think the Earth in 6,000-10,000 years old? Well, they *assume* the lineage from Adam to Jesus given in the Bible is complete, with no gaps. In particular, there is one guy in modern times who established this idea, but his name is escaping me at the moment. Ever flipped open a Bible and happened onto a long sequence of passages, along the lines of "and then Jehosephat begat Jehosepheen, who was then father of Mogh..." Providing a lineage for Jesus is obvious a major, in unappreciated, thrust of the text

    Now... does the Bible make any sort of claim that the lineage for Jesus is complete, in the sense that every single ancestor is listed? Nope. Also, where it keeps saying "father of" over and over during the genealogy? That word actually means "ancestor of" OR "father of". This isn't up to debate... there are many other passages that make the meaning clear. Putting those two facts together, the YEC argument that the Earth is 6,000 to 10,000 years old is an incredibly poor one. It makes a huge leap. It is certainly not a "literal" interpretation of Scripture.

    Also featured on that YouTube channel is a video entitled "The Big Bang Never Happened". Why don't they like the Big Bang? It sounds too much like science. Hilariously, the biggest reservation early (secular) proponents of the Big Bang had about it was that is sounded too much like the Bible.

    Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

    3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light

    In the linked video, the guy argues for a "global flood" interpretation of the Noah story, which is not compatible with the evidence to say the least. He emphasizes that is must be global because the verses use the word "Earth". Does not mention that ancient Hebrew does not have a worth for the entire Earth, and that the same word is simply translated "land" in the rest of the Bible.

    No wonder these guys have to disable comments on their videos.

    Note that it isn't necessary to question Christian principles in order to be sure the YEC earth position is invented dogma, based on a highly questionable interpretation of a single supposed point of evidence. Why would God create an elaborate set of physical evidence, consistent across multiple means of dating, to fool us into thinking the Earth is old, while failing to actually address the matter in Scripture?

    The fact that this stuff can be easily refuted, even with a fundamentalist perspective, is why this stuff seems ultra kooky to those who aren't Christians. For those who are, if someone is preaching this to you it can only be interpreted as an arrogant overconfidence in their ability to interpret the Scriptures... a sign you/they are in a cult version of Christianity.
  7. @GAF the Thunderbolts stuff seems pretty compelling, although I feel like I lack a framework to fully evaluate it. I haven't seen the video you linked to yet. I'm assuming you have seen their "Symbols of an Alien Sky"... when they talked about all the ancient Greek references to a "second sun" my jaw dropped because I had actually read several references to it first hand in college (when studying philosophy), briefly wondered what the heck they were talking about, and then moved on without worrying too much.

    Would be very interesting if the planetary events they argue for were related to the record of cataclysm discussed in the Bible and other ancient texts.

    More generally the argument of the Thunderbolts people for a universe where electrical effects are very important, and perhaps dominant, has been pretty convincing to me.

    UPDATE: Whoa I thought this was the Thunderbolts Project channel, but he is just using their images. This guy says some real crazy sounding stuff. "Dave Talbott experienced a stroke due to space weather, unfortunately."
  8. I told you this was more fun!

    KP index down to zero, people go crazy and die, too. Evolution happens at catastrophe points and dont forget the sun is going to wipe out most people and survivors will live like rats in holes.

    2046 is next micro nova. Uhoh!
  9. I already live like a rat in a hole.
  10. Excellent, you will be prepared well for the future.

    You guys might also want to listen to the Earth Catastrophe Series of videos on Suspicious Observers you tube channel. More fun info.
  11. The origin of life on earth due to natural selection is the least scientific of the most prevalent theories held as true. There is very little evidence by way of the scientific method that has been found to support the theory. I have a list of issues I wrote down awhile ago when I was researching the subject if anyone is curious

    Genetic entropy by john sanford a cornell geneticist is a great book on the subject, he discusses how we have yet to witness a single beneficial mutation

    Sugars and amino acids destroy each other on contact, how did the the cell perfectly evolve to balance them

    Oxygen inhibits creation and function of proteins and amino acids look at Uri Miller experiments

    Homochirality has to be perfect.all sugars must be a certain handedness,and all amino acids a crtain handedness.however both the elements cause racemization and in experiments all sugars and amino acids are racemized. as of now never been proven possible to create Homochiral sugars or acids randomly.this is known as the racemization problem

    Polymerization problem- if we evolved in primordial soup of water wouldn’t peptides hydrolize immediately after formation

    How do Evolutionists Explain the multiple finds of intact cells and DNA in Dinosaur bones?DNA denigrates in a couple of hundred years.over thousands of years,its completely gone.

    And here is an interesting discussion of the history of paleontology
    Top Ten Scientific Flaws In The Theory of Prehistoric Dinosaurs
  12. The evidence in favor of the high-level claims made by the modern theory evolution is so strong, it's overwhelming. Evolutionary theory allows scientists to make countless more valid predictions that the previous theories or any other available theory... one of the gold standards of a good theory. Talking like this suggests that you aren't really too familiar at all with the thing you suppose you are criticizing, @Gone Peating.

    Yep the guy taught horticulture at Cornell for 30 years and is an extreme outlier. Here is the summary of one YEC researcher who actually delved into its many claims from Quora

    I also want to say that claiming no beneficial mutations have been observed is one of the most retarded things I've ever heard. Beneficial genetic mutations have been observed in E. coli in lab conditions. In *many* experiments.

    E. coli long-term evolution experiment - Wikipedia

    In the above experiment, "the E. coli populations have been under study for over 64,500 generations, and are thought to have undergone enough spontaneous mutations that every possible single point mutation in the E. coli genome has occurred multiple times."

    While it is more difficult to evaluate changes in complex organisms in the wild, there are currently many mutations generally recognized as beneficial measurably spreading through the human population

    4 beneficial evolutionary mutations that humans are undergoing right now

    What, is the argument that we have not observed something like the malaria resistance mutations directly? Because that is some weak sauce. The theory of evolution doesn't predict that we would would able to identify key mutations like that before they spread through a population... nor very often. However, the human genome has been studied to find the most active regions of genetic drift (through natural and sexual selection) and guess what? They are largely diet related. This should not be surprising, since there is good evidence that some humans tolerate the modern diet better than others. Tons of anecodotal evidence on this site, to that effect.

    Also, we now have experiments like this. See how it refutes Sanford?

    Adaptive mutations in bacteria: high rate and small effects. - PubMed - NCBI

    It's not just "a problem" for Sanford and similar views. Experiments like that are devastating for that point of view. But that was a while back... look what they found *this year*:

    Genes that evolve from scratch expand protein diversity: Genomic analysis of rice plants provides decisive evidence of de novo gene origination

    Lots of authentic de novo gene creation observed. Remember this when I talk below about the YEC's continual need to retreat from earlier positions.

    I'm going to refute a few of your other points, but the level of "research" you've done doesn't really merit that. You clearly haven't bothered to look at the other side.

    Really? I just took some sugar and mixed it up with powdered collagen and could not detect any reaction. Why don't nutrition labels list lower content for sugar and protein when they are added together in foods. Can I suggest it's because this is some lunatic nonsense? Could it be that you are attempting to summarize an argument you don't really understand?

    Sure, lets. And why not look also at the research that followed? Just because your source is literally decades behind and not too interested in keeping up?

    Scientists finish a 53-year-old classic experiment on the origins of life - Not Exactly Rocket Science : Not Exactly Rocket Science
    Volcanic lightning may have sparked life on Earth
    New Steps Shown toward Creation of Life by Electric Charge

    The problem with desperately criticizing a theory for the problems it hasn't solved yet is that one must continually retreat as the problems are solved. This has been the story of YEC. What does it tell you when one theory is advancing, making predictions, while another has to keep shrinking it's arguments in response?


    This has also been the problem with criticizing so called lack of "missing links". For years YEC claimed that evolution was invalid because these things hadn't been discovered.... yet

    Discovered: the missing link that solves a mystery of evolution
    Tiktaalik - Wikipedia

    The Palentology link is some of the lowest quality stuff I've seen. I am not going to address it all. Let's take:

    Okay, does the theory of evolution predict that fossils would be common -- or should it? Not even close. The reason dinosaur and primate fossils are extremely rare is well documented, introductory material. The conditions for fossil formation are quite rare. Most animal carcasses will not form fossils in most conditions. Do you know what a fossil actually is? Why doesn't this person seem to have the most basic knowledge about that? Is he deliberately misrepresenting the theory he is criticizing, or just extremely lazy... too ill informed about it to recognize even the most basic of mischaracterizations?

    The expected "resolution" in terms of number of samples of any given species given the extent of it's population has been characterized in the academic literature, and it's very poor for dinosaurs, and primates. And then we have to find them. Which is to say, evolutionists have actually made quantitative predictions regarding the (low) rate of fossil formation and discovery for more complex creatures and tested them against empirical evidence. There are however some fossils of small, simple creatures that are relatively common, because they lived in multitudes in or around the sea.
  13. "Natural" selection does not exist in the human species. Physically weak people attract mates, can rise to upper levels of society and thrive (and sometimes live long) Their offspring, in turn, could become large & strong depending on their conditions while growing up. "Strong" attractive humans can become maladjusted, isolated, ultimately fail. The reverse is true in the animal world.
    Of course Jane Godall observed a chimp once, who, not as large & aggressive as the pack's dominant male, gained dominance in the pack by pounding a stick into a tree hollow which frightened dominant males. Brains over braun.
  14. @DMF I take your point, but strictly speaking the theory of evolution doesn't predict that physically strong people will thrive. It predicts that the kind of people who are better at thriving will thrive.

    I believe there is some good evidence that reproductive fitness is still constrained by traits like physical attractiveness and performance characteristics, IQ (not necessarily at the extremes), etc. Whether these traits are as selective as they were in the past or how they conform to your preferred selection criteria, I don't know :)

    Um, are you familiar with the work of the 80's (and continuing) legends DEVO?

    I guess John C Sanford should be onto this.

    Humans are a DOMESTICATED species. And look at how badly we have done with the genomes of various dog breeds. They are degenerating. So the thought of the effects of human domestication (by ourselves, presumably or TBTP), does scare me. This Sanford guy who I ridiculed made the same basic point about human handling of plant genomes being somewhat deleterious. I am sure there is something to that. On the other hand, have you seen the wild forms of some of our food crops? Here is corn, it's like a little blade of grass. Hard to imagine making tortillas from it.

    wild ancestor of corn - Google Search

  15. Not once did the scientists in that article explain what exactly those beneficial mutations were, they could legitimately be anything. I don't doubt the ability of birds beak sizes to change as the weather changes subtly year by year. What I do doubt is the ability of the eye to develop by chance, no matter how much time chance is given

    "Although the vast majority of research in evolutionary biology is focused on adaption, a general theory for the population-genetic mechanisms by which complex adaptations are acquired remains to be developed." - Proceedings of the National Academy of the Sciences of the USA

    Evolution backed by very little science, it's mostly backed by faith
  16. No, the beneficial mutations were explained very clearly. Using several examples with various species. Are you reading at a 3rd grade level or just refusing to really look? Others following this won't have that handicap -- they'll be able to follow the articles explanation. So I am not going to spoon feed it to you... I have updated my prior post with more, including direct observation of de novo genesis of beneficial genes in 2019.

    I used to doubt that too, as a young person. Then I saw a simulation that developed something very close to a human eye in 50,000 generations of a genetic algorithm. This is a computer simulation based on the mathematical principles of evolution. The simulation is human designed but has NO knowledge of how an eye works. Only basic physics principles, and photosensitive cells as "building blocks". It then finds a design very similar to the human one with no foreknowledge, and nothing resembling the "design" process you think is necessary. I then constructed a similar simulation myself, and explored many other applications of genetic algorithms.

    Who are you to tell God he can't do it that way? You need Him to wave a magic wand?

    Hmm... I'd encourage you to think about what an argument that would actually establish that would look like, and then perhaps try it. I'm afraid you might have to learn a bit about evolution, though. Right now you are doing your side harm. People like you are a key reason so few scientists believe in God anymore, I think. They decide to go with the evidence rather than whackadoodle claims. Let's be clear that your claims aren't Biblically supported either.

    I don't see religious and scientific claims as needing to be in conflict. It's a pity that you do.

    Evolution of completely new genes has been observed in a laboratory. Since the genome is essentially a large bundle of digital information, it is only necessary to repeat this basic process and a few others (primarily, genetic recombination through sexual combination) to reach any conceivable genetic sequence. It's not necessary for new genes to form often in order for this to be the case.
  17. I don't see religious and scientific claims as needing to be in conflict either.

    A computer simulation based on mathematical principles of something that is assumed to be true, we aren't talking the Pythagorean theorem or any mathematical/logical equation that is indisputably true here. Those mathematical equations are the same as the hundreds of astrophysicists each with their own differing "mathematical principles" showing how the universe developed.

    It is possible that evolution is true. but as of now it is just a reasonable enough sounding theory without much evidence based on the scientific method.
  18. That would have been a good assessment in the 1950's. Today, your lack of familiarity with massive bodies of corroborating evidence in genetics, paleontology, microbiology and information theory should not be confused with the nonexistence of said evidence.

    I think you are missing the point of genetic algorithms. The point is that they can design things that are not in any direct sense programmed in. No it is not like lots of different astrophysical models. These algorithms show that evolutionary processes can "design" things without designs. Things that YEC's used to say could not be designed without intelligence... until they were. There are many examples... you might want to look into it. Including many human patented inventions being evolved.

    It's certainly true that we can't directly observe what happened millions of years ago. But then, we can't really directly observe anything. We experience patterns of neurons firing in the brain.