Join the Discussion

Comments So Far: 28

• 0%

  Coatl3 months ago

  It seems that this guy hasn't read any book or writing about evoultion made after 1880.

  He's completely right in being aganist such a misconception of evoultion, but the actual evolutionary theory is not like that.

  It's funny, he's not proposing an alternative to evolution, he's proposing an alternative to natural selection and genetic drift as the main force driving it.

  Reply

  3 Replies

  • 0%

    whgilmore3 months ago

    It wasn't until recent times many of the findings of earlier researchers were admitted to as being incorrect, so what books are suggested after 1880 and before recent time which are accurate?

    Reply

    2 Replies

    • 0%

      Coatl3 months ago

      Sorry I didn't udnerstand very well your question.

      Did you asked me wich books are now considered incorrect?

      Basically my point is that there is a lot of more research about evolutino since Darwin's time, the theory of evolution it's not about of the wish of survival of any species (that sounds like Lamarkism). The understandig of evolution it this article is flawed, basically becase it doesn't even adress the mayor roles of genetic drift an natural selection as driving forces of evolution (wich are the basic principles of evolutionary theory).

      Reply
    • 0%

      ForrestPhelps3 months ago

      To whgilmore:

      Have you read any Stephen Gould?

      Reply
• 0%

  ForrestPhelps3 months ago

  Quite simply, one of the most absurd articles I've ever read.

  The man claims to have studied physics, yet the article is filled with unscientific reasoning.

  The word "charlatan" kept flitting through my mind.

  Reply

  5 Replies

  • 0%

    whgilmore3 months ago

    Unscientific reasoning? Is evidence of microbes on meteors from Mars unscientific? This is one of the metamorphic events. Would you say the scientists who proclaimed this discovery are charlatans? Would you also say solar flares, galactic drifts, bombardment by cosmic satellites and many other spectacular events did not happen over billions of years upon the surface of the Earth?

    I wonder if you believe if the world still flat or does the Sun orbit around us?

    Reply

    3 Replies

    • 0%

      ForrestPhelps3 months ago

      To whgilmore:

      Let's start with a few simple ones.

      In the 3rd paragraph of your article, you wrote:

      "I had been indoctrinated to evolution as the premise of our origins."

      -The Evolution I know does not address origin of life. Am I wrong?

      2nd paragraph of page 2:

      "After enduring such an intense investigation of his works, it was clear Darwin himself proclaimed other races to be intellectually inferior and predicted genocide when wrote about the dominant race would eventually eliminate the other races."

      -Please give me direct quotes from Darwin's writing supporting this. I've read Darwin extensively, along with books discussing Darwin, and I've never read where Darwin was a rascists.

      Page 4:

      "In other words, life forms may become other species when and only when they or their environment has been stimulated by ionization."

      -What is ionization?

      Reply

      2 Replies

      • 0%

        whgilmore3 months ago

        Darwin addresses evolution in regards to origin. Please consider the title of his book 'Origin Of The Species'.

        There are several excerpts from Darwin's manuscripts which he displays racism. To quote directly from his works in 'The Descent Of Man', he wrote "So again, it is almost a matter of indifference whether the so-called races of man are thus designated, or are ranked as species or sub-species: but the LATTER term appears the more appropriate..." Chapter VII, p.188.

        Darwin declared Negroes as being lower races in 'The Descent of Man'. "In an earlier chapter we have seen that the mental powers of the higher animals do not differ in kind, though greatly in degree, from the corresponding powers of man, especially of the lower and barbarous races...As the negro of Africa...as negroes and savages in parts of the world..." Chapter XVIII, p.560.

        Reply

        1 Reply

        • 0%

          whgilmore3 months ago

          Also in 'The Descent Of Man' Darwin predicted genocide, "At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world..." Chapter VI, p.162-163

          As for question about ionization, I make reference to the electro-magnetic effects upon life forms when Metamorphic Events occur. These type of events activate change in neural systems of those life forms, which generate chromosomal change. As already understood in physical science, the ionic bonding of electrons and protons when atomic particles react to one another; these also have electro-magnetic consequences.

          During the span of our existence over billions of years, if for example Metamorphic Events happened every 1000 years, millions of these events could have happened. Nevertheless, the time intervals of how often these events occurred would itself create a new study to be scientifically researched.

          Reply
  • 0%

    ForrestPhelps3 months ago

    In my previous comment, I said the word charlatan kept coming to my mind.

    Since that time, reading what whgilmore has written on this thread, I rescind that characterization. I believe he seriously believes his work to be be "science".

    I apologize for casting an aspersion that now seems inaccurate.

    Reply
• 0%

  1-2-Oscar3 months ago

  There is nothing particularly novel about your theory of "Metamorphic Events." We call them "mutations," but I suppose that you are privileged to call them whatever you choose.

  What you fail to address is what happens AFTER these events occur. If the "Metamorphic Event" creates a characteristic which is beneficial to the organism, then that individual will be successful and pass the genetic change along to increasing numbers of offspring over many generations, until virtually all members of its species share that gene and possess that characteristic. It is this process, which necessarily takes time, that we call "evolution." There is no process by which all the members of a species can be changed instantly by an "event."

  You evidently like to write (although you need a bit of polish) and you seem capable of following a cogent argument. Let me introduce you to Mr. Robert Ardrey, whose works were fashionable when I was a student. (cont)

  Reply

  4 Replies

  • 0%

    1-2-Oscar3 months ago

    Ardrey had been a Pulitzer Prize-winning playwright and sometime movie writer during the 1930s, who later took an interest in scientific matters, particular evolution and the origins of Mankind. Three of his later books, "African Genesis," "the Territorial Imperative," and "The Social Contract," became best-sellers during the 1960s. Ardrey's methods are basically sound, and his research was wide-ranging, although I do not endorse all of his conclusions. But his work is both well-written and thought-provoking, and it might stimulate further inquiry on your part.

    Good luck in your endeavors. They seem to be worthwhile.

    Reply

    3 Replies

    • 0%

      whgilmore3 months ago

      I thank you for the insight about Mr. Robert Ardrey. I may look into his works when I have time. I do agree genetic change does take time and would not be typically evident in the affected life form, but in subsequent generations. However, I do not associate this change with evolution; mainly because 'evolution' implies life forms changing without some event initializing that change. I am a cause and effect believer. Events caused the changes in species; this is proven by the fact some species have altered and others have remained the same for over a billion years; and the alteration of species have been traced back to geographic locations (such as human beings).

      As noted in my book, there are several types of changes life forms may undergo, mutation is merely one of the significant ones. Also included in the book are mathematical formulas which correlate with the effects of these different type of changes.

      Reply

      2 Replies

      • 0%

        Coatl3 months ago

        "'evolution' implies life forms changing without some event initializing that change."

        Wouldn't be mutation( genetic drift ) the initializing event of the change?

        Reply
      • 0%

        1-2-Oscar3 months ago

        Coatl is correct. "Evolution" does NOT imply change without an initial event. It is actually the cumulative of those changes which have occurred over a long period of time.

        Have your compared your mathematical formulas with those of Pythagoras? Given his influence, in both ancient and modern societies, that might be worth some of your time, as would an examination of Ardrey.

        Reply
• 0%

  chuck-the-canuck3 months ago

  I'm quite surprised that as a scientist you doubt the theory of evolution. It isn't a theory in the layman's vernacular. It is a fact.

  It has been a number of years since I read Origin of the Species and I have yet to read the Descent of Man. If I recall correctly Darwin was interested in the advantageous changes and the subsequent passing down of those changes. He didn't necessarily focus on what events brought about those initial changes. There could be many mechanisms at work.

  Just because you feel that Darwin may have been a racist, don't throw the baby out with the bath water.

  There are no inferior races, but there are most definitely some inferior cultures.

  Reply

  8 Replies

  • 0%

    whgilmore3 months ago

    I attribute much of Darwin's ideology to those whom greatly influenced his thinking and the era which he lived. There is no certainty as to why he believed other races to be 'subspecies' as directly quoted from 'The Descent Of Man'. Perhaps he formed his bigoted beliefs from his Christian background (he was touted to become a Christian Minister and received his B.A. from Christ's College in Cambridge).

    Reply

    2 Replies

    • 0%

      smithichie3 months ago

      As bigoted as Darwin may appear to us today, compared to his contemporaries he was quite enlightened. He spoke out and wrote against slavery with great emotion.

      In Darwin's time the considering the 'races' subspecies was upsetting to many, not because of the reasons we find it upsetting today though, many were upset at the idea of other races being included as the same species, even at subspecies level.

      Reply

    • mishandledComment removed: User banned.
  • 0%

    whgilmore3 months ago

    It is demonstrative of the hold institutions have on you because you have been convinced into the belief the theory to be a fact. On what do you draw this commitment as your conclusion? There exists no infallible evidence to make such a claim. As mentioned in the article and my book the fossil records have been misconscrued and/or misrepresented and there are too many chronological and physical contradictions to the evidence. The only reliable test for accuracy would be genetic investigation. Since researchers do not have the technology now and have not had them in the past to prove these without a shadow of doubt, what is fact? Until proven meticulously precise any evidential claim is presumptuous and as many researchers do, sensational propaganda of what artifacts are for the sake of acclaim.

    Lastly, if evolution is fact then scientists should be able to re-create it. Where is the evidence? Can we claim it is a fact, if we can not prove it, yet..?

    Reply

    4 Replies

    • 0%

      smithichie3 months ago

      Fossil records are hardly our only evidence of both the theory and fact of evolution.

      As for recreating evolution in the lab, it's been done.

      http://science.propeller.com/story/2008/06/05/t...

      Reply

      3 Replies

      • 0%

        whgilmore3 months ago

        The experiment is fascinating, but it is only proof of sensationalism about evolution. What was recreated are the adaptability and alteration of life forms, which is the first and second types of changes life forms are capable of in my theory. Beside those, was there any chromosomal increases resulting from the experiment? Did the experiment show increase in intelligence?

        To explain further, with my theory there is an explanation for life forms ability to adjust to changes in their environment, whether rudimentary or catastrophic; these maybe considered somewhat comparable to evolution's adaptation and mutation, but are defined differently. In my theory there are four states of change: adaptation, alteration, mutation, and metamorphoses. Let me reinterate, my theory is life forms make chromosomal increases due 'Mutation' or to 'Metamorphic Events'. Let me also clarify the genetic 'morphing' is immediate and affects the immediate following generation of life forms affected.

        Reply

        2 Replies

        • 0%

          antibrainwasher3 months ago

          "Sensationalism about evolution".....what a pantload. Its the basis of biology, and there is a massive amount of experimental evidence and thousands of scientists who have spent their entire professional lives persuing.

          You are the sensationalist, with your corn ball theory, repackaging the same information in a new form to sell to creationists in their hopes of creating some fantasy theocracy.

          If you can prove your charlaton theory, publish it in a peer reviewed journal, like nature or Biology. Otherwise, call your book what it is, not worth the paper it's written on except to the creationists, who will hire you to speak in the creationist museum of propaganda, a brainwashing station for their homeschooled brainwashed children.

          Reply

          1 Reply

          • 0%

            mr2043 months ago

            So you're saying it all comes down to who's brainwashing and propaganda we're willing to accept... ok. Is there a peer reviewed journal that will publish your desperate invective?

            Reply
• 0%

  djn3nunez33 months ago

  I don't think the theory of evolution has ever claimed it has found the catalist for evolutionary mutations has it? All and all I have no problem considering the possibility that external events took place to cause the mutations. Doesn't change the basic premise that all life on earth seems to have evolved from a common point.

  Reply
• 0%

  CRYMTYPHON3 months ago

  This is a very silly, pretentious article about a very doubtful book.

  The author does not seem to grasp the diference between scientific 'theory' and 'hypothesis'.

  Evolution is theory; that is, it is a hypothesis that has been clearly defined and experimentaly validated from many levels.

  We literaly walk every day on proof that it occurred historicly; modern biology, genetics, immunology and farming all assume it is occurring now.

  Here is a cool recent experiment, where a biologist studying diferent groups of the same E-coli over 20 years, found that one group had adapted the new ability to eat citrus.

  http://blogs.chron.com/sciguy/archives/2008/06/...

  Reply
• 0%

  Mdiar3 months ago

  Events, of some kind, trigger genetic change. True. I was always taught that as evolution, however. What events? No one is quite certain, I believe.

  Reply

  1 Reply

  • 0%

    ForrestPhelps3 months ago

    From Wikipedia:

    "...natural selection, a process causing heritable traits that are helpful for survival and reproduction to become more common in a population, and harmful traits to become more rare. This occurs because individuals with advantageous traits are more likely to reproduce, so that more individuals in the next generation inherit these traits. Over many generations, adaptations occur through a combination of successive, small, random changes in traits, and natural selection of those variants best-suited for their environment."

    Reply