I invite you to consider…
What if evolution were true, but it wasn’t quite like Darwin said?
What if there were a new evolutionary model that could explain why fossils show almost no change for millions of years…. then suddenly the Cambrian Explosion: Thousands of new species emerge intact, virtually overnight.
What if this new theory pointed the way to new innovations in artificial intelligence and adaptive computer programs?
What if “Evolution vs. Design” wasn’t an either/or proposition – but both+and?
What if, instead of arguing endlessly about fossils, we could precisely track evolutionary history with the precision of 1’s and 0’s?
What if science and faith were no longer at war?
All these things are not only possible, but a present reality.
I know that’s a pretty bold statement. But by now you’re probably used to that from me. Once again I invite you to relax, hear what I have to say, and consider the information that is presented. See if this makes sense for you.
I really do have a new theory of evolution.
Not only that, in future installments I will use this new theory of evolution to make predictions about what we will discover in the next 3-20 years.
And: after today, you may never think about this question the same way again.
Darwin predicted that the fossil record would show a gradual and steady progression from simple to complex forms of life. It’s now well known that what we see instead is long periods of stability interrupted by sudden leaps forward.
Stephen Jay Gould called this “punctuated equilibrium.” He was at a loss to explain exactly how this worked at the time. But today we have many clues pointing to the answer.
Darwin said that evolution is driven by random variation combined with natural selection.
Today I invite you to consider:
Darwin was half right.
And Darwin was half wrong.
Darwin was definitely right about natural selection.
To be fair, being right about that is no Nobel Prize winning accomplishment. The weaklings die and the strong survive. I think our cave man ancestors were familiar with that one.
(Rog hits Grog over the head with a rock and kills him, then they both get eaten by a hungry tiger. Survival of the fittest… nothing profound about that.)
Seriously, natural selection does not have any kind of creative power at all. All it does is kill of the runts.
The secret to evolution, then, has to be in the “random variation” part.
Darwin, in his time, believed that random variation in heredity produced all manner of species. He said: most of the time it’s harmful, but occasionally it’s helpful and from these variations come all kinds of beautiful forms that appear to be designed.
What is meant by “random variation”?
Thousands of biology books say it’s accidental copying errors in DNA.
They say, essentially, that it’s corrupted data that occasionally turns out to be beneficial instead of harmful.
This is where Darwin and the biology books were wrong.
As a communication engineer I know – with 100.000000000% certainty – that this is impossible.
Nowhere in the vast field of engineering is there any such thing as “the percentage of the time that corrupted data is helpful instead of harmful.”
It’s ALWAYS harmful. Always. Copying errors and data transmission errors never help the signal. They only hurt it.
Now please do not misunderstand me:
I AM *NOT* SAYING EVOLUTION DID NOT OR DOES NOT HAPPEN.
Nope…. I’m suggesting: Evolution just happens a different way than Darwin said. Way different than you were told.
I’ll get to the details of that in a minute. First I need to explain why randomness only destroys information.
Evolution Through the Lens of Information Theory: Random Mutations and Noise
More Videos Here
If we start with the sentence
“The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog”
And randomly mutate the letters, we get sentences that look like this:
The 6uHck brown fox jukped over the lazyHdog
Tze quick bro0n foL juXped over the lazy doF
Tae quick browY fox jumped oGer tgePlazy dog
The iuick brown fox jumped lver the lazy dog
The quiikQbKowSwfox .umped oveh the lazy dog
You can apply all the natural selection to this in the world and you’ll never accomplish anything besides destroying a perfectly good sentence. You can go to www.RandomMutation.com and try for yourself.
Why doesn’t this work?
Because it’s impossible to evolve a sentence one letter at a time – even if you deliberately TRY.
Technically, this is because random mutation is noise and noise *always* destroys a signal. Claude Shannon called it information entropy. Entropy is not reversible. Noise never improves a signal. It only mucks it up.
The only way for this to work is: Evolution has to follow the rules of language.
So…. successful evolution for this short sentence would look something like this:
The fast brown fox jumped over the slothful dog.
The dark brown fox jumped over the light brown dog.
The big brown fox leaped over the lazy dog.
The quick black fox sped past the sleeping dog.
The hot blonde fox sauntered past the sunbathing man.
In English, successful evolution requires precise substitution of verbs and nouns and following the rules of speech.
DNA is no different. DNA has its own language. In fact thousands of linguists have made huge contributions to the Human Genome project by helping to decode the layers of the genetic code. Dozens of linguistic books describe the eerie similarity between DNA and human language.
NEW THEORY OF EVOLUTION:
There is a mutation algorithm that makes intelligent substitutions when species need to adapt to their environment.
It works very much like the sentences I just showed you. DNA actually re-arranges itself like a computer program that rewrites itself on the fly.
Now here’s the kicker:
This is not new. It’s actually more than 60 years old!
A New Theory of Evolution: Cellular Genetic Engineering
Some errors: Shapiro’s work was with bacteria, not protozoa. Splicing a single protein under starvation stress increased the mutation rates at least 100,000-fold. Dr. Shapiro was not able to determine how many incorrect evolution mutation attempts were made vs. successful mutations.
The 100,000 breaks come in ciliated protozoa as demonstrated by David Prescott, Laura Landweber, Martin Gorovsky and many others. These edits are highly non-random and RNA-guided, but in this case, there was no change in adaptations. These genome acrobatics go on at each episode of starvation and sexual reproduction. They convert the germline nucleus into a restructured simplified somatic nucleus.
More Videos Here
It’s only new to those who are hearing it for the first time.
It’s not just a wild hypothesis, either. It was discovered by geneticist Dr. Barbara McClintock in 1944.
Dr. Barbara McClintock’s U.S. Postage stamp includes a diagram that shows how genes are intelligently transposed by the Mutation Algorithm in DNA
She was decades ahead of her time and she received the Nobel Prize for this discovery in 1983. Her picture is now on a U.S. Postage Stamp and she’s one of the greatest scientists in the history of biology.
But even now, people ask me, “Why didn’t they ever teach this to me in biology class?”
Maybe Barbara McClintock could answer that question.
Her discoveries were so radical, so contrary to Darwin, that for most of her career she kept this to herself. She she described the reception of her research as “puzzlement, even hostility. ” Based on the reactions of other scientists to her work, McClintock felt she risked alienating the scientific mainstream, and from 1953 stopped publishing accounts of her research.
Why don’t they teach this in most biology classes now?
I’ll just say, it’s not because her findings haven’t been verified.
And it’s also not because the “random mutation” model works. You may or may not have noticed, but it actually doesn’t work at all. I’ve been publicly debating this online for 5 years and I have yet to have one person send me a link or refer to a book that says, “Here is the actual experiment that proves random mutations drive evolution.”
There is no such paper or book, so far as I know. The random mutation theory, sadly, is an urban legend.
INTERESTING FACTOID: This same process of intelligent evolution is how your immune system learns to fight off germs it’s never seen before: It systematically tries different combinations and once it’s ‘cracked the code’ on the invading disease, it passes those changes onto daughter cells. Your own immune system is a miniature model for evolutionary biology.
Dr. James A. Shapiro of the University of Chicago is one of the leading researchers in this field. Let me share with you about what he’s discovered about protozoa.
What I’m about to pass along is profound, almost miraculous. I want you to read and re-read this a few times before you go on:
A cell under stress will splice its own DNA into over 100,000 pieces. Then a program senses hundreds of variables in its environment and then re-arranges those pieces to produce a new, better, evolved cell.
Again I ask you to re-read that short paragraph and really consider the significance of it. A protozoa re-programs its own DNA and evolves. Intelligently.
What if your computer were able to do… that???
Imagine……
Did you ever use a computer from the 1980’s? Remember Microsoft MS-DOS? Remember turning on your computer and seeing
courtesy winhistory.de
Now imagine for a moment that DOS 1.0 was never modified by any Microsoft programmers. Imagine that after 1981 the boys in Redmond, Washington never touched DOS again.
Instead, by analyzing the programs it ran, by sensing changes in hardware, DOS “grew” new parts, all by itself. Imagine that it added icons and a mouse, automatically, and after a process of evolution, Windows emerged.
Imagine that after a time, Windows developed Internet Explorer – all by itself – just by adapting to the changing environment of the computer. By re-writing and re-arranging its own lines of code.
Imagine that it then developed networking features. Imagine that, sensing that it needed an email client, evolved Outlook Express. One day the Outlook icon was suddenly there on your desktop. You clicked on it and as you began to use it, it added and subtracted features to suit you.
Imagine that, sensing that it needed virus protection, that it adaptively developed defenses for those viruses.
Sometimes the viruses would take out some computers, but the computers that survived were even more resistant.
Imagine that the viruses also self-adapted and continued to try to worm their way in, in a never-ending competition of dueling codes.
Imagine that ALL of this adaptation happened over a period of years without a single software engineer ever touching it. Imagine this happening automatically just because it got installed on billions of computers.
Oh, I almost forgot: imagine that the very latest version of Windows could still fit on a single 750 megabyte CD-ROM.
If DOS 1.0 evolved into the Windows of today without any engineer touching it, would you say:
-That accidental file copying errors, culled by natural selection, were responsible for these evolutionary changes?
(When have you ever seen a software program or computer virus that accidentally evolved new features through a accidental copying errors?)
OR would you say…
-That the original engineer who wrote DOS 1.0 was so incredibly skilled that he actually devised a program that could self-adapt? That it could upgrade itself without downloading another friggin’ Service Pack?
Also…
If you met the engineer who wrote this, wouldn’t you want to ask him how he pulled off this amazing feat? Would you want his autograph?
Wouldn’t you want to ask him a ton of questions…
How did he lay it all out at the very beginning? What were the design priorities? How does the program sense changes in its environment? How does the program perform its computations? Does the program keep a database of unsuccessful mutations so it can avoid trying them again?
Well my friend, so far as we can tell, that’s exactly what DNA has done over the last 3.5 billion years. Instead of degrading and crashing like computer programs and hard drives, it has efficiently adapted and evolved from a single cell to occupy every ecological niche imaginable.
From the frozen ice sheets of the Antarctic to the punishing heat of the Sahara. From the ants under your kitchen sink to glorious singing birds in the Amazon rain forest.
This did not happen through accidental random mutation.
If life evolved from a single cell, this happened through an ingenious algorithm that engineers its own beneficial mutations.
This is an engineering feat of the most amazing proportions imaginable.
Consider this….
If evolution is true, then God is an even more ingenious programmer than the old-school creationists ever imagined Him to be.
This new theory has HUGE implications for the future discoveries of biology. It re-frames the entire evolution debate as a software engineering problem! We have all kinds of tools that can help.
In the next installment I’ll put my balls on the line and describe a half dozen predictions that this New Theory of Evolution makes. Predictions that will be either confirmed or overturned in the next 3-20 years.
Stay tuned.
Perry Marshall
Read more about this fascinating New Theory of Evolution:
Newsweek Magazine: “Was Darwin Wrong About Evolution?”
“Darwin: Brilliantly Half Right, Tragically Half Wrong”
“A 3rd Way” – James Shapiro’s alternative to “Creation vs. Evolution”
Technical Paper (college level, peer reviewed, clearly written, highly recommended): Shapiro’s “A 21st Century View of Evolution”
Download The First 3 Chapters of Evolution 2.0 For Free, Here – https://evo2.org/evolution/Where Did Life And The Genetic Code Come From? Can The Answer Build Superior AI? The #1 Mystery In Science Now Has A $10 Million Prize. Learn More About It, Here – https://www.herox.com/evolution2.0
Chuck Linden
I believe we are all pawns in a scenario over which we have absolutely no control. Einstein felt the same way –
“Everything is determined…by forces over which we have no control.”
I am not at all certain about the Big Bang. Getting something out of nothing troubles me. I am naturally skeptical about any proposition concerning which so many people are so confident. Knee jerk Darwinism is the perfect example. I express that skepticism with the following –
“Never in the history of human conflict have so many owed so little to so many.”
after Winston Churchill
I also balk at the notion of a male God. It smacks of male chauvinism. The role of the male and obligatory sexual (Mendelian) reproduction has always been to stop further evolution and thereby ensure extinction. That follows from the nature of my Semi-Meiotic Hypothesis (SMH) which can only be generated through the female lineage.
I also happen to believe that if all the leaders of the world were women, we would have a better world and a better chance of survival. Females of all species are natural caregivers. Males are mostly interested in spreading their genes around by whatever means are available. Someone once said –
“No woman is ugly and all men are pigs.”
http://www.jadavison.wordpress.com
How can you say that you’re naturally skeptical about any proposition concerning which so many people are so confident? Do you have an irrational fear that gravity will suddenly stop working? A sneaking suspicion that you are the only person truly alive and the rest are just all robots?
Just admit that you aren’t accepting scientific fact because it conflicts with your pre-existing beliefs.
Back again kids, Let´s say , that the possibilities to spontaneous make a live organism I´m just spittin in the wid, but let´s say that once chance occured in a billion trillion occasions where two elements colided, at just the right speed, the right temperature, let´s just say for argument´s sake this resulted inanimated protoplasm. OK, now we have this little fellow floating around. The next question that comes to mink-how does it develop a survival instinct? Then after it survives how does this tiny little fella develop emotions? And subsequently, it the case of humans-a character, personality, a spirit, I won´t even brave the subject of a soul, How many trials have to pass, that is successful generations, to develop colonies and social habits these are abstracts and to just happen. hese are matters which are not tangible, so how do these factors all ome together?
When someone has the answer, please send it to me, Until then´ll just relish in creation.
Chuck,
Please stop calling everybody “kids.” It’s derogatory.
There has never been any conflict between evolution and “creation” as long as “creation” is not considered to be synonymous with the Judeo-Chrsitian version. It is arrogant to insist that any sort of God (or more likely Gods) has absolute authority. All that I am convinced of is that there had to have been two or more such entities in the distant past. Nothing more is required to pursue the truth. Anything more is pure conjecture and has no place in the scientific process. Furthermore, it is absurd to insist on a male God as it is perfectly clear that the role of the male species has always been to bring creative evolution to a screeching halt. They don’t call her Mother Nature for nothing.
For more heresy please consult –
http://www.jadavison.wordpress.com
and my Semi-meiotic hypothesis (SMH) for organic evolution. It has been around for a quarter of a century and has yet to shown to be without foundation.
Besides, progressive evolution ceased long ago. All that remains is extinction.
“All great truths begin as blasphemies.”
George Bernard Shaw
“Science commits suicide when she adopta a creed.”
Thomas Henry Huxley
Perry
If I am no longer welcome here just be a man and say so. I don’t need your weblog. You seem quite content to deal with trash like Draco but are unable to tolerate a real scientist who doesn’t concur 100% with your “mindset.” If my last comment doesn’t appear I will just have to expose your weblog for what that means. That is what I have been doing for a long time and you are no exception. Got that? Write that down!
Trust me.
John,
I think a lot of your comments to Draco are disingenuous, as are his to yours. We don’t need accusations and character judgments, we need answers to questions. I have presented him with my questions and am awaiting his reply.
You do realize that none of the things that you mentioned are present in any archaebacteria to date, and were almost certainly not present in those that inhabited the past. Also, even though you just made up that statistic, it doesn’t really matter if it were a trillion times that, because known space is incredibly massive if not infinite. It seems ridiculous to me to say “something in the universe is possible, although unlikely to happen in any one given place, therefore it cannot possibly happen ever”.
I believe the answer that you are looking for is time, with a lot of trial and error.
Derek,
You’ll need to be more specific about archaebacteria.
Time, with a lot of trial and error, is not a systematic scientific process. It’s an appeal to luck.
Jim Diamond,
I have deleted some of your posts because they are insulting and derogatory and do not directly address technical questions. If you can use your manners and bring hard evidence and specific arguments to the table, your posts will be approved.
**What if, instead of arguing endlessly about fossils, we could precisely track evolutionary history with the precision of 1’s and 0’s?**
**Not only that, in future installments I will use this new theory of evolution to make predictions about what we will discover in the next 3-20 years.**
about your comment on:^^
what are your views on determinism and chain of events
Determinism necessarily entails that humanity or individual humans may not change the course of the future and its events (a position known as fatalism); however, some determinists believe that the level to which humans have influence over their future is itself merely dependent on present and past. Causal determinism is associated with, and relies upon, the ideas of materialism and causality. Some of the main philosophers who have dealt with this issue are Marcus Aurelius, Omar Khayyám, Thomas Hobbes, Baruch Spinoza, Gottfried Leibniz, David Hume, Baron d’Holbach (Paul Heinrich Dietrich), Pierre-Simon Laplace, Arthur Schopenhauer, William James, Friedrich Nietzsche, Albert Einstein, Niels Bohr, and, more recently, John Searle, Ted Honderich, and Daniel Dennett.
>>>>>Determinism is the philosophical proposition that every event, including human cognition and behaviour, decision and action, is causally determined by an unbroken chain of events.With numerous historical debates, many varieties and philosophical positions on the subject of determinism exist from traditions throughout the world.<<<<<<<
I believe that humans have some level of free will, which is not an illusion, but real.
i would like to reply to bob’s posts as my post is also similar about it
i believe in restricted dtermininsm
An intrinsic random event is an event that happens in a non-deterministic manner if the time is reversed back to the point before the event. In other words, it does not depend upon the presence and knowledge of an observer. For example, rolling dice is not intrinsically random since if time was reversed, it would definitely produce the same outcome Thus rolling dice is a random event which depends on the lack of knowledge or incapability of the observer to find deterministic results for it.
Almost all natural events are not intrinsically random. Few scientists believe that behavior of quantum particles are the only intrinsically random events in natural world known today
Although it was once thought by scientists that any indeterminism in quantum mechanics occurred at too small a scale to influence biological or neurological systems, there is evidence that nervous systems are indeterministic,[15] and it has been argued that “[classical] physical determinism is out: the future is not fully determined by the current facts”.
so future events are only influenced not guided by past
with very respectfully i want to say that there is no a single universe excisting there are millions and billions of universe in this all system like stars and gallexies.after big bang there was a small peice which comes to us,know we called that universe .thanks
GOHAR NAWAZ.h no 492.st 10. jhanda chichi.Rawalpindi.Pakistan
Hi Perry,
You have changed so much in my life since I bounced into your website from a story on CNN.com. Like you, I have been passionate about the origins question and have been blessed by your passionate application of your background in science to help doubters of ‘design’ in nature, to see the bare thruth more clearly.
However, I’m a bit concerned about the framing of your latest post “A New Theory of Evolution” and the arguments you advance. It looks like you are trying to placate those who blindly support this theory and are unwilling to consider any view against evolution, whatever its scientific validity. We who have seen the folly that evolution really is, do not have to bend over backwards to convince these guys. It’s like someone saying: “I do not believe in “gravity” and I could jump from the top of the next building, but I won’t jump just because you dare me”. That’s why the Bible says: “A fool has said in his heart, there is no God”.
Why this bold declaration about God-doubters in the Bible? It’s because existence of God is the most proved fact in the world. The evidence of God is in the things he has created. These artifacts leave no shade of doubt about God’s existance, except in a fool’s mind. You do not have to go far or be a DNA scientist (or a scientist at all) to see the evidence of God. You can deny seeing the evidence, but see it you will. Since science deals with the dis-assembling of the products that God designed and assembled, scientists, unlike any other group of people, are daily confronted with the hard-hitting evidence of God, in the intricacy of the things he created.
The Bible says, God has made the evidence about his existence ‘plain’ to every living soul, so no one has any excuse to doubt (Romans 1). All of us, atheists inclusive know God exists. You have exposed truth to people who do not want to admit it. You can take a horse to the well, but you cannot force it to drink, an old adage says.
Can anyone believe that a car can evolve all by itself, throgh natural processes, in 4 billion years? Only a fool would believe that. Is there any difference between a car and a human being or any other organism? Both a car and a human being show purpose, design, component development, assembly and replication, the key elements of any manufacturing process. There is more – automation, only that God’s products have so much superior science than anything human beings have been able to do. Look how God automated the replication of each living organism!!! The reproductive system of organisms is plain computer programming and we only just figured out that the ‘software’ controlling reproduction is in the DNA code. But God said he would make man in a way that he would create things just like himself (Gen.1) “Let us make man in our own image….” That’s why science continues to grow and to see more of the superintelligence of God, who weaved all that exists on purpose.
Evolution is valid only to the extent that it explains the alterations in living organisms over time, but it cannot explain how these species came about in the first place. Charles Darwin should have written a book: “How organisms evolve over time”, but instead he mis-titled his thesis: “The Origin of Species”. Nothing he wrote answers any question about the origin of anything.
But the question remains: if God exists, who created God! That is a question God himself will answer one day. Our task is only one, and it is to answer this one question: CAN WE DEDUCE, SCIENTIFICALLY, FROM THE WAY THE UNIVERSE IN ORDERED AND THE EVIDENCE ON PLANET EARTH, that there is a God who has chosen to remain unseen in our physical world? The answer is a resounding: YES!!
Has this God communicated to mankind throughout history and given sufficient proof that he is indeed the God who fixed the entire universe? The answer again is “YES”. This history is recorded in the Bible and it has evidence, historically recorded and proven, that God, the creator of the universe has been at work in our midst. Go read it for youself, you do not have to believe me. Jesus said 2000 years ago that he had come from God, the creator of the universe. Go read the things Jesus did and see if he did not prove his claim.
Are you an atheist!! You are free to say “I do not believe that crap”. Hmmm. But that’s recorded history, my friend. History is recorded events. You cant be more scientific than that. One thing I know…I’m not going to waste anymore breath convincing one more atheist that God exists. No one knows more about God than an atheist…
Yours truly,
Charles
Charles,
You clearly have not read my website very carefully if you think I’m an atheist. Read the articles very carefully and I think most of these questions you ask will clear up.
Now we’re getting somewhere…with new generations of young minds…great really great. Science does observe God… the real God (the unknown force).
Not some imaginary diety that hates His own creation, that is too fictitious and superficial. Sorry church leaders your lie is out of the bag. Logic won out.
Hi Perry,
I guess that you and I may return later to the issue of true Randomness at Planck Time ( 10 to the -43 seconds after the Big Bang). Even within Quantum Mechanics, this is a rather unique moment in Time in that discussion of any earlier moment in Time is not possible.
Anyhow, I am pleased to note that you agree with me that our little Earth in our little Solar system may find viewing as within an Open system vis-à-vis energy input from the Sun to the Earth. I trust that this allows you and me to discuss this Open system concern over issues of Entropy from the larger system of the Universe as a whole. I note that you and I agree that the Universe as a whole is a Closed system, but that our little Solar system is an Open system. This removes a possible “bog-down” over issues of Entropy.
Now, I just want to clarify another significant point prior to continuing with our discussion. This point is that all of the elements heavier that Hydrogen find creation through the current cosmology models that posit that ongoing and frequent explosions of Super Nova generate sufficient heat for the fusion of heavy elements from Hydrogen atoms. The significance of this area is that over time – from the Big Bang onward – this is the Only source for elements up through Uranium (and the few known elements beyond Uranium). The consequences of this point are that there have been quite a large number of Super Nova explosions from the Big Bang (13,700 Million years ago) to the creation of our Sun (some 6,000 Million years ago).
Let me know of your thoughts on this point prior to going on with the discussion.
I’m curious why you separated this part of the discussion from my opening discussion on the previous page. I believe that it would be a great idea – for continuity – to re-connect the discussions together. Please do so – even if it means moving both to a new page.
Thanks,
Bob Allen
No particular thoughts on this last post.
The separation is the blog software and I can’t fix that right now
You seem to be a brilliant man. Yet you still don’t want to give God all the credit. You give Him credit, yes, but not all, and therefore you are dangerous. It’s all or nothing. Either the Bible is completely true, or completely false. It is either literal from beginning to end, or not. You cannot embrace parts of it, especially the origin of life, and use the Gap Theory. Do you believe that Jesus performed miracles during His life on earth? Then why can you not believe that God created the earth miraculously in the beginning? As someone once said, creation has absolutely nothing to do with science, only faith. Where does your faith begin?
You don’t seem to have read this very closely.
A gap theory or a path of evolution is not incompatible with Genesis 1. My point is, if evolution happened at all, it was DESIGNED to happen. Which gives God MORE credit not less. Read my articles much more carefully, please.
Greetings Perry
Thanks for your installment on “A New Theory of Evolution”
The idea of intelligent design and evolution being complimentary is very agreeable. I truly believe that science and (true) religion are completely compatible. There is one God and one Truth, and although both of these concepts are actually way beyond human capacity to fully understand and assimilate, each year and each century we learn a bit more about how this mystical jigsaw puzzle we call “life” fits together.
Well done ! you have made, and are making, a great contribution to our individual journeys towards God and discovering The Truth, and also our collective journey towards World Peace and Heaven on earth.
Cheers
Thanks for your kind words. Blessings to you.
Very glad to see an effort to formulate a new theory of evolution as this is the same effort that I engaged in myself (indirectly). I’d like to invite you to read my webpage at http://www.homestead.com/theosophy/ascension.html or search with the new word which I use: girasas for my work online. I am only trying to share this thinking with you as you seem very occupied in the way that I am also occupied.
I doubt this would be the forum to discuss or differing ideas, however it is good to see your work and the interest therein. Thank you.
Perry,
Can you understand my position when I suggest to you that scientific information about the world and about the past, while useful, are not capable of solving the dilemmas that many people are facing in their lives today?
I appreciate the gains that scientists have made in reaching our communities. I wish to help shake up the orders that have been generated by the Christian church and the pulpit in hopes that our unique talents will better be served with the developing of new activities. I thoroughly enjoy the charitable work and neighborliness that we cling to in church environments, however I personally am not satisfied in a church environment when I bring to it a quest and a thirst for knowledge and its increasing use.
With our modern schools and our modern publications we arm ourselves with pleasing each other with information. Rather than live under a debate between science and religion, perhaps we could manage to balance the inflow of information in our lives with the outflow of necessities.
My problem is largely that I made a discovery that puts me in conflict with both of the organizations that encouraged this discovery to take place, and likewise in conflect with both sides of the debate AND that I have few credentials and publications to my name.
What can someone like me do to get press for my work with these ideas as they exist today?
Brenda,
This is the Internet and if you can get traffic to your website then you can build an audience. Certainly you can contribute articles to well known blogs and magazines too.
Hello Perry!
I am a newcomer to your website, and have spent many rewarding hours reading through the many articles and correspondence. My interest is such that I am prompted to write a little to you. I hope you receive this missive ok and have the time to reply.
First let me say that the bottom line is that at our current state of evolution/development, the human species does not yet know the answers to many of the questions being posed. We have various accepted and proven scientific laws to which we can refer, but equally we must acknowledge that newer laws , of which we have no current knowledge are also likely to exist. ( I don’t have any problems with your comments about the Supernatural, out of body experiences, or metaphysics incidentally) I would also comment that it is likely that we have ceased to evolve as a species in the physical sense, but would suggest that we are on the threshold of our mental evolution. ( It is still a paradox with me as to why we can be so “mature” in technology and inventiveness, and yet so “immature” in our social interactions.
I also question the validity of many of the blogs to your websites, purporting to “seek the truth”, but which continually evade/confuse the issues by falling back on both non proven and non provable statements (yourself included at times!). I refer of course to the Holy Bible, which apart from being a first attempt at portraying Israelite history, is full of contradictions, and the fact that there are so many versions of the said book, surely must cast a morsel of doubt upon its veracity in toto, and should not be used as evidence in any objective discussion.
To any intelligent thinker, much of the religion portrayed by theologians takes little account of the pre biblical age and origin of much of the content of the Bible. I have the “Epic of Gilgamesh” and the “Enuma Elish” in mind when I say that, especially to the similarities to the writings in the book of Genesis, yet these manuscripts predate the Holy Bible by many years. In this vein also, is the Virgin Birth story of the Mithras religion, which again predates the writings of the New Testament by many centuries, So in this context I must question the veracity of any organized religion, and think that the telling by many Church leaders that this is the truth, and the absolute truth, is a negation of social responsibility. I most certainly object to being called a ‘sinner’, I may have many failings, but am not guilty to anything more than that, I too, AM what I AM!! You may may like to read “The Hiram Key” authors Christopher Lomas and Robert Knight, who offer what I consider to be a well researched account of the origins of early Christianity, albeit it in an unlikely context. However, I still consider organized religion to be indoctrinal, and motivated by power, control and money, rather than expressing itself in any spiritual context.
My views on the God question are very simplistic in terms of the existence/non existence of an alleged supreme power/force . . . . Why must there be a God anyway? . . . Why must there be a Beginning or an End? Crazy questions you might say, but if you think about it, they are only human concepts, like everything else we perceive restricted of course by the finite intuitive memory? Of our brain. I would therefore comment as follows.
a) God created man in his own image! . . . If this is true, then this Super Power sure has many questions to answer to itself, judging by the current behaviour of his image!
b) Man created God in his own image! . . . . This has a lot of rationality. Since early man at all stages of his evolution/development, would have ascribed to anything seemingly mysterious or unexplainable as the work of a Super Power beyond his comprehension within the confines of the knowledge available to society at that time. For example the first inexplicable object the Sun, became the Sun God Ra (or was it Amen?) etc, etc
c) God does exist . . . Why?
d) God does not exist . . . Why?
e) God is in a state of both existence and non existence at the same time, and we will not know until this being/force is observed (apologies to Schrodingers cat!!)
I am totally truly ambivalent on the subject. As far as I am aware, the existence or non existence of such an entity has had little effect on my life (although you could correctly sat that the act of writing this blog is an effect!!) Having said that, there have been difficulties in my life, which I have always managed to overcome by doing a little “self reprogramming” from within, and I do not mean just attitude change! I believe this capability exists within each one of us, if we are taught to recognize and use it.
To summarize this part of my writing . . . . I cannot think of one thing, which any religion has positively contributed to the development/advancement of society. It is easy to witness the many many counterproductive effects it has produced, if we just check our history, and for sure the goings on, on our planet today.. Also I do not understand (apart from the power and control aspect) of the veneration of the man known as Jesus. I personally have not read anything in the New Testament which does not already exist within me, for sure I do not need any lectures from some man 2000 years ago to know how to conduct my life with dignity, honesty and respect for others. I can think of many men within my lifetime who could easily be seen as “Jesus” for instance Martin Luther King, or Nelson Mandela to name just two out of many, and there have been many others over the centuries, who equally have made huge positive contributions to the advancement of society . . . . Perry, I’m just following the evidence!!
OK. Can I now broach the subject of evolution being genetically engineered (God) versus evolution by random mutation (Darwinism). Whilst I do not accept the absolutness of Darwinism, I can accept your statrement re DNA being a code absolutely. However I have to think about what you say about it being being designed by an external intelligence . . . maybe! And even if it is, I think that you are making a big leap in saying that this is proof of God. I have not yet seen an “intelligent” definition of Intelligence! Have you ever considered that the universe is intelligence? Or that the singularity of the “Big Bang” was intelligence, ie. Intelligence condensed in density to a single particle. The question obviously could be asked, but where did the intelligence come from? Perhaps it has the intelligence just to be!But if you think about it then the intelligence would be expanding (the universe is expanding) and would certainly ‘gel’ with the seemingly intelligent coming together and growth of sub atomic particles, quarks to protons and so on up the structural chain to what we see around us today.. It is akin to the Intelligence of nature as opposed to Natural Intelligence.
Having no problem with DNA being a code, would you also accept that the Electromagnetic spectrum is a natural occuring code? Why, it even contains a sub code also . . . the colour alphabet v.b.g,y,o,r. which conveys information (Ask Picasso or Rembrandt etc!) and would you consider the sound spectrum to be a natural code? It also contains a sub code which conveys information in the musical alphabet e,g,b,d,f,a,c,e.( Ask Beethoven, Bach or the late Elvis!)
You say very specifically and categorically thar ALL RANDOM MUTATIONS CORRUPT, and on this basis challenge random mutation as being the driving force behind evolution.
You have conjectured that the DNA Code was designed by an external intelligence, and therefore I must assume that this code became the “Input” message for all life as we know it. Could you please explain to me that if this was the “Input” message from the sender (God?), firstly, how is it that the total message was not received as “Output” by all life, some with lesser intelligence that others!! witness the diversity of species, and secondly if the “ Input” message was to be received as the” Output” message by all life why is it that even within one species there is so much genetic variety. The Puffer fish (Tuki) FuguRRubcipes, has very compacted DNA, but has almost the same number of genes as the human species 38,000 as against about 40,000 for us, yet this creature cannot play chess, but you insist that all life has received the same “Input” message, that is the genetically engineered, intelligently designed DNA Code. For me the very fact of similarities in the code (accepted) and the very diversification of what we observe around us suggests another influence on the code, which is called random mutation.
Random mutation does operate in the process of evolution, either beneficially or non beneficially, and I fully accept what you say about error correction and self repair mechanisms, but there is no evidence that they are anything but naturally caused . . . an intelligent molecule responding intelligently. Why would the DNA Code as you describe it need such self correcting mechanism, unless it was aware of the possibility of “outside” intrusions? That is random mutations! Natural selection would take care of non beneficial intrusions. You may be interested to have a look at http://www.PHYSORG.com and read “Evolution caught in the Act. Scientists measure how quickly genomes change” and also “Introns: A mystery renewed” on the same website!
You also use Information Theory as an analogy in many of your articles, and I must admit that my knowledge of this subject is very limited. However you make the specific statement, that NOISE ALWAYS CORRUPTS, in line with your statement that mutations always corrupt, mentioned earlier by me. I have done a little investigation on this matter, and am astonished to find (within my understanding)) that your statement “noise always corrupts” is questionable, for the following reasons.
a) http://www.matheory.info/chapter1.html under para 1:9 Shannons noise Channel and the Law of Diminishing Information . . . . and I quote . . . . “There is a reason to take step 2 . . . . Such noise does not peturb the signal. Noise can be beneficial too . . . . the information content of a signal may well increase due to noise!! And further down in para 1:9, and again I quote . . . . “But surprisingly enough, during the past decade researchers have found that the background noise is sometimes useful. Indeed many physical systems, ranging from electronic circuits to nerve cells actually work better amid random noise” This phenomana is named Stochastic Resonance!
Again further down in par 1:9, quoting again . . . . “If random noise is introduced, then the received message contains certain distortions, certain extraenious material, that would lead me to say, that the received message, exhibits, (because of the effects of noise), an increased uncertainty. But if the uncertainty increases, the information increases also. So it is therefore possible for word information to have both good or bad connotations ( Just like random mutation!! . . MY words) Uncertainty which arrives by freedom of choice is desirable, uncertainty which arises from error is non beneficial uncertainty.
b) www. scholarpedia.org/article/Stochastic Resonance. under Experimental Aspects, and I quote . . . “Stochastic Resonance is a generic phenomena. It has to do with the fact that adding noise to a non linear system, possessing simultaneous and stable states may improve their ability to process information.
You may like to check out http://www.iop.org/E3/abstract/0034-4885/67/1R02, which reaffirms that in some instances, random noise can be both beneficial or non beneficial to a system.
Perry, the information I have quoted is exactly analogous to random mutation being either beneficial or non beneficial!. In science we work on a system of “falsification: you of course know this. On this basis I would humbly suggest that your statements that NOISE/MUTATIONS always corrupt has been shown to be sufficiently “falsified” for you to have a serious rethink about random mutations and evolution.
I must admit that from the start your analogy of comparing random noise, which INTERFERES with a system, and random mutations, which chemically CHANGE a system did not sit right with me anyway!!
I sincerely hope that I have made a contribution to your website and would ask you to let me know if you intend to show my writing, so that I may view any blog replies, apart from the one I would look forward to from your good self.
We still don’t know, and have much to learn, and in my experience, this is achieved by honest, open discussion.
Sincerely Yours Rod.
hi,
i have an inresting question that always hunted me.. if god’s story is true about the myth of adam and eve…that makes us all decendants of them so we should all share the same genetic code and dna pattern since we all come from the same origin which is adam and eve….right?…how do you response to that?
and how come there are multiracial human…cucasian negroid…asian…etc?
Thank you !
We do all share the same genetic code. In genetics there is a person inferred in the past who is called “mitochondrial eve.” All humans do have a single common female ancestor.
Races are simply different gene expressions – skin pigments etc.
hi perry,
I have a small question to be answered….if evolution was not true then what is the fun in having interlinking organisms between species/genera? what i mean is why do some organisms have the characters of two different organisms?
Organisms share DNA through a process called “horizontal gene transfer.”
Hey, Perry. I found this subject on a new theory of evolution fascinating. The creepy thing is that my friends and I have had long conversations that were eerily similar to the one you discussed. But I never knew until very recently that it was a scientific theory that many scientists were beginning to take seriously. I had an epiphany that life is the result of orderly information while sitting on the grass thinking about all the processes that go on inside of a blade of grass.
I do have a question for you, though. Is it possible that even the patterns you talked about still rely on information? Take a snowflake for example. The atoms that make up the snowflake have to somehow (in some rudimentary manner) communicate with one another in order to combine and organize, right? If that’s so, wouldn’t that mean patterns like a snowflake also rely on some kind of exchange of information? Is it possible that even atoms (and all natural phenomena) have a “language” or “program” they use to organize into orderly patterns like a snowflake?
Good on you, for sitting and looking at blades of grass and thinking about what’s really going on. So few people actually do that.
There is no communication going on between atoms – just static forces. All you need is the laws of physics, that’s all, and snowflakes form. In particular there are no SYMBOLS. DNA however has symbols. That’s the chasm.
i need to know , do these make sense about http://www.randommutation.com
1) revert :
it is wrong here.
because i think the nature always go forward not backward.
it seems you can travel over the time !!!!!!!!!!
at least i think it does not work.
it makes this simulation as a nature game !!!!
in the nature , a species don’t have a second chance to fix a very bad mutation.
a very bad mutation means it reduces the power of that species.
2) multiple alternatives :
you can open this website as much as you like
and your PC can handle in the different tabs of your internet browser.
it is like the population of one species.
you can continue the simulation in those new tabs.
3) *selective* agent :
you can simulate the nature in your mind by
1) (fittest creature) the next sentence can live in that simulation program
if it makes sense in this simulation.
i think it is the context of “fittest creature” in this simulation.
all the grammar english rules can be these :
a) the hunters.
b) the diseases.
c) the dangers of the nature
(earthquake,flood,a very bad mutation).
d) ….
the next sentence can live if it can defeats these problems.
there is no mercy !!!!!
5) advantage
the next mutation can add some advantages in the sentence
if that mutation makes a read word.
it definitely means this sentence has a more chance and more power
to defeat the grammar english rules.
6) offspring
if the next sentence makes more sense then you can add more tabs
and put that next sentence in the textbox.
it means it borns more creatures like itself.
now it has a “chance” to save the good mutation.
Dear Bloggers,
I see that we are agreed on Evolution, whether it be Darwinian, or made by God.
But the question that lies here is:
If life is to evolve to the best form to be more fitted for harsh environement (and thus live longer) as Darwin suggest(Survival of the Fittest), then we are faced with a Big Question:
Why doesn’t life evolve to face death? Meaning: creatures evolve to increase their life chances and become fitter to the environment (ie. increase their life period) and the more evolved the creature the more its “food menues! ” is. in the same time, by devouring other species, the creature become older as it consumes more Free Radicals from other creatures, and making some as a secondary product of the chemical reactions taking place in their cells.
The question is: why doesn’t life (creatures) evolve to a life form where they become sufficed by themselves? (make their own foods like plants) and in the same evolve new reactions in their body that doesn’t produce Free Radicals so that they live for ever?
By the way, some can say this will destroy the Eco-Balance of the Earth by having immortal creatures that deplete earth from its Minerals! but again if this happened we would have seen it, haven’t we? and if not , why haven’t it?
(I am sorry if I wasn’t so clear, but my mother tongue is not English)
pharmabdbak