Page 1 of 4 [ 49 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next

oceandrop
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 9 Jul 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 411

17 Aug 2011, 10:44 pm

Two of my special interests for many years now have been evolution and theology. A couple of years ago I was thinking deeply about the two of them and had a 'spark' that helped me see how the two are related, and since then I have been reading intensely and compiling lists of examples from all kinds of evolutionary books to support the new 'Theory'. It has reached the point where I am completely persuaded that my Theory surpasses Darwinian 'survival of the fittest' for predictive and explanatory value. I also produced a new style of algebra/logic notation that can be applied to all kinds of biological processes that confirm the theory is true and the predictions always hold. Without giving away too much, it doesn't contradict Darwinism, but rather adds to it and re-arranges the Theory on a new foundation. It makes Intelligent Design and creationism look extremely weak and stagnant, while also making old 'Darwinian' evolution look incomplete in many important ways.

I think the only way to get this idea out there is to write a book, but I am a horrible procrastinator and have executive dysfunction issues. I'm also super paranoid about people stealing my ideas. Any thoughts / words of encouragement/discouragement?



Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 30
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,765
Location: Room 101

17 Aug 2011, 10:54 pm

I'm skeptical. Anyways, theological ideas are irrelevant to biological research. Evolutionary biologists just ignore the creationists because it's not worth the bother to address their drivel. Also, Darwinian natural selection is not the only thing considered in modern evolutionary biology. It has been recognized since at least the 1930s that natural selection on its own was only an incomplete explanation.

Writing a book, if you find a publisher for it, could potentially make you wealthy and famous. It would not do much to enhance the credibility of your ideas in the scientific community, unless you write a specifically academic text (in which case you will not be wealthy from it). You should begin by writing papers on some aspects of your ideas and submitting them for peer review. Then scientists in the field will decide whether they have any merit.


_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH


oceandrop
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 9 Jul 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 411

17 Aug 2011, 11:10 pm

Orwell wrote:
Anyways, theological ideas are irrelevant to biological research.


I think making the case that the inverse of this is true is the overarching theme of the entire Theory. The problem is that it will take me at least a few book chapters just to introduce the basic idea, then multiple chapters to illustrate it with enough examples so as to persuade even the most insistent skeptic. I just don't think it can be done concisely in an academic journal -- though it suggests many follow-up experiments that others could do to corroborate the theory. Unlike Darwinism, the theory also predicts aspects of human behavior and the society and institutions which emerge therefrom, something which Darwinism fails at (according to Dawkins interpretation, we're just machines that reproduce genes -- something I think we all know really isn't true, but which this theory makes abundantly clear why).

I hope this isn't my naive optimism or ego talking, but I feel confident that there is truth in this theory and that it needs to be shared. But I'm also worried this is going to be another special interest that gets replaced by another in the fullness of time -- it has happened before :?



Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 30
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,765
Location: Room 101

17 Aug 2011, 11:34 pm

oceandrop wrote:
I just don't think it can be done concisely in an academic journal

Work on writing more concisely. The most influential and seminal papers in the sciences also tend to be rather short. You don't have to give full, excruciating details- introduce the idea, and publish additional support if it garners interest.

Quote:
Darwinism... Dawkins

Again... modern evolutionary biology is not "Darwinism." It has moved significantly beyond the ideas he first presented (though many of the basics from Darwin remain influential). Dawkins is a popularizer and a crusader more than he is a serious researcher. If you are basing your knowledge of evolutionary biology on Dawkins writings, you are way behind the curve.

Quote:
I feel confident that there is truth in this theory and that it needs to be shared.

Then start publishing. Sooner is better than later- as you said, you may lose interest. Or perhaps someone else will scoop you and publish a similar idea first.


_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH


LostUndergrad9090
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 29 Jun 2011
Age: 178
Gender: Female
Posts: 892

17 Aug 2011, 11:49 pm

I'm pumped on this. seems like you would be the first since to do something. maybe this is my ignorance speaking. sounds awesome. i would say i would read it but my better half tells me i wouldn't. but kudos man that is awesome.



oceandrop
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 9 Jul 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 411

17 Aug 2011, 11:52 pm

Orwell wrote:
oceandrop wrote:
I just don't think it can be done concisely in an academic journal

Work on writing more concisely. The most influential and seminal papers in the sciences also tend to be rather short. You don't have to give full, excruciating details- introduce the idea, and publish additional support if it garners interest.
Thanks for the suggestion -- it would probably be good practice to try compressing it down into a short format, though I can't possibly convey everything that needs to be said or back it up with all the examples needed -- last thing I want is for it to sound anecdotal or speculative
Quote:
Quote:
Darwinism... Dawkins

Again... modern evolutionary biology is not "Darwinism." It has moved significantly beyond the ideas he first presented (though many of the basics from Darwin remain influential). Dawkins is a popularizer and a crusader more than he is a serious researcher. If you are basing your knowledge of evolutionary biology on Dawkins writings, you are way behind the curve.
Yes I'm familiar with the modern evolutionary synthesis, though what you're saying does remind me that I could study it in more depth. However, the Theory deals with things at a more fundamental level and so doesn't focus on Darwin or anyone else too much. Also, I use Dawkins mostly for his rich examples -- his breadth of zoological knowledge is very useful in this regard.
Quote:
Quote:
I feel confident that there is truth in this theory and that it needs to be shared.

Then start publishing. Sooner is better than later- as you said, you may lose interest. Or perhaps someone else will scoop you and publish a similar idea first.

Thanks for the encouragement.



Abgal64
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 16 Aug 2011
Age: 27
Gender: Male
Posts: 408

18 Aug 2011, 1:46 pm

Orwell wrote:
I'm skeptical. Anyways, theological ideas are irrelevant to biological research. Evolutionary biologists just ignore the creationists because it's not worth the bother to address their drivel. Also, Darwinian natural selection is not the only thing considered in modern evolutionary biology. It has been recognized since at least the 1930s that natural selection on its own was only an incomplete explanation..
I agree: It really is overkill to fight creationists with reason: It is like, to use a metaphor, trying to produce more copies of the Confucian Classics than a scribe by using a rotary letterpress instead of just using simple woodblock printing. No amount of reasoning or logic will change most creationists' views, as their views are based on attachment and emotion, not logic.

Anyways, Darwinian Evolution, for all that it has given us, is not a complete answer to everything: Indeed, epigenetics is bringing us closer to understanding biology than ever before. Of course, Darwinian evolution is not a static model but a dynamic one and this is why it is so strong.



memesplice
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 Feb 2010
Age: 55
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,072

18 Aug 2011, 1:56 pm

Have you heard of genetic algorithm ? I found it the other day and I am thinking about this too.



Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 40,858
Location: Stendec

18 Aug 2011, 2:02 pm

oceandrop wrote:
I think making the case that the inverse of this is true...

Evidence, please?

Something other than your assumptions, beliefs, opinions, presumptions, or thoughts of course.

Writing another faith-based diatribe on Intelligent Creation will not add one iota of validity to what amounts to a myth.


_________________
 
“I must acknowledge, once and for all, that the
purpose of diplomacy is to prolong a crisis.”

— Leonard Nimoy as Mr. Spock, in the Star Trek
episode "The Mark of Gideon" (ep. 3.16, 1969)


ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 83
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,726
Location: New Jersey

18 Aug 2011, 2:27 pm

oceandrop wrote:
Two of my special interests for many years now have been evolution and theology. A couple of years ago I was thinking deeply about the two of them and had a 'spark' that helped me see how the two are related, and since then I have been reading intensely and compiling lists of examples from all kinds of evolutionary books to support the new 'Theory'. It has reached the point where I am completely persuaded that my Theory surpasses Darwinian 'survival of the fittest' for predictive and explanatory value. I also produced a new style of algebra/logic notation that can be applied to all kinds of biological processes that confirm the theory is true and the predictions always hold. Without giving away too much, it doesn't contradict Darwinism, but rather adds to it and re-arranges the Theory on a new foundation. It makes Intelligent Design and creationism look extremely weak and stagnant, while also making old 'Darwinian' evolution look incomplete in many important ways.

I think the only way to get this idea out there is to write a book, but I am a horrible procrastinator and have executive dysfunction issues. I'm also super paranoid about people stealing my ideas. Any thoughts / words of encouragement/discouragement?


Publish in a refereed scientific journal. If you published let us know the citation.

In the mean time, don't give up your day job.

ruveyn



Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 40,858
Location: Stendec

18 Aug 2011, 2:31 pm

I'm waiting for the OP to cite the "Galileo Fallacy", myself...

"They laughed at Galileo, and he was right; they laugh at me, therefore I must be right too!" -- Wooist.

"But the fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown." -- Carl Sagan


_________________
 
“I must acknowledge, once and for all, that the
purpose of diplomacy is to prolong a crisis.”

— Leonard Nimoy as Mr. Spock, in the Star Trek
episode "The Mark of Gideon" (ep. 3.16, 1969)


Tom_Kakes
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 15 Jul 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 342

18 Aug 2011, 3:06 pm

You need to bring some evidence to the table. It's not even worth discussing as there is nothing really to discuss?



Last edited by Tom_Kakes on 18 Aug 2011, 5:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.

techn0teen
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Sep 2010
Age: 28
Gender: Male
Posts: 663

18 Aug 2011, 4:35 pm

oceandrop wrote:
Two of my special interests for many years now have been evolution and theology. A couple of years ago I was thinking deeply about the two of them and had a 'spark' that helped me see how the two are related, and since then I have been reading intensely and compiling lists of examples from all kinds of evolutionary books to support the new 'Theory'.


Do you mean explaining evolution in a way for extremely religious people to understand?

Evolution is both a theory and a fact. It is not just a theory. For fast producing lifeforms like bacterium and insects, parts of the evolution theory are testable and directly observable. So therefore, it can be considered a fact.

Quote:
It has reached the point where I am completely persuaded that my Theory surpasses Darwinian 'survival of the fittest' for predictive and explanatory value.


Evolution has not ended with Darwin. The Theory/Fact has expanded our view on evolution. For example, the discovery and understanding of DNA and genetics. Survival of the fittest is only one part of modern evolutionary theory. Genetic mutations and cross-generational inheritance have expanded biologist's views.

Quote:
I also produced a new style of algebra/logic notation that can be applied to all kinds of biological processes that confirm the theory is true and the predictions always hold. Without giving away too much, it doesn't contradict Darwinism, but rather adds to it and re-arranges the Theory on a new foundation.


People have done that already. But people have used mathematics to predict how certain traits survive throughout generations in more detail than evolution could explain by itself.

There was one gentleman in the 1900s who calculated the trait of alturism and could predict how strong it would be.

Quote:
It makes Intelligent Design and creationism look extremely weak and stagnant, while also making old 'Darwinian' evolution look incomplete in many important ways.


Like I have stated before, "old Darwinian evolution" was incomplete but the discovery of DNA and genetics has expanded the evolutionary model.

Quote:
I think the only way to get this idea out there is to write a book, but I am a horrible procrastinator and have executive dysfunction issues. I'm also super paranoid about people stealing my ideas. Any thoughts / words of encouragement/discouragement?


You could write a book. However, I encourage you to look into modern evolutionary theory and how it has expanded since Darwin's original publication.

It would be interesting and of value to write a book about how evolution has changed from the original publication to today and why.



DC
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Aug 2011
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,477

18 Aug 2011, 6:12 pm

oceandrop wrote:
I think the only way to get this idea out there is to write a book, but I am a horrible procrastinator and have executive dysfunction issues. I'm also super paranoid about people stealing my ideas. Any thoughts / words of encouragement/discouragement?


If you don't publish, you can't be credited for your ideas.

You could always try this free online course for an introduction to modern evolution.

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



naturalplastic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Age: 64
Gender: Male
Posts: 21,920
Location: temperate zone

18 Aug 2011, 6:44 pm

I know that you dont want to give away too much, but is there some way that you can capsulize your theory in a single paragraph for us right now?