Analogy between Genetic Mutation and the Theory of Gravity

C

common_sense_seeker

Bicho Voador & Bicho Sugador
Valued Senior Member
How could the current theory of gravity be wrong? It explains so much so easily, doesn't it. Think again and compare to the new revelations in 'Virolution' by Frank Ryan in his groundbreaking book on evolution. I quote:
"Like most of his contempories, he [Monod] believed that evolution took place through the action of natural selection on a single source of genetic change, mutation. Since the contribution of mutation was essentially random, its role was non-creative - he even uses the term "informationless". This is what he refers to as "noise", a metaphor for random genetic change comparable to the static one hears on a radio. Only when the meaningless static - the random mutations - are moulded by natural selection, does meaningful sound emerge. I very much doubt that anybody has ever captured the zeitgeist of Modern Darwinism better. It is a seductive argument, beautifully amenable to the mathematical extrapolations of calculus in analysing selective fitness and population dynamics. How could it be wrong?"
Click to expand...

Does anybody get the analogy?
 
It can't be wrong. It can potentially be improved. Same as evolution. Same as any other well-supported scientific theory.
 
common_sense_seeker said:
How could the current theory of gravity be wrong? It explains so much so easily, doesn't it. Think again and compare to the new revelations in 'Virolution' by Frank Ryan in his groundbreaking book on evolution. I quote:

“ "Like most of his contempories, he [Monod] believed that evolution took place through the action of natural selection on a single source of genetic change, mutation. Since the contribution of mutation was essentially random, its role was non-creative - he even uses the term "informationless". This is what he refers to as "noise", a metaphor for random genetic change comparable to the static one hears on a radio. Only when the meaningless static - the random mutations - are moulded by natural selection, does meaningful sound emerge. I very much doubt that anybody has ever captured the zeitgeist of Modern Darwinism better. It is a seductive argument, beautifully amenable to the mathematical extrapolations of calculus in analysing selective fitness and population dynamics. How could it be wrong?" ”

Does anybody get the analogy?
Click to expand...
I’m not sure I do. Are you drawing an analogy between what Ryan said about the relationship between mutation and evolution on the one hand and between gravity and GR on the other? Are you pointing out that gravity works because it is the natural solution to the relationship between mass, energy and space, and that GR quantifies the outcome of that natural sorting out of the constituents of the universe?
 
kurros said:
It can't be wrong. It can potentially be improved. Same as evolution. Same as any other well-supported scientific theory.
Click to expand...
It's this part of the quote: "..evolution took place through the action of natural selection on a single source of genetic change, mutation". This is wrong in the eyes of Frank Ryan. Viruses can also transfer genetic material apparently. It's a very new field of research.

quantum_wave said:
I’m not sure I do.
Click to expand...
It's the simple idea that something so easy to understand, with so many examples to confirm it becomes established as mainstream fact. The reality is something a lot more complex, yet attainable.
 
common_sense_seeker said:
It's this part of the quote: "..evolution took place through the action of natural selection on a single source of genetic change, mutation". This is wrong in the eyes of Frank Ryan. Viruses can also transfer genetic material apparently. It's a very new field of research.

It's the simple idea that something so easy to understand, with so many examples to confirm it becomes established as mainstream fact. The reality is something a lot more complex, yet attainable.
Click to expand...
I didn't see any mention of viruses in the quote and you mentioned gravity in the lead in. Where are you going with this thread since your point seems to be related to GR and yet your last response seems more directed to the new field of virolution?
 
quantum_wave said:
I didn't see any mention of viruses in the quote and you mentioned gravity in the lead in. Where are you going with this thread since your point seems to be related to GR and yet your last response seems more directed to the new field of virolution?
Click to expand...
It's his phrase: "How could it be wrong?". Just like the question with the basic law of gravity "How could it be wrong?". I'm not going very far with this thread, I don't think. Hopefully someone will simply read the book.
 
common_sense_seeker said:
Hopefully someone will simply read the book.
Click to expand...
Or you could do the simple and immediate thing of explaining WTF you're talking about rather than playing 'hard to fathom'. Your thought processes are hard to follow when you're trying to be coherent, never mind when you're being deliberately cryptic.
 
common_sense_seeker said:
No. It's more usual to think that you're responding to the last post IMHO
Click to expand...

NO, without a quote, the response is to the OP. You cannot guarantee upon submission that your post will appear underneath the one you just read, as somebody else could easily submit a post before you. One should always quote if one is not replying to the OP.
 
phlogistician said:
NO, without a quote, the response is to the OP. You cannot guarantee upon submission that your post will appear underneath the one you just read, as somebody else could easily submit a post before you. One should always quote if one is not replying to the OP.
Click to expand...
Why not quote the original post, then there's no room for confusion, is there?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top