Science Nouveau.com, science without PHD BS

Science should be the first step in philosophy while ethics the last. Unfortunately, philosophy today is too hung up on getting it right to finish anything. Science works (despite its pretensions) because is so slap-dash in its first principles and conclusions. This site argues for the effectiveness of our slap-dash science.

Self Directed Mutation
It is possible for life to direct its own mutations.

January 6, 2006
Last update October 27, 2007

One of the great mysteries regarding the theory of evolution is the question - how many mutations does it take before one mutation can be reproduced? And is it by that passing on - by that definition alone - called fit? Need it even be helpful? It doesn't seem to matter to evolutionary theory. Unlike I suspect a large majority of mutations are easily passed on. Darwin said every individual is a mutation. Isn't it possible to find 'imperfections' of every conceivable kind passed on to future generations which could eventually cause that species' extinction, and yet for a hundred generations it may have no effect whatsoever? Of course this happens, (these are labeled innocuous factors so as not to deal with the issue) and it happens all the time. But evolutionists still think success is defined by reproduction (or like Richard Dawkins also by an obvious and imediate use of mutations) and this success absurdly makes the fittest out of anything and makes the unfittest out of countless individually successful beings who don't reproduce.

There is another problem: as mutation is such a persistent and regular feature of life, how is it some beings often called 'living fossils' can remain entirely the same in design over hundreds of millions of years with no mutant offshoot to speak of? The relevance of constant mutation would mean no form of being could remain the same in design over any length of time - anymore than a rumour can be passed around and remain the same. Something must be keeping it the same.

There is another possible way to have mutations and it is much more useful. Lamarck suggested this line of inquiry over a hundred years ago but today there is much more evidence. Just think how the chameleon and octopus self-consciously change shape and colour while other species change sex and even genetic codes. The way to make mutations work better is by the directing of genetic code by the individual of the species on himself by way of an unconscious mechanism set in motion by a conscious appraisal. Species can similarly self direct changes in colour, shape, sex, genes and even gene expression for future generations - so why not in design?

The chameleon is a superficial form of this idea. The human face is another example - our emotions are expressed exactly by muscles we don't consciously control or understand. In all kinds of ways an individual being cannot nor should not operate every aspect of his own body. (Just think of the sports figure in a slump. He is usually thinking too much. When he relaxes and forgets about his tasks his skills improve.) There are things out of everyone's conscious control that are better off that way.

There is also the phenomenon of hysterical symptoms. Just by consciously understanding what symptoms are expected - under certain medical conditions - an individual can unconsciously control vast numbers of cells and body parts in order to mimic the colour, shape and texture of the specific expected conditions. Stigmata and hysterical pregnancy are such cases. How such minute control is possible has never been explained scientifically, but this is another proof of an unconscious power over the body that is influenced by conscious thoughts.

Clown fish change sex from male to female when needed by the knowledge........
continue....
Directed Mutation

Dennett vs Gould
How even the closest of allies never can really understand each other. Let's get past thinking that science is any more than a game.

Mythbuster's Trap for Science

Jan 7, 2007

The Discovery TV show, Mythbusters, purports to be a scientific examination of popular beliefs. In it we see attempts to create experiments that test famous particular myths. The recent 'debunking' of the movie myth that one sword can 'cut' another in half, instead shows the limitations of science, that being their premises and conclusions.

The experiment began by using the false premise 'cut' as the word to describe film footage showing one sword hitting and dividing another. The word 'cut' is one of many possible choices, but as it unnecessarily restricts the actual event to an inaccurate representation of a divition, it is false. Next the show's experiments actually produced several examples of one sword dividing another. But as most cases involved a cut that lead to the shattering of a sword, and no cases of complete cutting of the metal, they concluded the myth was busted. This false conclusion was the result of the false premise.

Next they even piled on additional mistakes not contained in the actual myth. Here are two examples. The attempted cut was made against the side of the passive blade, not edge on edge. No source could legitamize this failure to stay true their own premise. Secondly, the stroke was at 90 degrees, even though the sword experts showed the 'cuts' must be at 45 degrees to the grain to be able to go through. Both elected changes made a failure to 'cut' a foregone conclusion. Mythbusters and science make these errors consistently.

Yes, I know, some scientist somewhere is rejecting this criticism and says that a TV show does not represent science. The point is irrelevant. Just watch yourself the next time a science is practiced and see how lax the premises and conclusions are and you'll see Mythbusters is just the poor kid who somewhere along the way followed the wrong role model.

GRH

.

Sexual Selection Goes Nowhere

Dances and colours in life are chosen arbitrarily. Sexual Selection Theory still does not give an answer for this.

January 5, 2006

All the colourful flowers and birds, and all their dances and attributes that are taken for beauty are still not being addressed in Sexual Selection Theory. The most obvious problem is the agent of choice that is finally being allowed to play a part in the changes seen in life is not actually being allowed to choose. It is only made an extension of the weeding theory called 'Natural Selection'. The agent is still not given a criteria or an ability to choose the shapes and colours of their mates.

The positive creation of harmful dances, courtship, colours and shapes that we see in the peacock, for example, still has no possible criteria for their forms and for their existence. Some in the Sexual Selection team have tried to extend their rancid evolution tautology (saying whatever survives, survives and then use that to define fit) into dance and colour by saying that whatever is beautiful is therefore the fittest. But I ask a simple question......

continue here

Evolution vs Simolution

by Geoffrey Hamilton

November 1, 2000

The opposition of Evolution vs Creationism, set up by people who follow the evolutionary creed is a straw argument. By this they are able to ignore or not understand objections to evolution. This straw argument makes their life easier and puts them in the position of looking more advanced. Besides the straight forward objections to standard evolutionary theories expressed by the likes of Richard Milton evolution fails to explain why anything should survive or even why any life would wish it. Simolution explains this and more. The real opposition in academic circles should be Evolution vs Simolution.

First an explanation of Simolution

Simolution is the long term change of life forms due to the effects of the game gene function and implies change without improvement, advancement, or purpose. Change happens due to numerous causes which are related to the games which life-forms play and to the chaotic changes of matter.

Simolution is like a rumour which is passed around where all participants are attempting to repeat what they heard, but where often the copy is not perfect, and in the end can become quite different from what was intended, and is at the same time no better or worse than the original statement. Further, the reason it was passed around and incidentally mutated was because each participant made a unique use for it. Each chronologically new version cannot be simply interchanged between participants and could not survive unchanged outside of the participant who made use of it. Life too repeats itself, mistaking itself endlessly and......

continue here

Rose Coloured Evolution
More evidence supporting Self-Directed Mutation comes in the name of Evolution.

Blog, January 31, 2006

Geoffrey Hamilton

Geneticist Michael R. Rose on CBC's Quirks and Quarks: The Long Tomorrow uses fruit flies and evolution for age research conclusions. Experiment: young fruit flies have their laid eggs stolen. They are allowed to reproduce only when they are much older. This goes on generation after generation until these flies gradually live three times longer than the original flies.

To begin with, the name dropping of "natural selection" by Michael Rose does not sound accurate. He is actually trying to describe artifical selection. The CBC interview shows how. He says, "I tricked natural selection", "natual selection was forced", "I changed the rules of that game". Even if he is not artificially selecting the fruit fly winners of his game, he is part of the game itself. (This is not to be pedantic, but to lay ground for further concepts.) Secondly, he uses natural selection, as nearly everyone does, to imply organic selection. Organic, in the sense I mean, has generally come to suggest 'without human interference', or 'without conscious input', and is more useful in making a contrast with artificial selection. What is 'natural' is everything that happens, or is thought of by anyone, and has nothing to distinguish it from artificial selection. ...So... Rose should say organic selection, but says it's natural, and then actually describes artificial selection. That's just the beginning. .... Continue...

Blogs in order

Home

"Its science. You observe, you theorize, and you attempt to prove it." Dr Beverly Crusher, Star Trek NG

Three stages of truth for scientists:
(1) It's not true.
(2) If it is true, it's not very important.
(3) We knew it all along.
-- Leo Szilard -- or Schopenhauer

Science is never more than temporarily true.
Check
finger printing mistakes

TO ALL SCIENCE ESSAYS
On the
Cause of
Spontaneous
-Human
-Combustion
(SHC)
Geoffrey Hamilton
March 1996

go to whole essay
SHC
This essay is intended to bring relevant material together regarding the anomalous phenomenon called spontaneous human combustion (SHC) and make a reasonable estimation as to the cause of the energy observed at these events.

My hypothesis regarding SHC is that the energy necessary for classic SHC arrives by way of a cold fusion (CF) reaction within a human body. I became interested in SHC in Jan. 1986 while watching the CBC show the Fifth Estate. I believed SHC to be real, given the evidence in the show, but I had no reasonable explanation for it. In the spring of 1994, I saw another CBC news special called "Too Close to the Sun", regarding the feasibility of cold fusion. It occurred to me that SHC's power to turn bone to ash in a few minutes could be explained by CF. I was also aware that CF had no significant radiation, and that survivors of SHC had not reported radiation symptoms, so, it seemed to me, that there could be a link between these two types of events.

The main textual evidence for this paper comes from "Ablaze" by SHC expert, Larry Arnold, and from Eugene F. Mallove and Jed Rothwell's CF writings on the Internet. Both sources are better able to argue the reality of their respective positions with the strong evidence they have collected, so I don't wish to belabour the actuality of SHC and CF with my second hand arguments. Each has satisfied the standards for evidence that are normative for scientific and legal inquiries. The following evidence is mostly my paraphrasing from the standard texts. The hypothesis connecting SHC to CF is my own as far as I know. To account for the tendency of many people to dismiss this and other bizarre phenomenon, despite good evidence, I would like to bring forward the theory of explanationism by Bill Lycan . As an example of the problem I mean to counter, I want to cite an incident which Larry Arnold experienced. He offered photographic evidence of SHC cases to three fire investigators. The first investigator said he had never heard of SHC and refused to believe it. The second refused to even look, but the third was intrigued and wanted to know more. This incident is typical of the division within society and also how a society as a whole learns of new problems and solutions (the majority rejects new explanations while a few see a need for new explanations). Explanationism theorizes that people, in general, always look for the best way too explain their world, and then they hold onto it until it is significantly overwhelmed by a better explanation......
Spontaneous
-Human
-Combustion
continue to
whole essay