I Seriously Think I Found The "design Theory", No kidding either!

I did write things like this before, but never had what looks like the entire mechanism in as few words as possible to describe the whole thing.

And notice how without one saying "evolution" it still explains it, but from the perspective of intelligence/consciousness.

I think this is the real thing. The "Design Theory". To be taught along side evolution.

I want to go for publishing in the journal Nature, since from what I know is the ultimate. Seriously think they would love it. Not be the first time I published this kind of thing before, but the real "Design Theory" is like WOW!

All comments welcome.

This is the only part I have any real problems with...

Granted, I am not a scientist. I am but a lowly programmer/musician with an insatiable curiosity. But I, personally, do not see any evidence of anything consciously directing it's own "change"... at least not on the inheritable/genetic level.

Evidence is in peacock tails. And in how choosy we are in mate selection. It's not random like we pick just anyone at random at a party or something to "pick up".

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/20...09_peacock.html

The theory predicts that male peacocks will get more spots/length while humans will go towards big-eye and long legs, whatever is enhanced to make artificially sexy since that is what the current ultimate goal is.

There only has to be that possible in the variety present in the population. Or in other words the DNA will go in that direction, which in our case and peacocks, it can.

Ah! But in that case, it's not the male choosing how he wants to look... it's the female selecting what she likes.

Gaulin, your stupid theory is not original. It is no different to the theory that Lamark published over a century ago. Darwin proved him wrong then.

According to this from Berkeley:

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/lamarck.html

You are at most saying is I am the forerunner of "Design Theory", the poor and obscurity part is right.

A read through of it has me wondering how you can say it's the same. Even Darwin recognized a conscious driven component. It has elements of Lamarck as does Darwin's work, but inludes how "design" fits in to what we now know.

I could maybe include how the environment directs change but that's so common knowledge now, I thought it would be redundant to include. Want to make it as easy to fit into into one class period as possible. Two paragraphs, no problem!

This post has been edited by Gary Gaulin on Apr 10 2008, 04:01 AM

Not exactly Lamarkism as I understand it...

But it does show something we all know, but hate to admit... the females are really in control. Males will mate with anything, it's the female that decides who gets to spread their DNA around.

Telos

Telos!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telos_(philosophy)

Have to remember that one!

And an occasional male in the usually self-fertalizing C. Elegans that will successfully mate, suggests females do rule, like they didn't even need the males but was more fun I guess.

And here's more for anyone into how the worm works. Last time I checked they were close to figuring out the entire brain circuit.

http://www.wormatlas.org/

This post has been edited by Gary Gaulin on Apr 10 2008, 03:56 AM

Males are " deliberate mutations", they are "environment" directed but generally not required.

females are generally innate ROM directed and do not need 'knowledge' (as males envision that word to mean)

When the super-organism LIFE reaches the flowering stage, environment directed input is necessary to enact mechanisms for seed dispersal.

Then all fall down and rot!

Telos

So you're saying that females operate on instinct, not intelligence? I have the feeling some people might disagree with that.

Gary,
Maybe I'm reading you wrong, but you sound more like an evolution proponent. A male peacock will pick the female most suitable to good procreation, not much different from a chameleon changing colors to avoid predators and grasshoppers eating poisonous food and showing bright colors to tell the predator "remember the last bright red and yellow grasshopper you ate, you had the runs for a week, think twice pally"
Correct me if I've misunderstood you.
Peace,
Ron

We may well have gotten to the point were our evolution could be driven more by social concerns than environmental. (in the 1st world)
So how long before we evolve past stupid and ugly?

Hi Ron, everyone!

Check this out. I put everything on a blog! Very educational challenge now.

http://scientific-design-theory.blogspot.com/

A sample from the last link...

Thanks for the 'challenge'!


Oh, and this is just plain dangerous...

g.

This post has been edited by Gorgeous on Apr 17 2008, 10:12 AM