Erik Andrulis Gyres concept and Natural Selection

[backspace]

This paper by Andrulis is an example of Delusion induced by rejecting
the pattern/design dichotomy. PZ Myers in his review is correct, it is
erroneous. Andrulis has indeed gone of the rails, one feels very sorry
for the poor man and I pray that he comes to his senses.

In any case, the first thing I did was F3 , looking for Natural
Selection :

http://www.mdpi.com/2075-1729/2/1/1/

-----------------------
Evolutionary emergence. The Darwinian theory of evolution by natural
selection does not address
how novelty emerges in the universe [784,785]. As modeled here and as
observable in the natural
world, gyres expand and develop as a consequence of continual IEM
flow, rearrangement, and
coalescence. When the maximum carrying capacity of a gyrosystem is
reached, it extrudes IEM due to
spatiotemporal constraints imparted by sub- and supragyrosystems; this
models self-organized
criticality [786]. Gyrosystem collapse thus converts the accumulated,
unsustainable, potential IEM
into kinetic IEM, eliciting the emergence of an a priori unpredictable
organization that is more
thermodynamically stable. Written another way, theory shows that the
disassembled gyrosystem
provides the architectural basis and thermodynamic driving force for
evolutionary complexification.
This theory supports what Gould and Eldredge implied in their theory
of punctuated equilibrium [787]:
evolutionary emergence occurs by a true quantal leap. I conclude that
my theory is a comprehensive
and scientifically accurate alternative to natural selection.

Meaning of Life. Life has many definitional meanings but lacks a
complete and consistent scientific
explanation. In this work, I have pursued and arrived at a scientific
answer to the Schrödingerian
question, “What is Life? [1].” Traditionally, the living cell is
commonly called “animate” and all other
biospheric and cellular chemicals and molecules are called
“inanimate.” However, this theory and the
law of vortex motion prove that all these physical systems gyrate and
are, as such, “animated"

Moreover, theory-defined laws of unity and correspondence require that
life and Earth evolve as one,
with thermodynamically appropriate conditions (the fitness of the
biosphere [788,789]). Unexpectedly,
then, this theory reveals that Earth—or, for that matter, any
celestial, physical, chemical, and molecular
system—is alive, that is, synonymous with life. Given this
definitional and conceptual upheaval,
I propose that a very open and candid discussion of the meaning of life
—well beyond this text—is in
order. On this topic, it may be useful to consider how scientifically
redefining life elucidates
non-scientific, eudaemonic meanings of “life,” “living,” or “alive,”
related to ontology, consciousness,
sentience, behavior, vocation, or social interactions

[Kalkidas]

On 2/8/2012 2:04 PM, backspace wrote:
> This paper by Andrulis is an example of Delusion induced by rejecting
> the pattern/design dichotomy. PZ Myers in his review is correct, it is
> erroneous. Andrulis has indeed gone of the rails, one feels very sorry
> for the poor man and I pray that he comes to his senses.
>
> In any case, the first thing I did was F3 , looking for Natural
> Selection :
>
> http://www.mdpi.com/2075-1729/2/1/1/

[snip]

Although Myers can't resist a gratuitous swipe at the Discovery
Institute in his review, the DI's review of the Andrulis paper is well
worth the read.

See it at
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/01/oh_now_we_under055641.html

[Robert Camp]

Just read it. It struck me as little more than petulant sarcasm,

"A biologist at Case Western Reserve demonstrates why peer-review
really is the gold standard of scholarly credibility, just as
Darwinists have been telling us for so long."

"It kind of makes you think of Michael Ruse, talking to Ben Stein in
Expelled and explaining how life got its start "on the backs of
crystals" and chastising Stein for not grasping why this is more
believeable than intelligent design."

Rather than "worth the read," the whole post strikes me as an exercise
in junior-high spitballing, including such incisive arguments as,

- taking an extreme (and unfortunate, considering Andrulis' previously
productive career) example of peer-review and insinuating that the
entire process can be judged on the basis of this anomaly
- the oblivious suggestion that an idea based upon natural processes,
however improbable, can be a less credible alternative than an
inference to magic
- snidely mocking Ruse for being over-imaginative (in the process
missing the irony of such prodigious projection)

I don't know who wrote it, but the whole thing is such an immature bit
of fluff I figure it's got to be Crowther.

RLC

[Free Lunch]

On Wed, 08 Feb 2012 16:45:10 -0700, Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub> wrote in
talk.origins:

The Discovery Institute has a history of making things up when it turns
out that their religious doctrines are wrong, so its opinion is of no
value to anyone, whether they are believers or not.

Please note that the supposedly peer-reviewed journal has lost its
credibility.

[Kalkidas]

Ah, another case of "the creationists are wrong even when they're right".

[David Hare-Scott]

Ah, another case of "insert some snarky one-line comment when you have no
substantive argument".

If you disagree with Camp why not give your own review and demonstrate where
he is wrong.


D

[Robert Camp]

Not at all. He was wrong *while* he was right. The latter was low-
hanging fruit. The former were more numerous, more egregious, and
particularly fatuous.

RLC

[Kalkidas]

OK. Here's my review of Robert Camp's review of the review:

Just read it. It struck me as little more than petulant sarcasm. For
example:

"the whole post strikes me as an exercise

in junior-high spitballing, including such incisive arguments as,..."

The whole post strikes me as an exercise
in junior-high spitballing, including such incisive arguments as, for
example:

"Just read it. It struck me as little more than petulant sarcasm."

[backspace]

I sometimes wonder if Epicureans have a sense of humor. Ruse was
sarcastic, dismissive, condescending and held Stein in contempt, which
then backfired on him. I laugh every time I watch it, it was very
funny.

[John Stockwell]

Sorry, but what Michael Ruse was talking about in his comment about
"life forming on the backs of crystals" was a reference to the Cairns-
Smith
mineral template hypothesis. It has been observed that the charges
on certain mineral crystals, particularly clays, will act as a
template for
the formation of chemical chains.

In contrast, Andrus' paper is either a Sokal-type hoax, or the work of
a broken mind.

The Discover Institute misrepresents both Ruse's comment and the paper
of
Andrulis.

-John

[Kalkidas]

Sorry, but watching a blowhard like Ruse trying to blow a stone house
down, only to find himself hurled away by his own backwash is always a hoot.

Unless, of course, you have no sense of humor.

But I sometimes forget that evolutionists are allowed to be right or
wrong, but creationists are only allowed to be wrong. Please forgive me.

[John Stockwell]

Creationists generally ARE wrong.

-John