MOLWICK
♦

Empirical evidence of the CEL

Excellent results of The EDI Study carried out on CEL (1990). There are barriers to the acceptance and proposal of confirmatory experiments. We have run into the Church!

Book front cover of the Conditional Evolution of Life. Seahorse and goldfish.

CONDITIONAL EVOLUTION
OF LIFE

PHILOSOPHY AND SCIENCE

Author: José Tiberius

 

 

6. EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE

The CEL (1990) is a theory with roots in Lamarckism and Vitalism. Although it is a general theory, the arguments sometimes refer to the man as being more didactic.

Regardless of the philosophical repercussions, the Conditional Evolution of Life –CEL– contains scientific proposals. Some of them already checked and admitted.

We have presented the CEL proposals in their formulation and conclusions, discussed throughout this book, and listed in the Genetic Variability and Mechanisms of Evolution sections.

Let’s look at the scientific evidence of the most notable:

  • Transmission of genetic information

    Lamarck postulated it, and Mendel demonstrated it. It took the scientific community 50 years to recognize and integrate it with Neo-Darwinism. So much delay is because the genetic transmission of all the peculiarities of the new being’s configuration supports 100% of Lamarck’s theory compared to natural selection.

    The Mendelian combination causes the distinction between inherited and predestined character. Although there is a transmission of all necessary instructions, they are not always the same.

    Another way of saying it would be the famous "Inheritance of acquired characters."

    Man evolution is a consequence of the development of genes throughout the life of individuals –CEL.

    Modern Darwinism has also adapted the full transmission by bringing the natural selection to the cellular level.

    However, character changes are not by accident or by purely random methods but also by intended enhancements. The intentionality comes from very complex and logical modifications in a single generation.

    Recently, academia tries to maintain Darwinism by mixing the epigenetics concept –offspring development conditioned to the environment and transmission through RNA instead of DNA. As far as we know, Darwin did not mention where mutations should be.

    On the other hand, this point implies a mechanism to move the normal cells’ genetic information to the reproductive cells.

    Evidence:

  • Ensure the viability of the offspring

    There are two main methods: producing abundant offspring with small variations and sexual differentiation in complex organisms.

    The first one uses random processes and has justified Darwinism despite no proof these processes were unintentional. Equivalently, the modern lottery is haphazard and, of course, designed by man.

    In its early days, genetic modifications were random mutations with Darwin, and there was evidence. Later, they are random only at specific points; later on, their name is not mutations, but Darwinism is still the prevailing theory of evolution.

  • Sexual differentiation

    It is the second method of ensuring said viability. It does not eliminate random processes, but it is difficult to justify their complexity with them. Above all, it verifies specific aspects of a logical or non-random nature typical of vital impulse systems.

    The most prominent are:

  • Evolution in the form of a foam and not a tree –CEL

    The foam form is equivalent to the missing link’s possible non-existence because evolutionary leaps typically occur by combining two or more different genetic lineages.

    It has taken the scientific community 30 years to recognize that Neanderthal, Cro-Magnon, and other subspecies interbred.

    Evidence:

  • Simulation with genetic algorithms of CEL

    The free billiard game Esnuka (1992) allows intuitive assimilation of new concepts.

    Sometimes, computerized genetic algorithms for evolution confirm Darwin’s Theory. In this case, how could it be otherwise? They ensure the CEL because they have its genetic algorithms.

    The only difference is that it appears to be no Darwinian algorithms successfully simulating the evolution of intelligence.

    Evidence:

  • Other non-Darwinian mechanisms

    Advances in biology and genetics provide knowledge that hardly fits with Natural Selection’s theory or its many updates. They do not even square with the Synthetic Theory of Evolution even though its name seems to integrate whatever is necessary to maintain the Darwinian philosophy.

    The CEL does not expressly mention the following mechanisms, but they are in the third point of its formulation: “The systems, methods or processes of evolution are multiple, configured for each case based on certain conditions (and not only environmental but also logical)."

    Evidence:

Scientific innovations can have consequences in philosophy; in other words, aspects considered philosophical could become scientific or vice versa, but the academic community needs time for its assimilation and much more for its transmission to society in general.

A shift in generally accepted notions is a significant barrier, as Thomas Kuhn’s sociology of science de Thomas Kuhn states.

At the risk of making redundant repetitions, it took almost 50 years to recognize and incorporate Mendel’s laws into the dominant theory, the mixture of Neanderthal and Cro-Magnon, about 30 years. We are not sure about Galileo’s heliocentrism because it was a long time ago.

The delays mentioned above are due to sociological and emotional aspects that slow down scientific discussion.

It is possible that with Social Darwinism or the book "The Bell Curve" by Herrnstein and Murray, something similar happens when proposing evolutionary conceptions that do not please certain idealistic ideologies. An idealism that does not prevent accusing scientific positions of barbarities or thinking that the Cro-Magnon had nothing better to do than exterminate the Neanderthal.

Anyway, it is okay. It is not the first time, nor will it be the last for these attitudes to occur.

Like life itself!