Profile cover photo
Profile photo
Jarle Kotsbak
7 followers
7 followers
About
Jarle's interests
View all
Jarle's posts

Nick Lane posits that life started in hydrothermal vents deap-sea smokers. He showed an inorganic pore with an inorganic wall that catalyze a reaction similar to a reaction in an autotropic cell. But does that help us anything in undestanding how life arose? Could this reaction have been copied, or should we believe that life started in inorganic pores that gave it energy? Is there more information about research in this field?


Post has attachment
Hello, I am new to this group, and I am working on a great project. I am writing a series of books about misconceptions in evolution, and I have a blog about the theme. I am very sceptical to many of the existing theories. My intention is to show how a lot of "truths" that have been taken for granted are not truths at all. My main objection is that theories are based on simplifications, and in many cases conclusions have been drawn before all posibilities have been evaluated. You will be surprised to see how new explanations often explain some of the most fundamental difficulties in present theories.

Post has attachment
Dawkins is incorrect about evolution. But that does not mean Denis Noble is correct. Noble accuses Dawkins for relying on random processes. He shows that mutations are not quite random. And he posits that the genome is controlled by the cell. To a certain degree that is true, and there may be a limited grade of Lamarchian evolution taking place. But it is limited to a few generations. Both Noble´s variant of Lamarckism and Dawkins´ variant of Darwinism are in fact both limited to a few generations. And Dawkins is more afraid of randomness than Noble is. He does not include mutations at all in his "adaptive evolution". I have a blog about this.


Post has attachment
Dawkins is incorrect about evolution. But that does not mean Denis Noble is correct. Noble accuses Dawkins for relying on random processes. He shows that mutations are not quite random. And he posits that the genome is controlled by the cell. To a certain degree that is true, and there may be a limited grade of Lamarchian evolution taking place. But it is limited to a few generations. The fact is that both Noble´s variant of Lamarckism and Dawkins´ variant of Darwinism are both limited to a few generations. And Dawkins is more afraid of randomness than Noble. He does not include mutations at all in his "adaptive evolution", that I will just call "adaptation". I have explained this in my blog post Evolution vs adaptation. 
Wait while more posts are being loaded