Evolution and Quality Improvement

How people and organizations adapt and change

Charles Robert Darwin by John Collier.

Many people don’t understand how the theory of evolution works. There is this notion that change somehow just occurs naturally over the course of geological time. What some fail to grasp is that change does not simply happen. It occurs because there is some external pressure that forces adaptation through natural selection.

…

Want to continue?

By logging in you agree to receive communication from Quality Digest. Privacy Policy.

Create a FREE account

Forgot My Password

Comments

Evolution and Quality

Mike,

With all due respect, I do not understand how a quality professional can espouse the false assumptions of evolution?

The false theory of evolution has no statistically sound data to back it up. Everything you sited in your article is pure speculation based upon assumptions and circular reasoning. One example is the geologic column – nowhere on earth does it exist. Chronological dating techniques used to develop this column are wroth with uncertainty such that an error analysis results in large error bars rendering it meaningless and it lacks a chronological standard which results in a bias of deep time.

The notion of mutation (or improvement by natural selection) is meaningless as well. The reality is that mutations are a loss or rearrangement of information and never (due to the second law of thermodynamics) does a mutation result in new information. Now, adaptation happens and is a normal process which explains the variation within kinds but not one kind to another. A species or kind has all the genetic information (endowed by its creator) it needs to adapt to its changing environment -resulting in the various types of dogs, cats, spiders etc. Man, has all the information he needs to overcome the second law of thermodynamics and improve processes and is not currently evolving. W. Edwards Deming was right, even though he never actually wrote it, “It is not necessary to change; survival is not mandatory.” The basic truth is we need to make all processes as efficient as possible, minimize waste and work together. That is be good stewards of this earth. Let’s get away from this nonsense that CO2 is causing global warming.

By the way when are you going to reply to my comments in the we always have Paris article?

https://www.qualitydigest.com/inside/management-column/we-ll-always-have-paris-060817.html#comment-5877

Concerning the nonscientist Darwin and the title of his book (of speculation) - The Origin of Species (Signet; reprint, anniversary edition, 2003) – you neglect to state the whole title:

“The Origin of Species By Means of Natural Selection on the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life”.

I just want to point out that it was the scientists of Darwin’s day that espoused such racial themes without any evidence what so ever and merely used their imagination to come up with such nonsense.

Consensus via intelligentsia is not proof nor is their recommended course of action the most prudent. Need I remind you that this resulted in Margret Sangers’ – planned parenthood (eugenics) and the desire to cull humans of non-whites and propagating to Hitler and his Theozoology and his desire to cull the human race along with Stalin and Mao up to the awful ruling of the supreme court in Roe Vs Wade that, since a fetus is not human and it is the right of the mother, abortion is now legal. It seems to me that most evolutionists don’t understand that life continues at conception and we develop, independent of the mother, as sentient human beings (one race with many variations – created equal) and everyone must agree that abortion is the murder of sentient human beings.

Finally, concerning “Gould’s theory, originally posited in his (along with Niles Eldredge’s) 1972 essay, “Punctuated Equilibria: An Alternative to Phyletic Gradualism,””. This is mere speculation and is nonscientific and should not be stated as if it was a scientific fact. The truth is that this theory and I do mean theory is based upon the assumption that evolution is true to begin with. There is no statistically sound data to support the defunct geologic column to make any reliable conclusions from it.

So, the challenge to evolutionists is to provide a standard column that is supported by proper calibration and error analysis. That is, state the error associated with your assumptions with error bars and confidence intervals.

Please respond

EJM

Response

Thanks again for an interesting comment... I did read and respond to your comments on my prior article as well. I stated a couple of times here that both Darwin's as well as Gould's (and Eldridge's) work were theories. They happen to be theories that I believe, but they are theories nonetheless. However, my intention in writing this column was really to address how people and organizations can adapt and change, and to help readers see that earth-shaking paradigm shifts actually contain opportunities as well as challenges. The theories mentioned make nice framing devices for that very human-centric discussion, and hopefully that broader perspective resonated with those of you in the QD audience.

Evolution and Quality response

Sorry Mike, but both of your responses were non-answers and the theories you used, that you believe to be true, really are not good examples. They might be good science fiction but that is all they are. I think you do your readership a dis-service by using a false theory to address how people and organizations can adapt and change when, in reality, people do not have to adapt/change they merely have to work together to produce product in the most efficient manner possible using the 7 tools of quality to achieve said goal. I don’t understand how the murder of sentient human beings is not human-centric? What I think you meant was - “a Humanism – centric discussion” since Humanism is out to cull the human population to avoid the earth-shaking paradigm shift of CO2 induced climate change or global warming.

I recently read an article “President’s Tweet Trumps Gore’s on Climate Change”: http://mailchi.mp/cornwallalliance/presidents-tweet-trumps-gores-on-climate-change?e=aa0b85ad9f

I am going to use this article to show that the evolutionists’ claim of climate change can be reduced to absurdity (Reductio ad Absurdum):

Assume P is true – increasing levels of CO2is causing global warming.

From this assumption, deduce that Q is true – our models (based upon evolutionism) show that increasing levels of CO2 will increase temperatures to unacceptable levels in the future.

Also, deduce that Q is false – according to Al Gore - our models (based upon evolutionism) also show that increasing levels of CO2 will decreasetemperatures in the future.

Thus, P implies both Q and not Q (a contradiction, which is necessarily false).

Therefore, P itself must be false - Reductio ad Absurdum.

Here is an expert from that article to demonstrate my point:

“In Florida over the holidays, President Trump tweeted, “In the East, it could be the COLDEST New Year’s Eve on record. Perhaps we could use a little bit of that good old Global Warming that our Country, but not other countries, was going to pay TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS to protect against. Bundle up!”

Al Gore—the leading global warming propagandist—fearing a collapse of his warming hypothesis, tweeted that the recent record lows are due to global warming. That drew biting derision from real climate scientist Dr. Roy W. Spencer in an imaginary interchange on his Facebook page:

“ME: So, warm winters, cold winters, snowy winters, and no-snow winters are all predictions of global warming? “MR. GORE: Yes, that is correct. “ME: Are you aware how foolish that sounds to many people? “MR. GORE: I am aware that there are deniers of the current climate crisis we are in, yes. “ME: Ugh.”

Trump’s tweet should surprise no one. During his presidential run, Trump promised to take down climate policies that posed a threat to development and didn’t serve the well-being of American citizens.” - - - Proponents, led by the United Nations, claimed that unless we reduce carbon dioxide emission from fossil fuels, global temperature will rise to dangerous levels.

However, the alarmist claims are based on faulty computer models, which in the past 39 years have predicted two-thirds more warming than actually observed.”

My comment – Garbage in = Garbage out

Need I say More?

EJM

P.S. – if you are really interested I will show you where the model or forcing equations fall apart.