nonrandom mutations...

[server]

On Wed, 2 Feb 2022 14:31:54 +0000, Tom Gardner
<spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

On 02/02/22 13:49, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Wed, 2 Feb 2022 12:11:03 +0000, Tom Gardner
spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

On 02/02/22 10:26, Martin Brown wrote:
On 01/02/2022 11:36, Tom Gardner wrote:
On 01/02/22 10:28, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Tue, 1 Feb 2022 08:41:38 +0000, Tom Gardner
spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

Why can\'t
we deliberately change our genome to our benefit?

We will soon be able to. Future tense.

We already are for certain genetic disorders where the correct functioning gene
can be inserted into the relevant cells locally to correct a problem but without
altering any of the germ line cells.

https://www.nia.nih.gov/news/gene-therapy-techniques-restore-vision-damage-age-and-glaucoma-mice

To me \"insert into the genome\" implies the germ cell lines.

A gene has to get into a sperm or egg to be passed into a population.
A nose spray won\'t do that. [1]

That\'s another annoyance onto the random-mutation-selection concept.
Most mutations are in the wrong cells to be passed to descendents, and
most descendents will drop the ball anyhow.

It is true that most mutations aren\'t in the sperm/egg cells - they
are in cancerous cells.

But so what? That\'s irrelevant to evolution mechanisms.

Instant hostility to new ideas must be hereditary too.



--

I yam what I yam - Popeye

 

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Thursday, February 3, 2022 at 12:49:57 AM UTC+11, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

On Wed, 2 Feb 2022 12:11:03 +0000, Tom Gardner
spam...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

On 02/02/22 10:26, Martin Brown wrote:
On 01/02/2022 11:36, Tom Gardner wrote:
On 01/02/22 10:28, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Tue, 1 Feb 2022 08:41:38 +0000, Tom Gardner
spam...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

Why can\'t
we deliberately change our genome to our benefit?

We will soon be able to. Future tense.

We already are for certain genetic disorders where the correct functioning gene
can be inserted into the relevant cells locally to correct a problem but without
altering any of the germ line cells.

https://www.nia.nih.gov/news/gene-therapy-techniques-restore-vision-damage-age-and-glaucoma-mice

To me \"insert into the genome\" implies the germ cell lines.
A gene has to get into a sperm or egg to be passed into a population.
A nose spray won\'t do that. [1]

That\'s another annoyance onto the random-mutation-selection concept.
Most mutations are in the wrong cells to be passed to descendants, and
most descendants will drop the ball anyhow.

That gets the whole idea backwards. The only mutations that matter for evolution are those that take in the germ cell lines - any cell that isn\'t ancestral to an egg or a sperm that have united to create a new individual isn\'t relevant.

> [1] Barring horizontal transmission from viruses or kissing. Maybe kissing is a way of sharing genes in a tribe.

It isn\'t.

> Maybe kissing is biologically important.

Sexual intercourse is biologically important, and if kissing leads on to that, it\'s got some importance. It doesn\'t directly involve transferring genetic material.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Thursday, February 3, 2022 at 1:36:15 AM UTC+11, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

On Wed, 2 Feb 2022 14:31:54 +0000, Tom Gardner
spam...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

On 02/02/22 13:49, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Wed, 2 Feb 2022 12:11:03 +0000, Tom Gardner
spam...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

On 02/02/22 10:26, Martin Brown wrote:
On 01/02/2022 11:36, Tom Gardner wrote:
On 01/02/22 10:28, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Tue, 1 Feb 2022 08:41:38 +0000, Tom Gardner
spam...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

Why can\'t
we deliberately change our genome to our benefit?

We will soon be able to. Future tense.

We already are for certain genetic disorders where the correct functioning gene
can be inserted into the relevant cells locally to correct a problem but without
altering any of the germ line cells.

https://www.nia.nih.gov/news/gene-therapy-techniques-restore-vision-damage-age-and-glaucoma-mice

To me \"insert into the genome\" implies the germ cell lines.

A gene has to get into a sperm or egg to be passed into a population.
A nose spray won\'t do that. [1]

That\'s another annoyance onto the random-mutation-selection concept.
Most mutations are in the wrong cells to be passed to descendents, and
most descendents will drop the ball anyhow.

It is true that most mutations aren\'t in the sperm/egg cells - they
are in cancerous cells.

But so what? That\'s irrelevant to evolution mechanisms.

Instant hostility to new ideas must be hereditary too.

It isn\'t. Rational thought is a learned skill - you may inherit the capacity (though it doesn\'t look as if you have) but you have to learn how to detect silly ideas for yourself. Some people can\'t seem to manage it, and get upset when their silly ideas get dumped on.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Jeff Layman]

On 02/02/2022 07:57, David Brown wrote:

On 01/02/2022 18:20, Clive Arthur wrote:
On 01/02/2022 17:10, David Brown wrote:
On 01/02/2022 17:04, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

snipped


I\'m near-sighted. It\'s a huge advantage for me.

No, it is not.  Near-sighted does not mean you are better at seeing
close-up than \"perfect\" sight, it means you are worse at seeing far
away.  It has no upside.

It\'s certainly useful to be able to look at a PCB etc from 4\" away
without needing artificial aids.  It may not seem that way to someone
who can\'t, but it\'s something I do very frequently.


Being able to see well close-up is useful. But that is not
\"near-sighted\" - it is simply \"not far-sighted\". Being near-sighted
means you can /only/ see near things - it doesn\'t mean you can see them
better than people with perfect vision.

That\'s what the general interpretation might be, but it\'s not true. You
can be short-sighted simply by the radial muscles of the eye being
unable to pull the lens into a flatter shape to accommodate for distant
objects. Now consider that on top of weaker radial muscles, the circular
muscle is contracting unusually powerfully and is compressing the lens
into an even rounder shape, thus effectively turning it into a strong
magnifying glass.

Many years ago I knew a guy who was the electronics \"engineer\" for a
company. He fixed faulty lab equipment, rather than designed it. He wore
the thickest glasses I have ever seen; he told me that he was on the
border of being officially blind, as he was so short-sighted. However,
when it came to finding the smallest break in a printed circuit track he
had no equal. He would hold the board less than an inch from his eye,
and move it around until he found the break. I once watched him do this,
and when he found the break he \"showed\" me where it was. I couldn\'t see
it without a magnifying glass.

--

Jeff

 

[server]

On Wed, 2 Feb 2022 14:45:20 +0000, Jeff Layman
<jmlayman@invalid.invalid> wrote:

On 02/02/2022 07:57, David Brown wrote:
On 01/02/2022 18:20, Clive Arthur wrote:
On 01/02/2022 17:10, David Brown wrote:
On 01/02/2022 17:04, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

snipped


I\'m near-sighted. It\'s a huge advantage for me.

No, it is not.  Near-sighted does not mean you are better at seeing
close-up than \"perfect\" sight, it means you are worse at seeing far
away.  It has no upside.

It\'s certainly useful to be able to look at a PCB etc from 4\" away
without needing artificial aids.  It may not seem that way to someone
who can\'t, but it\'s something I do very frequently.


Being able to see well close-up is useful. But that is not
\"near-sighted\" - it is simply \"not far-sighted\". Being near-sighted
means you can /only/ see near things - it doesn\'t mean you can see them
better than people with perfect vision.

That\'s what the general interpretation might be, but it\'s not true. You
can be short-sighted simply by the radial muscles of the eye being
unable to pull the lens into a flatter shape to accommodate for distant
objects. Now consider that on top of weaker radial muscles, the circular
muscle is contracting unusually powerfully and is compressing the lens
into an even rounder shape, thus effectively turning it into a strong
magnifying glass.

Many years ago I knew a guy who was the electronics \"engineer\" for a
company. He fixed faulty lab equipment, rather than designed it. He wore
the thickest glasses I have ever seen; he told me that he was on the
border of being officially blind, as he was so short-sighted. However,
when it came to finding the smallest break in a printed circuit track he
had no equal. He would hold the board less than an inch from his eye,
and move it around until he found the break. I once watched him do this,
and when he found the break he \"showed\" me where it was. I couldn\'t see
it without a magnifying glass.

When I was a kid, I could focus on the end of my own nose.



--

I yam what I yam - Popeye

 

[David Brown]

On 02/02/2022 15:35, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

On Wed, 2 Feb 2022 14:31:54 +0000, Tom Gardner
spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

On 02/02/22 13:49, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Wed, 2 Feb 2022 12:11:03 +0000, Tom Gardner
spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

On 02/02/22 10:26, Martin Brown wrote:
On 01/02/2022 11:36, Tom Gardner wrote:
On 01/02/22 10:28, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Tue, 1 Feb 2022 08:41:38 +0000, Tom Gardner
spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

Why can\'t
we deliberately change our genome to our benefit?

We will soon be able to. Future tense.

We already are for certain genetic disorders where the correct functioning gene
can be inserted into the relevant cells locally to correct a problem but without
altering any of the germ line cells.

https://www.nia.nih.gov/news/gene-therapy-techniques-restore-vision-damage-age-and-glaucoma-mice

To me \"insert into the genome\" implies the germ cell lines.

A gene has to get into a sperm or egg to be passed into a population.
A nose spray won\'t do that. [1]

That\'s another annoyance onto the random-mutation-selection concept.
Most mutations are in the wrong cells to be passed to descendents, and
most descendents will drop the ball anyhow.

It is true that most mutations aren\'t in the sperm/egg cells - they
are in cancerous cells.

But so what? That\'s irrelevant to evolution mechanisms.

Instant hostility to new ideas must be hereditary too.

Is a habit of opening your mouth and letting any old nonsense come out
also hereditary?

Suggesting irrelevant but obvious things is not \"new ideas\".

 

[David Brown]

On 02/02/2022 14:49, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

On Wed, 2 Feb 2022 12:11:03 +0000, Tom Gardner
spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

On 02/02/22 10:26, Martin Brown wrote:
On 01/02/2022 11:36, Tom Gardner wrote:
On 01/02/22 10:28, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Tue, 1 Feb 2022 08:41:38 +0000, Tom Gardner
spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

Why can\'t
we deliberately change our genome to our benefit?

We will soon be able to. Future tense.

We already are for certain genetic disorders where the correct functioning gene
can be inserted into the relevant cells locally to correct a problem but without
altering any of the germ line cells.

https://www.nia.nih.gov/news/gene-therapy-techniques-restore-vision-damage-age-and-glaucoma-mice

To me \"insert into the genome\" implies the germ cell lines.

A gene has to get into a sperm or egg to be passed into a population.
A nose spray won\'t do that. [1]

That\'s another annoyance onto the random-mutation-selection concept.
Most mutations are in the wrong cells to be passed to descendents, and
most descendents will drop the ball anyhow.

That might annoy /you/, but it is not something that affects the
validity of the theory of evolution. It just means that random mutation
of genes within a cell is a slow modifier in the evolution of
multi-cellular organisms.

A far bigger effect is sexual mixup of genes, which is also a
\"random-mutation-selection\" concept but on a different scale.

[1] Barring horizontal transmission from viruses or kissing. Maybe
kissing is a way of sharing genes in a tribe. Maybe kissing is
biologically important.

Viruses are an important vector for evolution. They are a common source
of horizontal gene transfer in microbes. Mutation or gene transfer via
viruses does not happen often in higher organisms (as you say, they have
to hit egg or sperm cells - and the great majority of mutations are
either lethal or have little significant effect). But they are vital
for getting completely new features into the population. The placenta
in mammals, for example, has been traced to virus gene transfer.

As for kissing - how exactly do you think that would transfer genes? If
you don\'t want that random brain-fart to be dismissed, you\'ll have to
justify why you think there is significant genetic material in spit, how
you expect that to merge with the genetic information in an egg or sperm
cell, and why you think it might have any significance compared to the
common way of mixing genetic information between an egg and sperm cell.
(You might also note that most animals have nothing remotely like
kissing behaviour, so it is unlikely to be biologically significant.)

 

[Tom Gardner]

On 02/02/22 14:35, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

On Wed, 2 Feb 2022 14:31:54 +0000, Tom Gardner
spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

On 02/02/22 13:49, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Wed, 2 Feb 2022 12:11:03 +0000, Tom Gardner
spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

On 02/02/22 10:26, Martin Brown wrote:
On 01/02/2022 11:36, Tom Gardner wrote:
On 01/02/22 10:28, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Tue, 1 Feb 2022 08:41:38 +0000, Tom Gardner
spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

Why can\'t
we deliberately change our genome to our benefit?

We will soon be able to. Future tense.

We already are for certain genetic disorders where the correct functioning gene
can be inserted into the relevant cells locally to correct a problem but without
altering any of the germ line cells.

https://www.nia.nih.gov/news/gene-therapy-techniques-restore-vision-damage-age-and-glaucoma-mice

To me \"insert into the genome\" implies the germ cell lines.

A gene has to get into a sperm or egg to be passed into a population.
A nose spray won\'t do that. [1]

That\'s another annoyance onto the random-mutation-selection concept.
Most mutations are in the wrong cells to be passed to descendents, and
most descendents will drop the ball anyhow.

It is true that most mutations aren\'t in the sperm/egg cells - they
are in cancerous cells.

But so what? That\'s irrelevant to evolution mechanisms.

Instant hostility to new ideas must be hereditary too.

New ideas are ten-a-penny, and that\'s being generous.
Any idiot can generate ideas, and many do[1].

Good, reasoned, justified ideas are worth much more,
because they are rare and the process takes time.

[1] see farcebook, twatter, yootoob, and any person that values
themself or their opinions based on the number of followers.

 

[server]

On Wed, 2 Feb 2022 16:16:51 +0100, David Brown
<david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:

On 02/02/2022 15:35, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Wed, 2 Feb 2022 14:31:54 +0000, Tom Gardner
spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

On 02/02/22 13:49, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Wed, 2 Feb 2022 12:11:03 +0000, Tom Gardner
spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

On 02/02/22 10:26, Martin Brown wrote:
On 01/02/2022 11:36, Tom Gardner wrote:
On 01/02/22 10:28, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Tue, 1 Feb 2022 08:41:38 +0000, Tom Gardner
spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

Why can\'t
we deliberately change our genome to our benefit?

We will soon be able to. Future tense.

We already are for certain genetic disorders where the correct functioning gene
can be inserted into the relevant cells locally to correct a problem but without
altering any of the germ line cells.

https://www.nia.nih.gov/news/gene-therapy-techniques-restore-vision-damage-age-and-glaucoma-mice

To me \"insert into the genome\" implies the germ cell lines.

A gene has to get into a sperm or egg to be passed into a population.
A nose spray won\'t do that. [1]

That\'s another annoyance onto the random-mutation-selection concept.
Most mutations are in the wrong cells to be passed to descendents, and
most descendents will drop the ball anyhow.

It is true that most mutations aren\'t in the sperm/egg cells - they
are in cancerous cells.

But so what? That\'s irrelevant to evolution mechanisms.

Instant hostility to new ideas must be hereditary too.


Is a habit of opening your mouth and letting any old nonsense come out
also hereditary?

It\'s an acquired skill.

Suggesting irrelevant but obvious things is not \"new ideas\".

One never knows where divergent thinking may lead. Sometimes it\'s
profitable. Most always it\'s fun... especially when it annoys
wedge-heads.



--

I yam what I yam - Popeye

 

[server]

On Wed, 2 Feb 2022 15:35:05 +0000, Tom Gardner
<spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

On 02/02/22 14:35, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Wed, 2 Feb 2022 14:31:54 +0000, Tom Gardner
spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

On 02/02/22 13:49, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Wed, 2 Feb 2022 12:11:03 +0000, Tom Gardner
spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

On 02/02/22 10:26, Martin Brown wrote:
On 01/02/2022 11:36, Tom Gardner wrote:
On 01/02/22 10:28, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Tue, 1 Feb 2022 08:41:38 +0000, Tom Gardner
spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

Why can\'t
we deliberately change our genome to our benefit?

We will soon be able to. Future tense.

We already are for certain genetic disorders where the correct functioning gene
can be inserted into the relevant cells locally to correct a problem but without
altering any of the germ line cells.

https://www.nia.nih.gov/news/gene-therapy-techniques-restore-vision-damage-age-and-glaucoma-mice

To me \"insert into the genome\" implies the germ cell lines.

A gene has to get into a sperm or egg to be passed into a population.
A nose spray won\'t do that. [1]

That\'s another annoyance onto the random-mutation-selection concept.
Most mutations are in the wrong cells to be passed to descendents, and
most descendents will drop the ball anyhow.

It is true that most mutations aren\'t in the sperm/egg cells - they
are in cancerous cells.

But so what? That\'s irrelevant to evolution mechanisms.

Instant hostility to new ideas must be hereditary too.

New ideas are ten-a-penny, and that\'s being generous.
Any idiot can generate ideas, and many do[1].

Certainly. We\'ve had brainstorming sessions when some intern said
something dumb that triggered a chain of thought that turned out to be
big. The key is to think and play and not slap.

Good, reasoned, justified ideas are worth much more,
because they are rare and the process takes time.

Crazy ideas may be in the path to that, if you don\'t kill them on
sight.



--

I yam what I yam - Popeye

 

[server]

On Wed, 2 Feb 2022 16:29:53 +0100, David Brown
<david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:

On 02/02/2022 14:49, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Wed, 2 Feb 2022 12:11:03 +0000, Tom Gardner
spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

On 02/02/22 10:26, Martin Brown wrote:
On 01/02/2022 11:36, Tom Gardner wrote:
On 01/02/22 10:28, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Tue, 1 Feb 2022 08:41:38 +0000, Tom Gardner
spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

Why can\'t
we deliberately change our genome to our benefit?

We will soon be able to. Future tense.

We already are for certain genetic disorders where the correct functioning gene
can be inserted into the relevant cells locally to correct a problem but without
altering any of the germ line cells.

https://www.nia.nih.gov/news/gene-therapy-techniques-restore-vision-damage-age-and-glaucoma-mice

To me \"insert into the genome\" implies the germ cell lines.

A gene has to get into a sperm or egg to be passed into a population.
A nose spray won\'t do that. [1]

That\'s another annoyance onto the random-mutation-selection concept.
Most mutations are in the wrong cells to be passed to descendents, and
most descendents will drop the ball anyhow.


That might annoy /you/, but it is not something that affects the
validity of the theory of evolution. It just means that random mutation
of genes within a cell is a slow modifier in the evolution of
multi-cellular organisms.

A far bigger effect is sexual mixup of genes, which is also a
\"random-mutation-selection\" concept but on a different scale.


[1] Barring horizontal transmission from viruses or kissing. Maybe
kissing is a way of sharing genes in a tribe. Maybe kissing is
biologically important.


Viruses are an important vector for evolution. They are a common source
of horizontal gene transfer in microbes. Mutation or gene transfer via
viruses does not happen often in higher organisms

Are you sure of that? Horizomtal transfer is a huge boost to
evolution, and everything has to evolve. Dispersion of improvements by
family descent is very inefficient.



(as you say, they have

to hit egg or sperm cells - and the great majority of mutations are
either lethal or have little significant effect). But they are vital
for getting completely new features into the population. The placenta
in mammals, for example, has been traced to virus gene transfer.

As for kissing - how exactly do you think that would transfer genes?

For one, by transferring viruses. Maybe even cells.

If

you don\'t want that random brain-fart to be dismissed, you\'ll have to
justify why you think there is significant genetic material in spit,

Dismissed? Ideas should be played with. But I don\'t mind if you
instinctively attack ideas... less competition.

People are put in prison based on the genes in a bit of spit.

Males kiss, as kissing the hand or ring of a king or the pope. Some
cultures kiss a lot more than we do.

If kissing spreads disease, it would be deselected. But it\'s not. Same
with shaking hands... spreads germs!





--

I yam what I yam - Popeye

 

[Tom Gardner]

On 02/02/22 16:42, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

On Wed, 2 Feb 2022 15:35:05 +0000, Tom Gardner
spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

On 02/02/22 14:35, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Wed, 2 Feb 2022 14:31:54 +0000, Tom Gardner
spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

On 02/02/22 13:49, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Wed, 2 Feb 2022 12:11:03 +0000, Tom Gardner
spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

On 02/02/22 10:26, Martin Brown wrote:
On 01/02/2022 11:36, Tom Gardner wrote:
On 01/02/22 10:28, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Tue, 1 Feb 2022 08:41:38 +0000, Tom Gardner
spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

Why can\'t
we deliberately change our genome to our benefit?

We will soon be able to. Future tense.

We already are for certain genetic disorders where the correct functioning gene
can be inserted into the relevant cells locally to correct a problem but without
altering any of the germ line cells.

https://www.nia.nih.gov/news/gene-therapy-techniques-restore-vision-damage-age-and-glaucoma-mice

To me \"insert into the genome\" implies the germ cell lines.

A gene has to get into a sperm or egg to be passed into a population.
A nose spray won\'t do that. [1]

That\'s another annoyance onto the random-mutation-selection concept.
Most mutations are in the wrong cells to be passed to descendents, and
most descendents will drop the ball anyhow.

It is true that most mutations aren\'t in the sperm/egg cells - they
are in cancerous cells.

But so what? That\'s irrelevant to evolution mechanisms.

Instant hostility to new ideas must be hereditary too.

New ideas are ten-a-penny, and that\'s being generous.
Any idiot can generate ideas, and many do[1].

Certainly. We\'ve had brainstorming sessions when some intern said
something dumb that triggered a chain of thought that turned out to be
big. The key is to think and play and not slap.

So have I, many times - in a brainstorming session.

In a brainstorming session everybody knows that different
rules are operating. This isn\'t a brainstorming session,
and the normal rules of discussion and conversation apply.

Good, reasoned, justified ideas are worth much more,
because they are rare and the process takes time.

Crazy ideas may be in the path to that, if you don\'t kill them on
sight.

They should be killed before they escape from a brainstorming
session.

 

[Fred Bloggs]

On Monday, January 31, 2022 at 11:26:01 PM UTC-5, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

https://www.jpost.com/science/article-695101

This makes sense. If it\'s not impossible and it\'s beneficial,
evolution will do it. Evolution itself evolves.

The implication is a sort of intelligence that steers mutation.

You\'re all hung up on the macro-viewpoin when more humane people concentrate on the micro-viewpoint. of things

--

I yam what I yam - Popeye

 

[Lasse Langwadt Christensen]

onsdag den 2. februar 2022 kl. 14.30.26 UTC+1 skrev David Brown:

On 02/02/2022 10:24, Clive Arthur wrote:
On 02/02/2022 07:57, David Brown wrote:
On 01/02/2022 18:20, Clive Arthur wrote:
On 01/02/2022 17:10, David Brown wrote:
On 01/02/2022 17:04, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

snipped


I\'m near-sighted. It\'s a huge advantage for me.

No, it is not. Near-sighted does not mean you are better at seeing
close-up than \"perfect\" sight, it means you are worse at seeing far
away. It has no upside.

It\'s certainly useful to be able to look at a PCB etc from 4\" away
without needing artificial aids. It may not seem that way to someone
who can\'t, but it\'s something I do very frequently.


Being able to see well close-up is useful. But that is not
\"near-sighted\" - it is simply \"not far-sighted\". Being near-sighted
means you can /only/ see near things - it doesn\'t mean you can see them
better than people with perfect vision.

(The majority of people, of course, do not have perfect vision.)

Being quite myopic (near/short sighted) means my \'natural\' relaxed focus
is about 100mm or 4\" from my eyes. That means I can look at close
things for as long as I like without strain, though I do have to close
one eye.

If I use both eyes, there\'s considerable strain pointing them both to
the same place, and that is what someone without myopia would
experience. I don\'t claim to see close things \'better\' in the sense of
visual acuity, just very much more easily and comfortably.

That\'s not unreasonable. There\'s a big difference between claiming or
believing that a near-sighted person can see /better/ - more accurately,
finer detail, better focus - and saying you can look closer for longer
with less strain.

In modern society, being near-sighted or far-sighted is not much of a
problem. It doesn\'t really make a huge difference if you need to wear
glasses (or contact lenses) to read, watch TV, or whatever. But being
near-sighted is not an overall advantage, even for an electronics
engineer - you rarely have to spend a long enough time staring at small
details for strain to be a problem. On the other hand, without glasses
you\'d quickly have a problem with driving (or if you are as near-sighted
as I am, walking about the office would be dangerous without glasses or
lenses!). If anyone says they are glad they are short-sighted and not
normal sighted, you would not believe them.

While human evolution is continuous and thus has gradually adapted since
we started living in settled societies, it usually makes sense to
consider hunter-gatherer lifestyles on the plains of Africa when talking
about evolutionary advantages. It only takes a quick look at a berry or
mushroom to determine if it is safe to eat - but you need to stare at
the horizon for hours looking for prey and predators. Near-sightedness
is clearly a major disadvantage - not a balance or something with pros
and cons, such as the sickle-cell gene. It is a genetic mistake, and
one of countless examples of how we know there is no \"intelligence\"
behind our \"design\". (Myopia is not a single genetic fault, and there
are environmental influences too, but the genetic components are vital.)

If evolution worked \"intelligently\", and moved steadily towards evolving
useful traits and removing bad traits, as some people here seem to
believe, we would have no myopia.

well, maybe the near sighted men had to stay home and \"take care\"
of the women while the normal vision men went hunting and that how it
stayed in the gene pool

 

[David Brown]

On 02/02/2022 17:51, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

On Wed, 2 Feb 2022 16:29:53 +0100, David Brown
david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:

On 02/02/2022 14:49, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Wed, 2 Feb 2022 12:11:03 +0000, Tom Gardner
spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

On 02/02/22 10:26, Martin Brown wrote:
On 01/02/2022 11:36, Tom Gardner wrote:
On 01/02/22 10:28, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Tue, 1 Feb 2022 08:41:38 +0000, Tom Gardner
spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

Why can\'t
we deliberately change our genome to our benefit?

We will soon be able to. Future tense.

We already are for certain genetic disorders where the correct functioning gene
can be inserted into the relevant cells locally to correct a problem but without
altering any of the germ line cells.

https://www.nia.nih.gov/news/gene-therapy-techniques-restore-vision-damage-age-and-glaucoma-mice

To me \"insert into the genome\" implies the germ cell lines.

A gene has to get into a sperm or egg to be passed into a population.
A nose spray won\'t do that. [1]

That\'s another annoyance onto the random-mutation-selection concept.
Most mutations are in the wrong cells to be passed to descendents, and
most descendents will drop the ball anyhow.


That might annoy /you/, but it is not something that affects the
validity of the theory of evolution. It just means that random mutation
of genes within a cell is a slow modifier in the evolution of
multi-cellular organisms.

A far bigger effect is sexual mixup of genes, which is also a
\"random-mutation-selection\" concept but on a different scale.


[1] Barring horizontal transmission from viruses or kissing. Maybe
kissing is a way of sharing genes in a tribe. Maybe kissing is
biologically important.


Viruses are an important vector for evolution. They are a common source
of horizontal gene transfer in microbes. Mutation or gene transfer via
viruses does not happen often in higher organisms

Are you sure of that? Horizomtal transfer is a huge boost to
evolution, and everything has to evolve. Dispersion of improvements by
family descent is very inefficient.

No, everything does not have to evolve - there are lots of organisms
that have changed very little for perhaps hundreds of millions of years.
Horizontal transfers /can/ introduce new genes, but the /vast/ majority
of horizontal transfers are detrimental to the organism if they do
anything noticeable at all.

You may have heard of the \"immune system\". One of its jobs is to
minimise virus infections - identifying and destroying virus particles,
and destroying any cells that get infected. The better an organism\'s
immune system (and even bacteria have immune systems to counter
viruses), the lower the opportunity for virus infections of any sort,
never mind ones that transfer genes.

To get a horizontal transfer via a virus, you need multiple things to
happen. First, the virus must infect one host\'s cell but make a
monumental screw-up during the infection, so that a bit of the host\'s
DNA gets caught up along with the virus DNA when the cell replicates the
virus. That happens, but it\'s extremely rare - and usually such
mistakes means no successful virus production. Then this modified virus
needs to get into another host, and have another monumental screw-up on
the part of the virus /and/ on the part of the host cell, where the DNA
fragment gets mixed with the host\'s DNA. And then the host cell must
eliminate the virus (so that it doesn\'t die by virus reproduction), and
the DNA change must be non-fatal to the cell. If this happens in the
target host\'s germ cells then the mutation will pass on to the next
generation (probably killing them long before they can produce
descendants of their own). Otherwise you\'ve made either a one-off cell
change that ends with the cell\'s death, or a tumour.


And even if horizontal transfers /were/ as potentially useful for
evolution in the long term as you imagine, that does not mean it
happens. You have this bizarre belief that just because something is
useful or efficient (in your eyes at least), evolution will cause it to
evolve.

Evolution does not have aims, guides, or targets. It is not intelligent
or guided. It does not optimise, or reach ideal solutions. It does not
make huge leaps to new methods just because you think these might be a
good idea. It does not always eliminate bad traits and enhance good
ones. It does not necessarily lead to the best choices or the \"fittest\"
results.

(as you say, they have
to hit egg or sperm cells - and the great majority of mutations are
either lethal or have little significant effect). But they are vital
for getting completely new features into the population. The placenta
in mammals, for example, has been traced to virus gene transfer.

As for kissing - how exactly do you think that would transfer genes?

For one, by transferring viruses. Maybe even cells.

Do you not realise how ignorant that sounds?

Let\'s take an analogy that might make it simpler for you. A cell is
like an electronics board, and its genetic code is like the schematic
and pcb design for the board. Do you think you can change the designs
of the boards in some machine just by putting a different board beside
them? That\'s your \"cells transferred by kissing\" idea.

Perhaps you should bang the different boards together and see what
happens - that\'s the horizontal transfer. One time out of a billion you
might make a short-circuit, or break a track, that gives one of the
boards new characteristics that you hadn\'t seen before.

Compare that to taking two extremely similar designs (99% or more
match), and swapping a few corresponding sections of the schematic to
see if there is an improvement. If you\'ve swapped something critical,
it will probably not work at all. If you\'ve swapped some values of
filter components, maybe you\'ll get a slightly better filter. That is
the analogue of sexual reproduction.

Which method do /you/ think is going to be more successful?

If
you don\'t want that random brain-fart to be dismissed, you\'ll have to
justify why you think there is significant genetic material in spit,

Dismissed? Ideas should be played with. But I don\'t mind if you
instinctively attack ideas... less competition.

I offered you a chance to justify your idea before I dismissed it. It
turns out you had nothing. Good ideas are useful - but your view that
all ideas are somehow worthy for consideration is absurd. (I didn\'t
dismiss it out of hand - I thought about it, then dismissed it.)

People are put in prison based on the genes in a bit of spit.

Yes - so what? Do you think the DNA in someone else\'s spit magically
transforms you? Seriously? Do you also think that if you eat chicken,
you might sprout feathers? (Are you going to dismiss that idea out of
hand?) If a radioactive spider bites you and injects some of its DNA in
its saliva, is that going to turn you into a superhero? (Surely you
will play around with that idea too, to give you an edge on your
competition.)

Males kiss, as kissing the hand or ring of a king or the pope. Some
cultures kiss a lot more than we do.

And some do so less. None of that matters.

If kissing spreads disease, it would be deselected. But it\'s not. Same
with shaking hands... spreads germs!

Kissing /does/ spread disease - as does shaking hands, and any kind of
contact. But the benefits usually outweigh the risks.

 

[Lasse Langwadt Christensen]

onsdag den 2. februar 2022 kl. 20.21.31 UTC+1 skrev David Brown:

On 02/02/2022 17:51, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Wed, 2 Feb 2022 16:29:53 +0100, David Brown
david...@hesbynett.no> wrote:

On 02/02/2022 14:49, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Wed, 2 Feb 2022 12:11:03 +0000, Tom Gardner
spam...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

On 02/02/22 10:26, Martin Brown wrote:
On 01/02/2022 11:36, Tom Gardner wrote:
On 01/02/22 10:28, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Tue, 1 Feb 2022 08:41:38 +0000, Tom Gardner
spam...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

Why can\'t
we deliberately change our genome to our benefit?

We will soon be able to. Future tense.

We already are for certain genetic disorders where the correct functioning gene
can be inserted into the relevant cells locally to correct a problem but without
altering any of the germ line cells.

https://www.nia.nih.gov/news/gene-therapy-techniques-restore-vision-damage-age-and-glaucoma-mice

To me \"insert into the genome\" implies the germ cell lines.

A gene has to get into a sperm or egg to be passed into a population.
A nose spray won\'t do that. [1]

That\'s another annoyance onto the random-mutation-selection concept.
Most mutations are in the wrong cells to be passed to descendents, and
most descendents will drop the ball anyhow.


That might annoy /you/, but it is not something that affects the
validity of the theory of evolution. It just means that random mutation
of genes within a cell is a slow modifier in the evolution of
multi-cellular organisms.

A far bigger effect is sexual mixup of genes, which is also a
\"random-mutation-selection\" concept but on a different scale.


[1] Barring horizontal transmission from viruses or kissing. Maybe
kissing is a way of sharing genes in a tribe. Maybe kissing is
biologically important.


Viruses are an important vector for evolution. They are a common source
of horizontal gene transfer in microbes. Mutation or gene transfer via
viruses does not happen often in higher organisms

Are you sure of that? Horizomtal transfer is a huge boost to
evolution, and everything has to evolve. Dispersion of improvements by
family descent is very inefficient.

No, everything does not have to evolve - there are lots of organisms
that have changed very little for perhaps hundreds of millions of years.
Horizontal transfers /can/ introduce new genes, but the /vast/ majority
of horizontal transfers are detrimental to the organism if they do
anything noticeable at all.

You may have heard of the \"immune system\". One of its jobs is to
minimise virus infections - identifying and destroying virus particles,
and destroying any cells that get infected. The better an organism\'s
immune system (and even bacteria have immune systems to counter
viruses), the lower the opportunity for virus infections of any sort,
never mind ones that transfer genes.

To get a horizontal transfer via a virus, you need multiple things to
happen. First, the virus must infect one host\'s cell but make a
monumental screw-up during the infection, so that a bit of the host\'s
DNA gets caught up along with the virus DNA when the cell replicates the
virus. That happens, but it\'s extremely rare - and usually such
mistakes means no successful virus production. Then this modified virus
needs to get into another host, and have another monumental screw-up on
the part of the virus /and/ on the part of the host cell, where the DNA
fragment gets mixed with the host\'s DNA. And then the host cell must
eliminate the virus (so that it doesn\'t die by virus reproduction), and
the DNA change must be non-fatal to the cell. If this happens in the
target host\'s germ cells then the mutation will pass on to the next
generation (probably killing them long before they can produce
descendants of their own). Otherwise you\'ve made either a one-off cell
change that ends with the cell\'s death, or a tumour.


And even if horizontal transfers /were/ as potentially useful for
evolution in the long term as you imagine, that does not mean it
happens. You have this bizarre belief that just because something is
useful or efficient (in your eyes at least), evolution will cause it to
evolve.

Evolution does not have aims, guides, or targets. It is not intelligent
or guided. It does not optimise, or reach ideal solutions. It does not
make huge leaps to new methods just because you think these might be a
good idea. It does not always eliminate bad traits and enhance good
ones. It does not necessarily lead to the best choices or the \"fittest\"
results.


(as you say, they have
to hit egg or sperm cells - and the great majority of mutations are
either lethal or have little significant effect). But they are vital
for getting completely new features into the population. The placenta
in mammals, for example, has been traced to virus gene transfer.

As for kissing - how exactly do you think that would transfer genes?

For one, by transferring viruses. Maybe even cells.

Do you not realise how ignorant that sounds?

Let\'s take an analogy that might make it simpler for you. A cell is
like an electronics board, and its genetic code is like the schematic
and pcb design for the board. Do you think you can change the designs
of the boards in some machine just by putting a different board beside
them? That\'s your \"cells transferred by kissing\" idea.

Perhaps you should bang the different boards together and see what
happens - that\'s the horizontal transfer. One time out of a billion you
might make a short-circuit, or break a track, that gives one of the
boards new characteristics that you hadn\'t seen before.

Compare that to taking two extremely similar designs (99% or more
match), and swapping a few corresponding sections of the schematic to
see if there is an improvement. If you\'ve swapped something critical,
it will probably not work at all. If you\'ve swapped some values of
filter components, maybe you\'ll get a slightly better filter. That is
the analogue of sexual reproduction.

Which method do /you/ think is going to be more successful?
If
you don\'t want that random brain-fart to be dismissed, you\'ll have to
justify why you think there is significant genetic material in spit,

Dismissed? Ideas should be played with. But I don\'t mind if you
instinctively attack ideas... less competition.

I offered you a chance to justify your idea before I dismissed it. It
turns out you had nothing. Good ideas are useful - but your view that
all ideas are somehow worthy for consideration is absurd. (I didn\'t
dismiss it out of hand - I thought about it, then dismissed it.)
People are put in prison based on the genes in a bit of spit.

Yes - so what? Do you think the DNA in someone else\'s spit magically
transforms you? Seriously? Do you also think that if you eat chicken,
you might sprout feathers? (Are you going to dismiss that idea out of
hand?) If a radioactive spider bites you and injects some of its DNA in
its saliva, is that going to turn you into a superhero? (Surely you
will play around with that idea too, to give you an edge on your
competition.)
Males kiss, as kissing the hand or ring of a king or the pope. Some
cultures kiss a lot more than we do.

And some do so less. None of that matters.
If kissing spreads disease, it would be deselected. But it\'s not. Same
with shaking hands... spreads germs!

Kissing /does/ spread disease - as does shaking hands, and any kind of
contact. But the benefits usually outweigh the risks.

https://youtu.be/N_q-DhQwZog?t=18

 

[whit3rd]

On Wednesday, February 2, 2022 at 8:51:36 AM UTC-8, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

On Wed, 2 Feb 2022 16:29:53 +0100, David Brown
david...@hesbynett.no> wrote:

As for kissing - how exactly do you think that would transfer genes?
For one, by transferring viruses. Maybe even cells.

Kissing is how you feed a non-chewing infant with solid food.
Infant feeding behavior is common to many species\' bonding
in pairs or groups.

It\'s a social thing, not genetics related.

 

[David Brown]

On 02/02/2022 17:55, Tom Gardner wrote:

On 02/02/22 16:42, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Wed, 2 Feb 2022 15:35:05 +0000, Tom Gardner
spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

On 02/02/22 14:35, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Wed, 2 Feb 2022 14:31:54 +0000, Tom Gardner
spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

On 02/02/22 13:49, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Wed, 2 Feb 2022 12:11:03 +0000, Tom Gardner
spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

On 02/02/22 10:26, Martin Brown wrote:
On 01/02/2022 11:36, Tom Gardner wrote:
On 01/02/22 10:28, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Tue, 1 Feb 2022 08:41:38 +0000, Tom Gardner
spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

Why can\'t
we deliberately change our genome to our benefit?

We will soon be able to. Future tense.

We already are for certain genetic disorders where the correct
functioning gene
can be inserted into the relevant cells locally to correct a
problem but without
altering any of the germ line cells.

https://www.nia.nih.gov/news/gene-therapy-techniques-restore-vision-damage-age-and-glaucoma-mice


To me \"insert into the genome\" implies the germ cell lines.

A gene has to get into a sperm or egg to be passed into a population.
A nose spray won\'t do that. [1]

That\'s another annoyance onto the random-mutation-selection concept.
Most mutations are in the wrong cells to be passed to descendents,
and
most descendents will drop the ball anyhow.

It is true that most mutations aren\'t in the sperm/egg cells - they
are in cancerous cells.

But so what? That\'s irrelevant to evolution mechanisms.

Instant hostility to new ideas must be hereditary too.

New ideas are ten-a-penny, and that\'s being generous.
Any idiot can generate ideas, and many do[1].

Certainly. We\'ve had brainstorming sessions when some intern said
something dumb that triggered a chain of thought that turned out to be
big. The key is to think and play and not slap.

So have I, many times - in a brainstorming session.

In a brainstorming session everybody knows that different
rules are operating. This isn\'t a brainstorming session,
and the normal rules of discussion and conversation apply.



Good, reasoned, justified ideas are worth much more,
because they are rare and the process takes time.

Crazy ideas may be in the path to that, if you don\'t kill them on
sight.

They should be killed before they escape from a brainstorming
session.

The craziest ones should, of course, be killed before escaping from the
mouth - even in brainstorming. It\'s fine to say - in brainstorming -
that people should not be embarrassed about giving crazy ideas, nor
should they be put down for suggesting them. But there is no need to
waste everyone\'s time with the silliest of ideas born from pure
ignorance of the topic in question.

(Trump could have benefited from learning this - along with the
distinction between a press conference and a wild brainstorming meeting.)

Larkin likes to pretend he has no limits to the ideas he will consider,
but everyone does.

He will, of course, dismiss my ideas here out of hand - simply because
they don\'t match /his/ ideas.

 

[Tom Gardner]

On 02/02/22 19:50, David Brown wrote:

On 02/02/2022 17:55, Tom Gardner wrote:
On 02/02/22 16:42, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Wed, 2 Feb 2022 15:35:05 +0000, Tom Gardner
spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

On 02/02/22 14:35, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Wed, 2 Feb 2022 14:31:54 +0000, Tom Gardner
spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

On 02/02/22 13:49, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Wed, 2 Feb 2022 12:11:03 +0000, Tom Gardner
spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

On 02/02/22 10:26, Martin Brown wrote:
On 01/02/2022 11:36, Tom Gardner wrote:
On 01/02/22 10:28, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Tue, 1 Feb 2022 08:41:38 +0000, Tom Gardner
spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

Why can\'t
we deliberately change our genome to our benefit?

We will soon be able to. Future tense.

We already are for certain genetic disorders where the correct
functioning gene
can be inserted into the relevant cells locally to correct a
problem but without
altering any of the germ line cells.

https://www.nia.nih.gov/news/gene-therapy-techniques-restore-vision-damage-age-and-glaucoma-mice


To me \"insert into the genome\" implies the germ cell lines.

A gene has to get into a sperm or egg to be passed into a population.
A nose spray won\'t do that. [1]

That\'s another annoyance onto the random-mutation-selection concept.
Most mutations are in the wrong cells to be passed to descendents,
and
most descendents will drop the ball anyhow.

It is true that most mutations aren\'t in the sperm/egg cells - they
are in cancerous cells.

But so what? That\'s irrelevant to evolution mechanisms.

Instant hostility to new ideas must be hereditary too.

New ideas are ten-a-penny, and that\'s being generous.
Any idiot can generate ideas, and many do[1].

Certainly. We\'ve had brainstorming sessions when some intern said
something dumb that triggered a chain of thought that turned out to be
big. The key is to think and play and not slap.

So have I, many times - in a brainstorming session.

In a brainstorming session everybody knows that different
rules are operating. This isn\'t a brainstorming session,
and the normal rules of discussion and conversation apply.



Good, reasoned, justified ideas are worth much more,
because they are rare and the process takes time.

Crazy ideas may be in the path to that, if you don\'t kill them on
sight.

They should be killed before they escape from a brainstorming
session.

The craziest ones should, of course, be killed before escaping from the
mouth - even in brainstorming.

I once provoked an interesting thought in a brainstorm about
networking by asking \"how would you do that with yoghurt?\"

It\'s fine to say - in brainstorming -
that people should not be embarrassed about giving crazy ideas, nor
should they be put down for suggesting them. But there is no need to
waste everyone\'s time with the silliest of ideas born from pure
ignorance of the topic in question.

Larkin appears not to understand that the second phase of
brainstorming is to prune the disassociated neural firings
into a much smaller set that is worth considering.

Compare and contrast that with evolution

(Trump could have benefited from learning this - along with the
distinction between a press conference and a wild brainstorming meeting.)

Oh, that bleach incident was both cringeworthy and revealing!

Larkin likes to pretend he has no limits to the ideas he will consider,
but everyone does.

He will, of course, dismiss my ideas here out of hand - simply because
they don\'t match /his/ ideas.

Not just your ideas!

 

[Don Y]

On 2/2/2022 1:41 PM, Tom Gardner wrote:

I once provoked an interesting thought in a brainstorm about
networking by asking \"how would you do that with yoghurt?\"

A big part of brainstorming is to defy the \"group-think\"
that so permeates organizations. To challenge what they
thin of as \"obvious\" and demand explanations for why things
\"must\" be a certain way (what makes that a *requirement*
other than \"that\'s how we\'ve always done it\" or \"that seems
the obvious way forward\")

This is particularly true of organizations that don\'t have
much inherent variety in their product offerings and much
market pressure to explore new options.