nonrandom mutations...

[David Brown]

On 06/02/2022 01:59, Joe Gwinn wrote:

On Sat, 5 Feb 2022 14:54:31 +0100, David Brown
david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:

On 04/02/2022 18:20, Joe Gwinn wrote:


You are talking past one another.


You are probably right.

I believe so. QED.

You are an unusually patient, calm and diplomatic poster. What are you
doing in this group?

 

[David Brown]

On 06/02/2022 02:50, John Larkin wrote:

Until we understand everything, things are still possible.

/Some/ things are possible. Other things are impossible. That is true
regardless of how much or how little you or anyone else understands.

It is good to keep an open mind - but not /so/ open that your brains
dribble out.

 

[John Larkin]

On Sun, 6 Feb 2022 15:45:24 +0100, David Brown
<david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:

On 06/02/2022 02:50, John Larkin wrote:


Until we understand everything, things are still possible.


/Some/ things are possible. Other things are impossible. That is true
regardless of how much or how little you or anyone else understands.

It is good to keep an open mind - but not /so/ open that your brains
dribble out.

Neo-Darwinism is at its core agressively anti-theological, so it
fights any hints of complexity beyond random selection and mutation,
lest it drift even slightly in the direction of cause in nature.

This interests me because it is yet another example of tribal beliefs
blocking thinking and discovery.

Jumping genes, junk DNA, epigenetics, horizontal gene transfer, are
all post-Darwin effects; some took 50 years to be accepted. There are
surely more.

google post darwin theories of evolution

--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc trk

The cork popped merrily, and Lord Peter rose to his feet.
\"Bunter\", he said, \"I give you a toast. The triumph of Instinct over Reason\"

 

[David Brown]

On 06/02/2022 17:15, John Larkin wrote:

On Sun, 6 Feb 2022 15:45:24 +0100, David Brown
david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:

On 06/02/2022 02:50, John Larkin wrote:


Until we understand everything, things are still possible.


/Some/ things are possible. Other things are impossible. That is true
regardless of how much or how little you or anyone else understands.

It is good to keep an open mind - but not /so/ open that your brains
dribble out.

Neo-Darwinism is at its core agressively anti-theological, so it
fights any hints of complexity beyond random selection and mutation,
lest it drift even slightly in the direction of cause in nature.

\"Neo-Darwinism\" is a term used by people who don\'t understand the
scientific view of evolution, and prefer something invoking an
\"intelligent designer\" (i.e., one or more gods).

Science does not \"fight\" anything, except perhaps ignorance. If someone
were to provide evidence that there was a direction, planning, or
intelligence of some sort behind evolution as seen on earth, then
scientists would accept that as proof that the current theories are
wrong (or at least incomplete and inaccurate), and be forced to come up
with something new that fits all the old evidence and the new evidence.

Scientists love doing that. Good scientists like to be proven wrong,
because they understand that\'s how science progresses. /All/ scientists
enjoy being able to prove other scientists and existing theories wrong.

Lots of people have tried to find evidence of direction or goals in
evolution. That includes laymen, scientists, theologians, and many
others. None have found anything.


And no, neither science in general nor evolutionary biology in
particular have any \"anti-theological\" agenda. Science simply doesn\'t
care. There is no proof for a god of any sort, no need to introduce one
in any theory, and no reason to think about one. They are not
\"anti-theological\" any more than they are \"anti-pink-unicorns\". Some
individual scientists may be anti-religion, or outspoken pro-atheist,
just as some are highly religious. But that\'s a personal thing, not a
science thing. (Anyone who argues that science disproves the existence
of god or gods is as wrong as those who argue that science /proves/
their existence.)

This interests me because it is yet another example of tribal beliefs
blocking thinking and discovery.

Take a look in the mirror, and try to see who /really/ has tribal
beliefs that misunderstand science.

Jumping genes, junk DNA, epigenetics, horizontal gene transfer, are
all post-Darwin effects; some took 50 years to be accepted. There are
surely more.

Sure. No one is claiming that we have a /full/ understanding of
biology, either present biology or its history through the ages. We are
continually finding new ways in which genetic information is or has been
transferred, as well as how it is expressed and controlled. We are
continually examining different organisms in more detail, and finding
new details in how this all works. And scientists are sceptics - it is
part of their job description to demand evidence. They don\'t accept
things just because one person says so - they want to see data, and
experiments. They want the experiments to be repeated by others to show
it was not just luck, or experimental evidence. The more dramatic the
claim, the more evidence they want to see supporting it. And when the
evidence is strong enough, the state of the \"current best theories\" is
updated.

But what we can be sure about - as sure as we are that gravity makes
bricks fall when you drop them - is that the fundamentals of evolution
are known. There are mechanisms for passing traits onto future
generations (primarily genes, but also other biochemical or
environmental factors). There are mechanisms for random mutations
(sexual intermixing, copy-error mutations, and other mechanisms). And
there are mechanisms for selection (survival of the breeding line). We
know this. We are still filling in details, but the big picture is there.

To rock that, would require something extraordinary. We\'d need to see a
copyright notice on a gene, or a billion-year old human fossil, or a dog
giving birth to a cat, or an intelligent virus with a battle plan for
its evolution, or a god that shows how he/she/it guides evolution. Find
one of these, and the science will be changed to fit.

In the meantime, remember that \"Plague Inc.\" is a game (quite a fun
one), and real evolution is not guided.

 

[John Larkin]

On Sun, 6 Feb 2022 18:44:14 +0100, David Brown
<david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:

On 06/02/2022 17:15, John Larkin wrote:
On Sun, 6 Feb 2022 15:45:24 +0100, David Brown
david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:

On 06/02/2022 02:50, John Larkin wrote:


Until we understand everything, things are still possible.


/Some/ things are possible. Other things are impossible. That is true
regardless of how much or how little you or anyone else understands.

It is good to keep an open mind - but not /so/ open that your brains
dribble out.

Neo-Darwinism is at its core agressively anti-theological, so it
fights any hints of complexity beyond random selection and mutation,
lest it drift even slightly in the direction of cause in nature.

\"Neo-Darwinism\" is a term used by people who don\'t understand the
scientific view of evolution, and prefer something invoking an
\"intelligent designer\" (i.e., one or more gods).

Science does not \"fight\" anything, except perhaps ignorance. If someone
were to provide evidence that there was a direction, planning, or
intelligence of some sort behind evolution as seen on earth, then
scientists would accept that as proof that the current theories are
wrong (or at least incomplete and inaccurate), and be forced to come up
with something new that fits all the old evidence and the new evidence.

Scientists love doing that. Good scientists like to be proven wrong,
because they understand that\'s how science progresses. /All/ scientists
enjoy being able to prove other scientists and existing theories wrong.

Absolutely not. Science is mostly social, and establishments resist
new ideas.

Try \"Finding The Mother Tree.\"

Lots of people have tried to find evidence of direction or goals in
evolution. That includes laymen, scientists, theologians, and many
others. None have found anything.


And no, neither science in general nor evolutionary biology in
particular have any \"anti-theological\" agenda. Science simply doesn\'t
care. There is no proof for a god of any sort, no need to introduce one
in any theory, and no reason to think about one. They are not
\"anti-theological\" any more than they are \"anti-pink-unicorns\". Some
individual scientists may be anti-religion, or outspoken pro-atheist,
just as some are highly religious. But that\'s a personal thing, not a
science thing. (Anyone who argues that science disproves the existence
of god or gods is as wrong as those who argue that science /proves/
their existence.)


This interests me because it is yet another example of tribal beliefs
blocking thinking and discovery.

Take a look in the mirror, and try to see who /really/ has tribal
beliefs that misunderstand science.

I appear alone in a mirror. I belong to no tribe.

That\'s one reason why I design things.

Jumping genes, junk DNA, epigenetics, horizontal gene transfer, are
all post-Darwin effects; some took 50 years to be accepted. There are
surely more.


Sure. No one is claiming that we have a /full/ understanding of
biology, either present biology or its history through the ages.

Than leave room for new ideas.

--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc trk

The cork popped merrily, and Lord Peter rose to his feet.
\"Bunter\", he said, \"I give you a toast. The triumph of Instinct over Reason\"

 

[Jeroen Belleman]

On 2022-02-06 18:44, David Brown wrote:
[...]

Scientists love doing that. Good scientists like to be proven wrong,
because they understand that\'s how science progresses. /All/ scientists
enjoy being able to prove other scientists and existing theories wrong.

Scientists don\'t like to _be_ proven wrong, but they sure like to prove
other scientists wrong!

Jeroen Belleman

 

[Rick C]

On Sunday, February 6, 2022 at 11:15:33 AM UTC-5, John Larkin wrote:

On Sun, 6 Feb 2022 15:45:24 +0100, David Brown
david...@hesbynett.no> wrote:

On 06/02/2022 02:50, John Larkin wrote:


Until we understand everything, things are still possible.


/Some/ things are possible. Other things are impossible. That is true
regardless of how much or how little you or anyone else understands.

It is good to keep an open mind - but not /so/ open that your brains
dribble out.
Neo-Darwinism is at its core agressively anti-theological,

There is nothing about science that is \"anti-theological\". They are orthogonal. They address completely different aspects of life. Anyone who suggests they are in conflict in any way does not understand one, the other or both... most likely both.

The conflicts arise when specific people try to interpret writings by other specific people about either religion or science. The conflicts are mostly created when someone has a purpose to a creating conflict, as is true for most conflicts in general.

--

Rick C.

++ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
++ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[Rick C]

On Sunday, February 6, 2022 at 12:52:47 PM UTC-5, John Larkin wrote:

On Sun, 6 Feb 2022 18:44:14 +0100, David Brown
david...@hesbynett.no> wrote:

On 06/02/2022 17:15, John Larkin wrote:
On Sun, 6 Feb 2022 15:45:24 +0100, David Brown
david...@hesbynett.no> wrote:

On 06/02/2022 02:50, John Larkin wrote:


Until we understand everything, things are still possible.


/Some/ things are possible. Other things are impossible. That is true
regardless of how much or how little you or anyone else understands.

It is good to keep an open mind - but not /so/ open that your brains
dribble out.

Neo-Darwinism is at its core agressively anti-theological, so it
fights any hints of complexity beyond random selection and mutation,
lest it drift even slightly in the direction of cause in nature.

\"Neo-Darwinism\" is a term used by people who don\'t understand the
scientific view of evolution, and prefer something invoking an
\"intelligent designer\" (i.e., one or more gods).

Science does not \"fight\" anything, except perhaps ignorance. If someone
were to provide evidence that there was a direction, planning, or
intelligence of some sort behind evolution as seen on earth, then
scientists would accept that as proof that the current theories are
wrong (or at least incomplete and inaccurate), and be forced to come up
with something new that fits all the old evidence and the new evidence.

Scientists love doing that. Good scientists like to be proven wrong,
because they understand that\'s how science progresses. /All/ scientists
enjoy being able to prove other scientists and existing theories wrong.
Absolutely not. Science is mostly social, and establishments resist
new ideas.

Here is an excellent example of what Larkin is talking about. There are some in science who close their minds to new ideas, namely Larkin. He refuses to consider anything David Brown posted in spite of the voluminous evidence to the contrary. Science journals are full of people proving other people wrong.

Try \"Finding The Mother Tree.\"

Lots of people have tried to find evidence of direction or goals in
evolution. That includes laymen, scientists, theologians, and many
others. None have found anything.


And no, neither science in general nor evolutionary biology in
particular have any \"anti-theological\" agenda. Science simply doesn\'t
care. There is no proof for a god of any sort, no need to introduce one
in any theory, and no reason to think about one. They are not
\"anti-theological\" any more than they are \"anti-pink-unicorns\". Some
individual scientists may be anti-religion, or outspoken pro-atheist,
just as some are highly religious. But that\'s a personal thing, not a
science thing. (Anyone who argues that science disproves the existence
of god or gods is as wrong as those who argue that science /proves/
their existence.)


This interests me because it is yet another example of tribal beliefs
blocking thinking and discovery.

Take a look in the mirror, and try to see who /really/ has tribal
beliefs that misunderstand science.
I appear alone in a mirror. I belong to no tribe.

That\'s one reason why I design things.


Jumping genes, junk DNA, epigenetics, horizontal gene transfer, are
all post-Darwin effects; some took 50 years to be accepted. There are
surely more.


Sure. No one is claiming that we have a /full/ understanding of
biology, either present biology or its history through the ages.
Than leave room for new ideas.

You mean ideas like AGW?

--

Rick C.

-- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
-- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[whit3rd]

On Sunday, February 6, 2022 at 9:52:47 AM UTC-8, John Larkin wrote:

On Sun, 6 Feb 2022 18:44:14 +0100, David Brown
david...@hesbynett.no> wrote:

On 06/02/2022 17:15, John Larkin wrote:

Neo-Darwinism is at its core agressively anti-theological, so it
fights any hints of complexity beyond random selection and mutation,
lest it drift even slightly in the direction of cause in nature.

\"Neo-Darwinism\" is a term used by people who don\'t understand the
scientific view of evolution, and prefer something invoking an
\"intelligent designer\" (i.e., one or more gods).

Science does not \"fight\" anything, except perhaps ignorance.
...Good scientists like to be proven wrong,
because they understand that\'s how science progresses. /All/ scientists
enjoy being able to prove other scientists and existing theories wrong.

Absolutely not. Science is mostly social, and establishments resist
new ideas.

Nonsense. Any multiperson activity is \'social\' in a sense, but science has the goal
of seeking/testing/using information. That\'s not a social goal. Scientists\' main social concern
is education, propogation of ideas, and never \'resist new ideas\'.
Trying to call science an \'establishment\' is another major error: science means
knowledge and understanding, it is NOT identical to any establishment.
I have fingers, but I am not a finger. Science has establishments, but it is
not an establishment.

 

[Tom Gardner]

On 06/02/22 16:15, John Larkin wrote:

On Sun, 6 Feb 2022 15:45:24 +0100, David Brown
david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:

On 06/02/2022 02:50, John Larkin wrote:


Until we understand everything, things are still possible.


/Some/ things are possible. Other things are impossible. That is true
regardless of how much or how little you or anyone else understands.

It is good to keep an open mind - but not /so/ open that your brains
dribble out.

Neo-Darwinism is at its core agressively anti-theological,

Laplace summed it up when Napoleon asked him why one of his
theories made no reference to God. God. Laplace is said to
have replied, “Je n’avais pas besoin de cette hypothèse-là.
(“I had no need of that hypothesis.”)

It is convenient for the less well educated/informed
religious believers to /claim/ that Darwinism is anti-God.
That enable them to falsely cast people that understand
evolution as Them (not Us).

I wonder whether John\'s response, if any, will be akin to
\"all crows are black birds, so all black birds are crows\".

 

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Monday, February 7, 2022 at 4:52:47 AM UTC+11, John Larkin wrote:

On Sun, 6 Feb 2022 18:44:14 +0100, David Brown <david...@hesbynett.no> wrote:
On 06/02/2022 17:15, John Larkin wrote:
On Sun, 6 Feb 2022 15:45:24 +0100, David Brown
david...@hesbynett.no> wrote:
On 06/02/2022 02:50, John Larkin wrote:

Until we understand everything, things are still possible.


/Some/ things are possible. Other things are impossible. That is true
regardless of how much or how little you or anyone else understands.

It is good to keep an open mind - but not /so/ open that your brains
dribble out.

Neo-Darwinism is at its core aggressively anti-theological, so it
fights any hints of complexity beyond random selection and mutation,
lest it drift even slightly in the direction of cause in nature.

Twaddle. It gets a bit snooty about the \"watchmaker\" fallacy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Blind_Watchmaker

Richard Dawkins is an aggressive atheist, so he uses the opportunity to go after the \"intelligent design\" crowd, but he isn\'t the only neo-Darwinist around and he isn\'t any kind of representative example of the breed.

\"Neo-Darwinism\" is a term used by people who don\'t understand the
scientific view of evolution, and prefer something invoking an
\"intelligent designer\" (i.e., one or more gods).

Science does not \"fight\" anything, except perhaps ignorance. If someone
were to provide evidence that there was a direction, planning, or
intelligence of some sort behind evolution as seen on earth, then
scientists would accept that as proof that the current theories are
wrong (or at least incomplete and inaccurate), and be forced to come up
with something new that fits all the old evidence and the new evidence.

Scientists love doing that. Good scientists like to be proven wrong,
because they understand that\'s how science progresses. /All/ scientists
enjoy being able to prove other scientists and existing theories wrong.

Absolutely not. Science is mostly social, and establishments resist
new ideas.

Try \"Finding The Mother Tree.\"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finding_the_Mother_Tree

That wasn\'t so much science as the \"clear-felling and plant a pine plantation\" industry. Nobody likes being told that what they are doing doesn\'t work as well as it should, and they actively resist changing their ways to do something that would work better.

That wasn\'t science resisting new ideas, but rather the aboreal equivalent of the fossil-carbon extraction industry.

Science is a social system that has been developed to accommodate and encourage new ideas, and it works remarkably well. Sadly. you don\'t know a thing about it.

Lots of people have tried to find evidence of direction or goals in evolution. That includes laymen, scientists, theologians, and many
others. None have found anything.

And no, neither science in general nor evolutionary biology in particular have any \"anti-theological\" agenda. Science simply doesn\'t care. There is no proof for a god of any sort, no need to introduce one in any theory, and no reason to think about one. They are not \"anti-theological\" any more than they are \"anti-pink-unicorns\". Some individual scientists may be anti-religion, or outspoken pro-atheist, just as some are highly religious. But that\'s a personal thing, not a science thing. (Anyone who argues that science disproves the existence of god or gods is as wrong as those who argue that science /proves/ their existence.)

If there was any evidence that god or gods existed, science could probably test it. Nothing has come up so far.

This interests me because it is yet another example of tribal beliefs blocking thinking and discovery.

Take a look in the mirror, and try to see who /really/ has tribal beliefs that misunderstand science.

I appear alone in a mirror. I belong to no tribe.

Ignorant people are ignorant about being members the ignorant tribe. They don\'t know enough to realise how little they know.

> That\'s one reason why I design things.

Or think that your approach to developing new products amounts to some kind of design process. If you don\'t know what\'s involved in actual design you can think that persistent tweaking is a kind of design process. Anybody who has had to clean up after that kind of \"design\" knows different.

> >> Jumping genes, junk DNA, epigenetics, horizontal gene transfer, are all post-Darwin effects; some took 50 years to be accepted. There are surely more.

So what? \"Junk DNA\" isn\'t junk but rather operating programs.

Sure. No one is claiming that we have a /full/ understanding of biology, either present biology or its history through the ages.

Than leave room for new ideas.

But lay off posting bad ideas that have long since been exploded. That would meaning learning a bit more about the subject, so you could recognise bad old ideas and not waste our time telling us about them

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[server]

Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in news:stph8d$r00$2
@dont-email.me:

I wonder whether John\'s response, if any, will be akin to
\"all crows are black birds, so all black birds are crows\".

Should ask Whoopie on that one, eh?

Aboriginals are their own race, but she would call them \'black\'.

 

[Tom Gardner]

On 07/02/22 02:45, Anthony William Sloman wrote:

On Monday, February 7, 2022 at 4:52:47 AM UTC+11, John Larkin wrote:
Than leave room for new ideas.

But lay off posting bad ideas that have long since been exploded. That would
meaning learning a bit more about the subject, so you could recognise bad old
ideas and not waste our time telling us about them

As I told my daughter, \"try to make /new/ mistakes\".

There are so many old mistakes that a lifetime is
too short to make them all yourself.

 

[Tom Gardner]

On 08/02/22 01:40, Joe Gwinn wrote:

The test of understanding is the ability fairly state the argument of
an opponent, as judged by that opponent.

That is a very valuable skill in all sorts of areas, including
negotiating sales and conflict resolution - and warfare.