why-did-darwins-20th-century-followers-get-evolution-so-wrong...

[Fred Bloggs]

It\'s much more complicated than most people want to know. And this stuff about random mutations and natural selection that most people were taught turns out to be totally wrong, off the mark, having nothing to do with the reality.

This is not theoretical speculation, it the conclusion of modern 21st century collected data.

\"By turning evolutionary variation from random accidents to biological responses [ many different types of responses documented ], 21st-century molecular genetics and genomics have revealed that living organisms possess tremendous potential for adaptive genome reconfiguration.\"

Somewhat challenging read on the topic, but still accessible to the non-specialist:

https://aeon.co/essays/why-did-darwins-20th-century-followers-get-evolution-so-wrong

 

[John Larkin]

On Fri, 7 Jul 2023 11:39:18 -0700 (PDT), Fred Bloggs
<bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com> wrote:

It\'s much more complicated than most people want to know. And this stuff about random mutations and natural selection that most people were taught turns out to be totally wrong, off the mark, having nothing to do with the reality.

This is not theoretical speculation, it the conclusion of modern 21st century collected data.

\"By turning evolutionary variation from random accidents to biological responses [ many different types of responses documented ], 21st-century molecular genetics and genomics have revealed that living organisms possess tremendous potential for adaptive genome reconfiguration.\"

Somewhat challenging read on the topic, but still accessible to the non-specialist:

https://aeon.co/essays/why-did-darwins-20th-century-followers-get-evolution-so-wrong

Of course. If evolution can create fantastically complex chemistry and
structures and organisms, why would evolution itself remain dumb?

Evolution evolves too.

Dawkins was especially obtuse. He was is atheist before he was a
biologists so kept far away from anything that hinted of higher-level
phenoms. He was boring, too.

 

[Fred Bloggs]

On Friday, July 7, 2023 at 4:20:48 PM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:

On Fri, 7 Jul 2023 11:39:18 -0700 (PDT), Fred Bloggs
bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:

It\'s much more complicated than most people want to know. And this stuff about random mutations and natural selection that most people were taught turns out to be totally wrong, off the mark, having nothing to do with the reality.

This is not theoretical speculation, it the conclusion of modern 21st century collected data.

\"By turning evolutionary variation from random accidents to biological responses [ many different types of responses documented ], 21st-century molecular genetics and genomics have revealed that living organisms possess tremendous potential for adaptive genome reconfiguration.\"

Somewhat challenging read on the topic, but still accessible to the non-specialist:

https://aeon.co/essays/why-did-darwins-20th-century-followers-get-evolution-so-wrong
Of course. If evolution can create fantastically complex chemistry and
structures and organisms, why would evolution itself remain dumb?

Evolution evolves too.

Dawkins was especially obtuse. He was is atheist before he was a
biologists so kept far away from anything that hinted of higher-level
phenoms. He was boring, too.

Once they completely characterize the process, the hybrid speciation can become a tool for mankind\'s survival on the uninhabitable Earth. The new species has to be able to tolerate 150o days, with little water and food. Seems the lizard is a good candidate. Creating a new species of lizard people is certainly more cost effective than the alternative planet colonization pipe dream.

 

[John Larkin]

On Fri, 7 Jul 2023 13:41:42 -0700 (PDT), Fred Bloggs
<bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com> wrote:

On Friday, July 7, 2023 at 4:20:48?PM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:
On Fri, 7 Jul 2023 11:39:18 -0700 (PDT), Fred Bloggs
bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:

It\'s much more complicated than most people want to know. And this stuff about random mutations and natural selection that most people were taught turns out to be totally wrong, off the mark, having nothing to do with the reality.

This is not theoretical speculation, it the conclusion of modern 21st century collected data.

\"By turning evolutionary variation from random accidents to biological responses [ many different types of responses documented ], 21st-century molecular genetics and genomics have revealed that living organisms possess tremendous potential for adaptive genome reconfiguration.\"

Somewhat challenging read on the topic, but still accessible to the non-specialist:

https://aeon.co/essays/why-did-darwins-20th-century-followers-get-evolution-so-wrong
Of course. If evolution can create fantastically complex chemistry and
structures and organisms, why would evolution itself remain dumb?

Evolution evolves too.

Dawkins was especially obtuse. He was is atheist before he was a
biologists so kept far away from anything that hinted of higher-level
phenoms. He was boring, too.

Once they completely characterize the process, the hybrid speciation can become a tool for mankind\'s survival on the uninhabitable Earth.

Earth looks fabulous to me; Mo thinks it\'s too cold. I\'d inhabit it
for another thousand years if I could.

>The new species has to be able to tolerate 150o days, with little water and food. Seems the lizard is a good candidate. Creating a new species of lizard people is certainly more cost effective than the alternative planet colonization pipe dream.

Are lizards good to eat?

 

[Fred Bloggs]

On Friday, July 7, 2023 at 4:56:25 PM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:

On Fri, 7 Jul 2023 13:41:42 -0700 (PDT), Fred Bloggs
bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Friday, July 7, 2023 at 4:20:48?PM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:
On Fri, 7 Jul 2023 11:39:18 -0700 (PDT), Fred Bloggs
bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:

It\'s much more complicated than most people want to know. And this stuff about random mutations and natural selection that most people were taught turns out to be totally wrong, off the mark, having nothing to do with the reality.

This is not theoretical speculation, it the conclusion of modern 21st century collected data.

\"By turning evolutionary variation from random accidents to biological responses [ many different types of responses documented ], 21st-century molecular genetics and genomics have revealed that living organisms possess tremendous potential for adaptive genome reconfiguration.\"

Somewhat challenging read on the topic, but still accessible to the non-specialist:

https://aeon.co/essays/why-did-darwins-20th-century-followers-get-evolution-so-wrong
Of course. If evolution can create fantastically complex chemistry and
structures and organisms, why would evolution itself remain dumb?

Evolution evolves too.

Dawkins was especially obtuse. He was is atheist before he was a
biologists so kept far away from anything that hinted of higher-level
phenoms. He was boring, too.

Once they completely characterize the process, the hybrid speciation can become a tool for mankind\'s survival on the uninhabitable Earth.
Earth looks fabulous to me; Mo thinks it\'s too cold. I\'d inhabit it
for another thousand years if I could.

What goes around comes around. SF climate will change.

The new species has to be able to tolerate 150o days, with little water and food. Seems the lizard is a good candidate. Creating a new species of lizard people is certainly more cost effective than the alternative planet colonization pipe dream.
Are lizards good to eat?

I\'m sure somebody somewhere eats them. They certainly eat enough of each other.

I ran a g-search on \"lizard cuisine\" and it turned up a bunch lunatics who prepare and eat them. Just make sure the internal temperature is maintained at 160o for however long it takes to kill whatever they might be harboring..

 

[John Larkin]

On Fri, 7 Jul 2023 14:06:48 -0700 (PDT), Fred Bloggs
<bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com> wrote:

On Friday, July 7, 2023 at 4:56:25?PM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:
On Fri, 7 Jul 2023 13:41:42 -0700 (PDT), Fred Bloggs
bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Friday, July 7, 2023 at 4:20:48?PM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:
On Fri, 7 Jul 2023 11:39:18 -0700 (PDT), Fred Bloggs
bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:

It\'s much more complicated than most people want to know. And this stuff about random mutations and natural selection that most people were taught turns out to be totally wrong, off the mark, having nothing to do with the reality.

This is not theoretical speculation, it the conclusion of modern 21st century collected data.

\"By turning evolutionary variation from random accidents to biological responses [ many different types of responses documented ], 21st-century molecular genetics and genomics have revealed that living organisms possess tremendous potential for adaptive genome reconfiguration.\"

Somewhat challenging read on the topic, but still accessible to the non-specialist:

https://aeon.co/essays/why-did-darwins-20th-century-followers-get-evolution-so-wrong
Of course. If evolution can create fantastically complex chemistry and
structures and organisms, why would evolution itself remain dumb?

Evolution evolves too.

Dawkins was especially obtuse. He was is atheist before he was a
biologists so kept far away from anything that hinted of higher-level
phenoms. He was boring, too.

Once they completely characterize the process, the hybrid speciation can become a tool for mankind\'s survival on the uninhabitable Earth.
Earth looks fabulous to me; Mo thinks it\'s too cold. I\'d inhabit it
for another thousand years if I could.

What goes around comes around. SF climate will change.

Hope so. This heating is expensive.

The new species has to be able to tolerate 150o days, with little water and food. Seems the lizard is a good candidate. Creating a new species of lizard people is certainly more cost effective than the alternative planet colonization pipe dream.
Are lizards good to eat?

I\'m sure somebody somewhere eats them. They certainly eat enough of each other.

I ran a g-search on \"lizard cuisine\" and it turned up a bunch lunatics who prepare and eat them. Just make sure the internal temperature is maintained at 160o for however long it takes to kill whatever they might be harboring.

There was an interesting piece about fungi and temperatures I heard
recently. Fungi can\'t stand heat and human body temp is optimum to
kill them. Lizards lie in the sun to kill their fungi.

 

[whit3rd]

On Friday, July 7, 2023 at 11:39:25 AM UTC-7, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> It\'s much more complicated than most people want to know. And this stuff about random mutations and natural selection that most people were taught turns out to be totally wrong, off the mark, having nothing to do with the reality.

But, the idea of Darwin having followers is itself strange; ducklings follow the duck,
but scientists follow the observations, not the individual making those observations.
Or, in a sense, every one born after Darwin is a follower. In another sense, anyone
who accepts his conclusions (as, for instance, I accept his analysis of earthworm action)
is a follower, in the literary-tradition sense.

Is this just a dismissal of 20th-century science on the grounds of \'controversy\'?

.... that\'s not going on my to-be-read list.

 

[John Larkin]

On Fri, 7 Jul 2023 17:27:31 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com>
wrote:

On Friday, July 7, 2023 at 11:39:25?AM UTC-7, Fred Bloggs wrote:
It\'s much more complicated than most people want to know. And this stuff about random mutations and natural selection that most people were taught turns out to be totally wrong, off the mark, having nothing to do with the reality.

But, the idea of Darwin having followers is itself strange; ducklings follow the duck,
but scientists follow the observations, not the individual making those observations.

Like most people, scientist follow their peers, the people around
them. That creates an interesting social dynamic.

 

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Saturday, July 8, 2023 at 4:39:25 AM UTC+10, Fred Bloggs wrote:

It\'s much more complicated than most people want to know. And this stuff about random mutations and natural selection that most people were taught turns out to be totally wrong, off the mark, having nothing to do with the reality.

This is not theoretical speculation, it the conclusion of modern 21st century collected data.

\"By turning evolutionary variation from random accidents to biological responses [ many different types of responses documented ], 21st-century molecular genetics and genomics have revealed that living organisms possess tremendous potential for adaptive genome reconfiguration.\"

Somewhat challenging read on the topic, but still accessible to the non-specialist:

https://aeon.co/essays/why-did-darwins-20th-century-followers-get-evolution-so-wrong

What\'s accessible to the non-specialist is that James A Shapiro is an apologist for intelligent design, and his claims about what evolutionary biologists believe are straw man distortions of current attitudes.

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

It\'s a steaming heap of misrepresentation.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Saturday, July 8, 2023 at 6:56:25 AM UTC+10, John Larkin wrote:

On Fri, 7 Jul 2023 13:41:42 -0700 (PDT), Fred Bloggs <bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Friday, July 7, 2023 at 4:20:48?PM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:
On Fri, 7 Jul 2023 11:39:18 -0700 (PDT), Fred Bloggs <bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:

It\'s much more complicated than most people want to know. And this stuff about random mutations and natural selection that most people were taught turns out to be totally wrong, off the mark, having nothing to do with the reality.

This is not theoretical speculation, it the conclusion of modern 21st century collected data.

It\'s \"intelligent design\" by another name.

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

<snip>

Of course. If evolution can create fantastically complex chemistry and
structures and organisms, why would evolution itself remain dumb?

Because it\'s difficult for the hypothetical genetic engineer to know what it is doing.

> >> Evolution evolves too.

But it has to evolve genetic engineers before it can take up genetic engineering.

> >> Dawkins was especially obtuse. He was is atheist before he was a biologists so kept far away from anything that hinted of higher-level phenoms. He was boring, too.

People smarter than John Larkin find him less boring

> >Once they completely characterize the process, the hybrid speciation can become a tool for mankind\'s survival on the uninhabitable Earth.

And the sky will be full of flying pigs.

> Earth looks fabulous to me; Mo thinks it\'s too cold. I\'d inhabit it for another thousand years if I could.

So would lots of other creatures. Mortality has it\'s advantages, mainly for the next generation.

The new species has to be able to tolerate 150 degree days, with little water and food. Seems the lizard is a good candidate. Creating a new species of lizard people is certainly more cost effective than the alternative planet colonization pipe dream.

Are lizards good to eat?

Australian aborigines certainly eat them. Gourmet cookery doesn\'t seem to offer any of them, even in central Australian tourist traps.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Saturday, July 8, 2023 at 11:15:04 AM UTC+10, John Larkin wrote:

On Fri, 7 Jul 2023 17:27:31 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Friday, July 7, 2023 at 11:39:25?AM UTC-7, Fred Bloggs wrote:
It\'s much more complicated than most people want to know. And this stuff about random mutations and natural selection that most people were taught turns out to be totally wrong, off the mark, having nothing to do with the reality.

But, the idea of Darwin having followers is itself strange; ducklings follow the duck, but scientists follow the observations, not the individual making those observations.

Like most people, scientist follow their peers, the people around them. That creates an interesting social dynamic.

John Larkin doesn\'t know how peer-review works, and doesn\'t like it when his silly ideas get exposed to informed criticism.

Scientist don\'t follow their peers - they criticise them and cite the one\'s whose work they like. It can be a bit ego-bruising and John Larkin does hate it and resent it when his sillier ideas get subject to peer-review.

There\'s not a lot of ignorant hero-worship in the scientific community, and chucking obsolescent rubbish has allowed scientific knowledge to accumulate rapidly over the last few hundred years and spawn some interesting technical advances.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Saturday, July 8, 2023 at 6:41:48 AM UTC+10, Fred Bloggs wrote:

On Friday, July 7, 2023 at 4:20:48 PM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:
On Fri, 7 Jul 2023 11:39:18 -0700 (PDT), Fred Bloggs
bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:

It\'s much more complicated than most people want to know. And this stuff about random mutations and natural selection that most people were taught turns out to be totally wrong, off the mark, having nothing to do with the reality.

This is not theoretical speculation, it the conclusion of modern 21st century collected data.

\"By turning evolutionary variation from random accidents to biological responses [ many different types of responses documented ], 21st-century molecular genetics and genomics have revealed that living organisms possess tremendous potential for adaptive genome reconfiguration.\"

Somewhat challenging read on the topic, but still accessible to the non-specialist:

https://aeon.co/essays/why-did-darwins-20th-century-followers-get-evolution-so-wrong

snipped John Larki chiming in in support of \"intelligent design\" also known as \"creation science\" and \"fundamentalist twaddle\".

Once they completely characterize the process, the hybrid speciation can become a tool for mankind\'s survival on the uninhabitable Earth. The new species has to be able to tolerate 150 degree days, with little water and food. Seems the lizard is a good candidate. Creating a new species of lizard people is certainly more cost effective than the alternative planet colonization pipe dream.

James A Shapiro isn\'t going to characterise anything. He just an intelligent design apologist.

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

--
Bill Sloman., Sydney

 

[whit3rd]

On Friday, July 7, 2023 at 6:15:04 PM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:

On Fri, 7 Jul 2023 17:27:31 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Friday, July 7, 2023 at 11:39:25?AM UTC-7, Fred Bloggs wrote:
It\'s much more complicated than most people want to know. And this stuff about random mutations and natural selection that most people were taught turns out to be totally wrong, off the mark, having nothing to do with the reality.

But, the idea of Darwin having followers is itself strange; ducklings follow the duck,
but scientists follow the observations, not the individual making those observations.

Like most people, scientist follow their peers, the people around
them. That creates an interesting social dynamic.

Well, it depends on what interests you. It\'s amusing, too, to color-coordinate resistor bands
to make patterns; the red is a Serpinski curve, while the yellow has been
managed into a brick-road design.

Me, I\'ll continue to admire Darwin\'s tome on the origin of vegetable mould, and
not digress into his social dynamic. Worms rule!

 

[Jan Panteltje]

On a sunny day (Fri, 7 Jul 2023 11:39:18 -0700 (PDT)) it happened Fred Bloggs
<bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com> wrote in
<8f1ddc7e-4c27-4947-8935-4c1c2c0c0298n@googlegroups.com>:

It\'s much more complicated than most people want to know. And this stuff ab=
out random mutations and natural selection that most people were taught tur=
ns out to be totally wrong, off the mark, having nothing to do with the rea=
lity.

This is not theoretical speculation, it the conclusion of modern 21st centu=
ry collected data.

\"By turning evolutionary variation from random accidents to biological resp=
onses [ many different types of responses documented ], 21st-century molecu=
lar genetics and genomics have revealed that living organisms possess treme=
ndous potential for adaptive genome reconfiguration.\"

Somewhat challenging read on the topic, but still accessible to the non-spe=
cialist:

https://aeon.co/essays/why-did-darwins-20th-century-followers-get-evolution=
-so-wrong

Life is self-assembling, like atoms are self-assembling
We Are All Stardust

 

[Fred Bloggs]

On Friday, July 7, 2023 at 9:52:29 PM UTC-4, Anthony William Sloman wrote:

On Saturday, July 8, 2023 at 6:56:25 AM UTC+10, John Larkin wrote:
On Fri, 7 Jul 2023 13:41:42 -0700 (PDT), Fred Bloggs <bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Friday, July 7, 2023 at 4:20:48?PM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:
On Fri, 7 Jul 2023 11:39:18 -0700 (PDT), Fred Bloggs <bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:

It\'s much more complicated than most people want to know. And this stuff about random mutations and natural selection that most people were taught turns out to be totally wrong, off the mark, having nothing to do with the reality.

This is not theoretical speculation, it the conclusion of modern 21st century collected data.
It\'s \"intelligent design\" by another name.

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

It most certainly is not a theory of intelligent design. That particular association resulted from his acceptance by the intelligent design believers as just more proof of their thesis.

\"The work gained some measure of notoriety after being championed by proponents of Intelligent Design, despite Shapiro\'s explicit repudiation of that movement.\"

\"Natural genetic engineering has been cited as a legitimate scientific controversy (in contrast to the controversies raised by various branches of creationism).[14] While Shapiro considers the questions raised by Intelligent Design to be interesting, he parts ways with creationists by considering these problems to be scientifically tractable (specifically by understanding how NGE plays a role in the evolution of novelty).[6]\"

\"While Dembski sees this position as at least not inconsistent with Intelligent Design, Shapiro has explicitly and repeatedly rejected both creationism in general[16] and Intelligent Design in particular.[17]\"

In Shapiro\'s estimation, the intelligence of this design originates in the cell:

\"Within the context of the article in particular and Shapiro\'s work on Natural Genetic Engineering in general, the \"guiding intelligence\" is to be found within the cell. (For example, in a Huffington Post essay entitled Cell Cognition and Cell Decision-Making[13] Shapiro defines cognitive actions as those that are \"knowledge-based and involve decisions appropriate to acquired information,\" arguing that cells meet this criteria.)\"

snip
Of course. If evolution can create fantastically complex chemistry and
structures and organisms, why would evolution itself remain dumb?
Because it\'s difficult for the hypothetical genetic engineer to know what it is doing.

That entire subject matter is under very widespread and intense investigation now.

Evolution evolves too.

But it has to evolve genetic engineers before it can take up genetic engineering.

The paper offers numerous examples of just exactly that is done.

Dawkins was especially obtuse. He was is atheist before he was a biologists so kept far away from anything that hinted of higher-level phenoms. He was boring, too.
People smarter than John Larkin find him less boring
Once they completely characterize the process, the hybrid speciation can become a tool for mankind\'s survival on the uninhabitable Earth.
And the sky will be full of flying pigs.
Earth looks fabulous to me; Mo thinks it\'s too cold. I\'d inhabit it for another thousand years if I could.
So would lots of other creatures. Mortality has it\'s advantages, mainly for the next generation.

The new species has to be able to tolerate 150 degree days, with little water and food. Seems the lizard is a good candidate. Creating a new species of lizard people is certainly more cost effective than the alternative planet colonization pipe dream.

Are lizards good to eat?
Australian aborigines certainly eat them. Gourmet cookery doesn\'t seem to offer any of them, even in central Australian tourist traps.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Fred Bloggs]

On Friday, July 7, 2023 at 9:39:59 PM UTC-4, Anthony William Sloman wrote:

On Saturday, July 8, 2023 at 4:39:25 AM UTC+10, Fred Bloggs wrote:
It\'s much more complicated than most people want to know. And this stuff about random mutations and natural selection that most people were taught turns out to be totally wrong, off the mark, having nothing to do with the reality.

This is not theoretical speculation, it the conclusion of modern 21st century collected data.

\"By turning evolutionary variation from random accidents to biological responses [ many different types of responses documented ], 21st-century molecular genetics and genomics have revealed that living organisms possess tremendous potential for adaptive genome reconfiguration.\"

Somewhat challenging read on the topic, but still accessible to the non-specialist:

https://aeon.co/essays/why-did-darwins-20th-century-followers-get-evolution-so-wrong
What\'s accessible to the non-specialist is that James A Shapiro is an apologist for intelligent design, and his claims about what evolutionary biologists believe are straw man distortions of current attitudes.

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

It\'s a steaming heap of misrepresentation.

How would know? You don\'t have the slightest education in molecular microbiology. All of Shapiro\'s work has been published in the peer reviewed literature, cited in the peer review literature, or cites the peer reviewed literature.

The cited paper is an opinion piece covering a very broad swath of genetics and molecular biology. He wasn\'t about to provide a list 150 or more citations to the scientific literature.

The previous theories from 19th thru mid-20th century are what\'s unbridled speculation, all of which has been scientifically proven to be off the mark.. You can\'t fault the early thinkers, they had nearly nothing to work with at the molecular level. As for Darwin, just the very introduction of the concept of evolution was a great contribution, regardless of whether the he got the details right or wrong.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Fred Bloggs]

On Saturday, July 8, 2023 at 12:57:59 AM UTC-4, Jan Panteltje wrote:

On a sunny day (Fri, 7 Jul 2023 11:39:18 -0700 (PDT)) it happened Fred Bloggs
bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote in
8f1ddc7e-4c27-4947...@googlegroups.com>:

It\'s much more complicated than most people want to know. And this stuff ab=
out random mutations and natural selection that most people were taught tur=
ns out to be totally wrong, off the mark, having nothing to do with the rea=
lity.

This is not theoretical speculation, it the conclusion of modern 21st centu=
ry collected data.

\"By turning evolutionary variation from random accidents to biological resp=
onses [ many different types of responses documented ], 21st-century molecu=
lar genetics and genomics have revealed that living organisms possess treme> >ndous potential for adaptive genome reconfiguration.\"

Somewhat challenging read on the topic, but still accessible to the non-spe=
cialist:

https://aeon.co/essays/why-did-darwins-20th-century-followers-get-evolution=
-so-wrong

Life is self-assembling, like atoms are self-assembling

Exactly, it doesn\'t happen overnight, but it happens eventually.

> We Are All Stardust

 

[Fred Bloggs]

On Friday, July 7, 2023 at 10:09:23 PM UTC-4, Anthony William Sloman wrote:

On Saturday, July 8, 2023 at 6:41:48 AM UTC+10, Fred Bloggs wrote:
On Friday, July 7, 2023 at 4:20:48 PM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:
On Fri, 7 Jul 2023 11:39:18 -0700 (PDT), Fred Bloggs
bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:

It\'s much more complicated than most people want to know. And this stuff about random mutations and natural selection that most people were taught turns out to be totally wrong, off the mark, having nothing to do with the reality.

This is not theoretical speculation, it the conclusion of modern 21st century collected data.

\"By turning evolutionary variation from random accidents to biological responses [ many different types of responses documented ], 21st-century molecular genetics and genomics have revealed that living organisms possess tremendous potential for adaptive genome reconfiguration.\"

Somewhat challenging read on the topic, but still accessible to the non-specialist:

https://aeon.co/essays/why-did-darwins-20th-century-followers-get-evolution-so-wrong
snipped John Larki chiming in in support of \"intelligent design\" also known as \"creation science\" and \"fundamentalist twaddle\".

Once they completely characterize the process, the hybrid speciation can become a tool for mankind\'s survival on the uninhabitable Earth. The new species has to be able to tolerate 150 degree days, with little water and food. Seems the lizard is a good candidate. Creating a new species of lizard people is certainly more cost effective than the alternative planet colonization pipe dream.

James A Shapiro isn\'t going to characterise anything. He just an intelligent design apologist.

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

You\'re becoming unhinged over something about which you know absolutely nothing.

Hybrid Speciation

https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/biochemistry-genetics-and-molecular-biology/hybrid-speciation

Hybrid speciation is what\'s going to transform your descendants into lizards. Mankind can survive the rapidly approaching inhabitability, but nobody said his morphology will be conserved.

--
Bill Sloman., Sydney

 

[John Larkin]

On Sat, 8 Jul 2023 08:59:10 -0700 (PDT), Fred Bloggs
<bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com> wrote:

On Friday, July 7, 2023 at 9:52:29?PM UTC-4, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Saturday, July 8, 2023 at 6:56:25?AM UTC+10, John Larkin wrote:
On Fri, 7 Jul 2023 13:41:42 -0700 (PDT), Fred Bloggs <bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Friday, July 7, 2023 at 4:20:48?PM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:
On Fri, 7 Jul 2023 11:39:18 -0700 (PDT), Fred Bloggs <bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:

It\'s much more complicated than most people want to know. And this stuff about random mutations and natural selection that most people were taught turns out to be totally wrong, off the mark, having nothing to do with the reality.

This is not theoretical speculation, it the conclusion of modern 21st century collected data.
It\'s \"intelligent design\" by another name.

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

It most certainly is not a theory of intelligent design. That particular association resulted from his acceptance by the intelligent design believers as just more proof of their thesis.

\"The work gained some measure of notoriety after being championed by proponents of Intelligent Design, despite Shapiro\'s explicit repudiation of that movement.\"

\"Natural genetic engineering has been cited as a legitimate scientific controversy (in contrast to the controversies raised by various branches of creationism).[14] While Shapiro considers the questions raised by Intelligent Design to be interesting, he parts ways with creationists by considering these problems to be scientifically tractable (specifically by understanding how NGE plays a role in the evolution of novelty).[6]\"

\"While Dembski sees this position as at least not inconsistent with Intelligent Design, Shapiro has explicitly and repeatedly rejected both creationism in general[16] and Intelligent Design in particular.[17]\"

In Shapiro\'s estimation, the intelligence of this design originates in the cell:

\"Within the context of the article in particular and Shapiro\'s work on Natural Genetic Engineering in general, the \"guiding intelligence\" is to be found within the cell. (For example, in a Huffington Post essay entitled Cell Cognition and Cell Decision-Making[13] Shapiro defines cognitive actions as those that are \"knowledge-based and involve decisions appropriate to acquired information,\" arguing that cells meet this criteria.)\"

Yes, single-cell things, without a nervous system, have evolved
sophisticated behaviors. Our own cells are, on their own, astoundingly
complex, sort of intelligent, which keeps us alive.

The history of biology is declaring things to be impossible, because
the experts don\'t approve, until research and experiment force them to
admit that nature is smarter than they want it to be. Expect a lot
more of that.

But why would any sensible person discount any possibilities, even
creationism? I suppose we\'ll have to find a trademark statement buried
in our \"junk\" DNA to show them who invented us.

\"Junk DNA\" being another example of group-think contempt.

 

[Fred Bloggs]

On Saturday, July 8, 2023 at 12:31:58 PM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:

On Sat, 8 Jul 2023 08:59:10 -0700 (PDT), Fred Bloggs
bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Friday, July 7, 2023 at 9:52:29?PM UTC-4, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Saturday, July 8, 2023 at 6:56:25?AM UTC+10, John Larkin wrote:
On Fri, 7 Jul 2023 13:41:42 -0700 (PDT), Fred Bloggs <bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Friday, July 7, 2023 at 4:20:48?PM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:
On Fri, 7 Jul 2023 11:39:18 -0700 (PDT), Fred Bloggs <bloggs.fred....@gmail.com> wrote:

It\'s much more complicated than most people want to know. And this stuff about random mutations and natural selection that most people were taught turns out to be totally wrong, off the mark, having nothing to do with the reality.

This is not theoretical speculation, it the conclusion of modern 21st century collected data.
It\'s \"intelligent design\" by another name.

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

It most certainly is not a theory of intelligent design. That particular association resulted from his acceptance by the intelligent design believers as just more proof of their thesis.

\"The work gained some measure of notoriety after being championed by proponents of Intelligent Design, despite Shapiro\'s explicit repudiation of that movement.\"

\"Natural genetic engineering has been cited as a legitimate scientific controversy (in contrast to the controversies raised by various branches of creationism).[14] While Shapiro considers the questions raised by Intelligent Design to be interesting, he parts ways with creationists by considering these problems to be scientifically tractable (specifically by understanding how NGE plays a role in the evolution of novelty).[6]\"

\"While Dembski sees this position as at least not inconsistent with Intelligent Design, Shapiro has explicitly and repeatedly rejected both creationism in general[16] and Intelligent Design in particular.[17]\"

In Shapiro\'s estimation, the intelligence of this design originates in the cell:

\"Within the context of the article in particular and Shapiro\'s work on Natural Genetic Engineering in general, the \"guiding intelligence\" is to be found within the cell. (For example, in a Huffington Post essay entitled Cell Cognition and Cell Decision-Making[13] Shapiro defines cognitive actions as those that are \"knowledge-based and involve decisions appropriate to acquired information,\" arguing that cells meet this criteria.)\"
Yes, single-cell things, without a nervous system, have evolved
sophisticated behaviors. Our own cells are, on their own, astoundingly
complex, sort of intelligent, which keeps us alive.

The history of biology is declaring things to be impossible, because
the experts don\'t approve, until research and experiment force them to
admit that nature is smarter than they want it to be. Expect a lot
more of that.

But why would any sensible person discount any possibilities, even
creationism? I suppose we\'ll have to find a trademark statement buried
in our \"junk\" DNA to show them who invented us.

\"Junk DNA\" being another example of group-think contempt.

The classical understanding of evolution with the random mutations and natural selection is merely a fallback orthodoxy for researchers who can\'t otherwise satisfactorily explain what they\'re observing, and they\'ve been working this scam for over a hundred years now.