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

[Martin Brown]

On 08/07/2023 17:26, Fred Bloggs wrote:

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\".

No surprises there then.

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.

If they had been capable of abstract thought I expect the dinosaurs
would have believed that too - right up to the moment of the impact
which led to the KT extinction event and ascendancy of mammals.

We are top dog right now, but our position is by no means guaranteed or
secure. We are somewhat better than the dinosaurs at planetary defence
from asteroid impact but we are still nothing like good enough at it.

Evolution goes down blind alleys and then gets periodically reset back
to something that can survive in the new hostile environment.

Back in Earth\'s pre-history it was all anaerobic and the polluters were
novel photosynthetic organisms that added free oxygen to the atmosphere
killing off most of the things that depended on a reducing atmosphere to
survive. We are doing it again but this time with CO2 instead of O2.

It is quite likely that whichever way we humans render the entire world
inhospitable to existing mammalian life - take your pick WWIII, global
pandemic, nuclear Armageddon or global warming it will be insect life
descended from cockroaches, termites or ants that will inherit the
Earth. Having a copper based blood gives them an advantage in a
chemically polluted or radiologically compromised environment.

That or descendents of tardigrades following a near complete reset which
although small right now are space ready.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tardigrade#Survival_after_exposure_to_outer_space

--
Martin Brown

 

[Dimiter_Popoff]

On 7/9/2023 0:09, Martin Brown wrote:

....
Evolution goes down blind alleys and then gets periodically reset back
to something that can survive in the new hostile environment.

But it has invariably been going towards smarter creatures, as
far as we can tell from what has remained from the past.
We don\'t know why that is, may be just because smarter means
more adaptable, may be because the whole point of the
existence and the evolution is \"getting smarter\". Or may
be something completely different.

 

[Don Y]

On 7/8/2023 2:36 PM, Dimiter_Popoff wrote:

On 7/9/2023 0:09, Martin Brown wrote:
....
Evolution goes down blind alleys and then gets periodically reset back to
something that can survive in the new hostile environment.

But it has invariably been going towards smarter creatures, as
far as we can tell from what has remained from the past.
We don\'t know why that is, may be just because smarter means
more adaptable, may be because the whole point of the
existence and the evolution is \"getting smarter\". Or may

\"Smarter\" can be as simple as \"being able to acquire foodstuffs\"
coupled with \"not dying early\".

Shitloads of insects on the planet and few would qualify as
\"smart\" by the same notion that most humans would apply to that
term.

> be something completely different.

Evolution can\'t predict the future -- just adapt to the
present based on past experience.

So, some organisms can just \"get lucky\" if *events* happen
to favor their characteristics (instead of the other way around)

 

[Dimiter_Popoff]

On 7/9/2023 0:57, Don Y wrote:

On 7/8/2023 2:36 PM, Dimiter_Popoff wrote:
On 7/9/2023 0:09, Martin Brown wrote:
....
Evolution goes down blind alleys and then gets periodically reset
back to something that can survive in the new hostile environment.

But it has invariably been going towards smarter creatures, as
far as we can tell from what has remained from the past.
We don\'t know why that is, may be just because smarter means
more adaptable, may be because the whole point of the
existence and the evolution is \"getting smarter\". Or may

\"Smarter\" can be as simple as \"being able to acquire foodstuffs\"
coupled with \"not dying early\".

Shitloads of insects on the planet and few would qualify as
\"smart\" by the same notion that most humans would apply to that
term.

be something completely different.

Evolution can\'t predict the future -- just adapt to the
present based on past experience.

So, some organisms can just \"get lucky\" if *events* happen
to favor their characteristics (instead of the other way around)

May be, I know this looks the likeliest answer at the moment.
But we don\'t know.

 

[John Larkin]

On Sat, 8 Jul 2023 09:58:27 -0700 (PDT), Fred Bloggs
<bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com> wrote:

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.

There have been some serious biochemists who have made the case that
some incredibly complex chemical series in a cell could not have
evolved by mutation and selection, and probably couldn\'t have evolved
at all.

 

[whit3rd]

On Saturday, July 8, 2023 at 3:34:45 PM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:

There have been some serious biochemists who have made the case that
some incredibly complex chemical series in a cell could not have
evolved by mutation and selection, and probably couldn\'t have evolved
at all.

But, that\'s not an observation; the full scope of progenitor chemistries is obscure.

Unlikely events, in the course of life-over 10^(17) seconds- may be fewer than
likely events, but certainly were not absent.

 

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Sunday, July 9, 2023 at 1:59:15 AM UTC+10, Fred Bloggs 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:

<snip>

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.)\"

And he\'s out of his mind. The cell doesn\'t know enough about the outside world to direct evolution in any kind of intelligent way.
Any system analyst could tell you that.

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.

Nonsense.

<snip>

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Sunday, July 9, 2023 at 2:26:54 AM UTC+10, Fred Bloggs wrote:

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.

It\'s over-simplified, rather than totally wrong.

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.\"

That just means more ways of producing essentially random variation.

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.

It\'s not any kind of tool - it\'s just a couple of ways that new species can arise. Whehter they survive or not depends on the match between their genome and their environment in an entirely Darwinian way and nothing in the speciation process gives the environment any control over the nature of the new species,

>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.

It would be if it could work. Re-adjusting our biochemical system to work properly at higher body temperatures would be a lot trickier than you seem to imagine.

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.

It\'s you who is unhinged. A higher resting body temperature might be accessible to a lizard - though I doubt it - but it won\'t work for a mammal.

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.

An unhinged misapprehension.

--
Bill Sloman., Sydney

 

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Sunday, July 9, 2023 at 2:11:11 AM UTC+10, Fred Bloggs wrote:

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.

What makes you think that?

> 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 peer-reviewed literature contains a certain amount stuff that is just plain wrong. There are microbiologists who are fundamentalist Christians who will approve all sorts of nonsense that fits what they want to believe.

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.

More over-simplified than off the mark. Until we knew about DNA (1956) we didn\'t know anything about the mechanism, and until we could sequence lots of DNA (after 2000) we knew very little about the nut and boltsd of what was going on.,

> 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.

Very generous of you.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Sunday, July 9, 2023 at 2:31:58 AM UTC+10, 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.

And John Larkin is sort of intelligent enough to know this, but not intelligent enough to know that this doesn\'t extend to \"seeing\" the outside world, creating hypotheses about how it works and changing their behavior in accordance with these hypotheses.

> 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.

It\'s more that nature doesn\'t always work the way they thought it did, and uses dumb alogorithms that they hadn\'t thought of.

> 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.

It hasn\'t happened yet, and there are enough evolutionary idiocies to show that the hypothetical intellignet designer wasn\'t very bright.

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

It certainly sounds contemptuous, but the underlying idea was that we didn\'t know what it did, and as we got to know more about how cells operate we did find out what it did, and how it regulated the action of the various enzymes at work in the cell - all made by specific genes (sometimes several different enzyme were made by the same gene which made slightly different enzymes as directed by the regulatory (junk) DNA).

--
Bill Sloman, sydney

 

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Sunday, July 9, 2023 at 2:58:32 AM UTC+10, Fred Bloggs wrote:

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:

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.

Rubbish. It\'s exactly how the system works. How we get the \"random\" variation is more complicated than was first thought, but the variations that we see are still random in their effects on fitness, even if some low level changes are more probable than others.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Sunday, July 9, 2023 at 8:34:45 AM UTC+10, John Larkin wrote:

On Sat, 8 Jul 2023 09:58:27 -0700 (PDT), Fred Bloggs
bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:
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:

<>snip>

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.

There have been some serious biochemists who have made the case that
some incredibly complex chemical series in a cell could not have
evolved by mutation and selection, and probably couldn\'t have evolved
at all.

And every last one of them was a fundamentalist.

It\'s a testable hypothesis. Tell us who these \"serious\" biochemists were, and we will try and work out their religious affiliations.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Fred Bloggs]

On Sunday, July 9, 2023 at 1:43:16 AM UTC-4, Anthony William Sloman wrote:

On Sunday, July 9, 2023 at 2:58:32 AM UTC+10, Fred Bloggs wrote:
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:

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.
Rubbish. It\'s exactly how the system works. How we get the \"random\" variation is more complicated than was first thought, but the variations that we see are still random in their effects on fitness, even if some low level changes are more probable than others.

You\'re so daft you probably think a traffic light changing color is a random event.

All you\'re doing is spouting a bunch of unsubstantiated verbiage...

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Sunday, July 9, 2023 at 11:06:59 PM UTC+10, Fred Bloggs wrote:

On Sunday, July 9, 2023 at 1:43:16 AM UTC-4, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Sunday, July 9, 2023 at 2:58:32 AM UTC+10, Fred Bloggs wrote:
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:

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.

Rubbish. It\'s exactly how the system works. How we get the \"random\" variation is more complicated than was first thought, but the variations that we see are still random in their effects on fitness, even if some low level changes are more probable than others.

You\'re so daft you probably think a traffic light changing color is a random event.

That\'s a really daft analogy. It\'s not even close enough to the point to be misleading.

> All you\'re doing is spouting a bunch of unsubstantiated verbiage...

Which is to say you didn\'t recognise intelligent design propaganda when you ran into it, and are being rude because I pointed out that you had been suckered.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Fred Bloggs]

On Sunday, July 9, 2023 at 10:01:11 AM UTC-4, Anthony William Sloman wrote:

On Sunday, July 9, 2023 at 11:06:59 PM UTC+10, Fred Bloggs wrote:
On Sunday, July 9, 2023 at 1:43:16 AM UTC-4, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Sunday, July 9, 2023 at 2:58:32 AM UTC+10, Fred Bloggs wrote:
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:

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.

Rubbish. It\'s exactly how the system works. How we get the \"random\" variation is more complicated than was first thought, but the variations that we see are still random in their effects on fitness, even if some low level changes are more probable than others.

You\'re so daft you probably think a traffic light changing color is a random event.
That\'s a really daft analogy. It\'s not even close enough to the point to be misleading.
All you\'re doing is spouting a bunch of unsubstantiated verbiage...
Which is to say you didn\'t recognise intelligent design propaganda when you ran into it, and are being rude because I pointed out that you had been suckered.

It\'s no more proof of creationism than the discovery of the laws of physics..

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Monday, July 10, 2023 at 1:36:43 AM UTC+10, Fred Bloggs wrote:

On Sunday, July 9, 2023 at 10:01:11 AM UTC-4, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Sunday, July 9, 2023 at 11:06:59 PM UTC+10, Fred Bloggs wrote:
On Sunday, July 9, 2023 at 1:43:16 AM UTC-4, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Sunday, July 9, 2023 at 2:58:32 AM UTC+10, Fred Bloggs wrote:
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:

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.

Rubbish. It\'s exactly how the system works. How we get the \"random\" variation is more complicated than was first thought, but the variations that we see are still random in their effects on fitness, even if some low level changes are more probable than others.

You\'re so daft you probably think a traffic light changing color is a random event.
That\'s a really daft analogy. It\'s not even close enough to the point to be misleading.
All you\'re doing is spouting a bunch of unsubstantiated verbiage...
Which is to say you didn\'t recognise intelligent design propaganda when you ran into it, and are being rude because I pointed out that you had been suckered.

It\'s no more proof of creationism than the discovery of the laws of physics.

Nobody said that James A, Shapiro was trying to prove creationism. He\'s merely trying to suggest that Darwinian evolution isn\'t a sufficient explanation of biological diversity, which leave room for all kinds intervention by all sorts of creatures, including a creator.

It\'s not as in your face as religious fundamentalism, but it coming from the same place.

And it\'s nonsense.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Fred Bloggs]

On Sunday, July 9, 2023 at 11:58:23 AM UTC-4, Anthony William Sloman wrote:

On Monday, July 10, 2023 at 1:36:43 AM UTC+10, Fred Bloggs wrote:
On Sunday, July 9, 2023 at 10:01:11 AM UTC-4, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Sunday, July 9, 2023 at 11:06:59 PM UTC+10, Fred Bloggs wrote:
On Sunday, July 9, 2023 at 1:43:16 AM UTC-4, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Sunday, July 9, 2023 at 2:58:32 AM UTC+10, Fred Bloggs wrote:
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:

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.

Rubbish. It\'s exactly how the system works. How we get the \"random\" variation is more complicated than was first thought, but the variations that we see are still random in their effects on fitness, even if some low level changes are more probable than others.

You\'re so daft you probably think a traffic light changing color is a random event.
That\'s a really daft analogy. It\'s not even close enough to the point to be misleading.
All you\'re doing is spouting a bunch of unsubstantiated verbiage...
Which is to say you didn\'t recognise intelligent design propaganda when you ran into it, and are being rude because I pointed out that you had been suckered.

It\'s no more proof of creationism than the discovery of the laws of physics.
Nobody said that James A, Shapiro was trying to prove creationism. He\'s merely trying to suggest that Darwinian evolution isn\'t a sufficient explanation of biological diversity, which leave room for all kinds intervention by all sorts of creatures, including a creator.

It\'s not as in your face as religious fundamentalism, but it coming from the same place.

And it\'s nonsense.

He\'s saying more than Darwinian, and Mendelian, evolution is insufficient. He is saying too much new knowledge has been acquired, and too many counterexamples have accumulated, to take those theories seriously in the slightest.

The science of molecular biology is shifting to unlocking the secrets of the cell as being the overarching controller of the genetic processes. It\'s a type of unifying theory in the making. Genetics looks like simple cataloging by comparison.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Monday, July 10, 2023 at 2:15:02 AM UTC+10, Fred Bloggs wrote:

On Sunday, July 9, 2023 at 11:58:23 AM UTC-4, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Monday, July 10, 2023 at 1:36:43 AM UTC+10, Fred Bloggs wrote:
On Sunday, July 9, 2023 at 10:01:11 AM UTC-4, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Sunday, July 9, 2023 at 11:06:59 PM UTC+10, Fred Bloggs wrote:
On Sunday, July 9, 2023 at 1:43:16 AM UTC-4, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Sunday, July 9, 2023 at 2:58:32 AM UTC+10, Fred Bloggs wrote:
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:

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.

Rubbish. It\'s exactly how the system works. How we get the \"random\" variation is more complicated than was first thought, but the variations that we see are still random in their effects on fitness, even if some low level changes are more probable than others.

You\'re so daft you probably think a traffic light changing color is a random event.

That\'s a really daft analogy. It\'s not even close enough to the point to be misleading.

All you\'re doing is spouting a bunch of unsubstantiated verbiage....

Which is to say you didn\'t recognise intelligent design propaganda when you ran into it, and are being rude because I pointed out that you had been suckered.

It\'s no more proof of creationism than the discovery of the laws of physics.

Nobody said that James A, Shapiro was trying to prove creationism. He\'s merely trying to suggest that Darwinian evolution isn\'t a sufficient explanation of biological diversity, which leave room for all kinds intervention by all sorts of creatures, including a creator.

It\'s not as in your face as religious fundamentalism, but it coming from the same place.

And it\'s nonsense.

He\'s saying more than Darwinian, and Mendelian, evolution is insufficient.. He is saying too much new knowledge has been acquired, and too many counterexamples have accumulated, to take those theories seriously in the slightest.

Which is nonsense.

> The science of molecular biology is shifting to unlocking the secrets of the cell as being the overarching controller of the genetic processes. It\'s a type of unifying theory in the making. Genetics looks like simple cataloging by comparison.

So you don\'t understand genetics. The name was coined when Mendel showed that genes had to exist.

Much later we found out that particular stretches of DNA - delimited by start codes and stop codes - translated in particular string of protein - enzymes, and these got identified as genes. We\'ve got about 20,000 of them and they get decoded to produce about 100,000 different enzymes. Working out how that happened involved getting an understanding of regulatory (junk) DNA which aren\'t oganised into nice discrete genes (or at least the not with the same start and stop codes as traditional genes) but the science is still called genetics.

Genetic happens in cells, but the over-arching controller is still the process of building an organism and finding out if it can survive in it\'s environment.

Individual cells can\'t do that on their own. They can\'t acquire the necessary information.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[John Larkin]

On Fri, 7 Jul 2023 21:02:19 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com>
wrote:

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.

Dynamic systems.

Imagine a bunch of cells, like a Conway Game Of Life, but with
different rules. Each cell believes things and is strongly influenced
by neighboring cells. Assume a neutral start and a tiny bit of noise.

Anything could happen. All the cells could become fundamantalist
Christians, all could become nudists, all might become Nazis.

That\'s how we behave.

 

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Monday, July 10, 2023 at 1:05:56 PM UTC+10, John Larkin wrote:

On Fri, 7 Jul 2023 21:02:19 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com
wrote:

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.

They don\'t actually follow them. They try to understand what other scientists have done and both critiicise the weak points in their ideas and build on the strong points.

Followers don\'t do either.

Well, it depends on what interests you.

Dynamic systems.

Imagine a bunch of cells, like a Conway Game Of Life, but with
different rules. Each cell believes things and is strongly influenced
by neighboring cells. Assume a neutral start and a tiny bit of noise.

So each cell has got human level brains - which actually contain 86 billion individual neurons (give or take about 10%) and each one can communicate via human level languages which are appreciably more flexible than anything that any of the other mammals uses.

That\'s not so much imagination as fantasy.

> Anything could happen. All the cells could become fundamantalist Christians, all could become nudists, all might become Nazis.

Seems remarkably unlikely. Individual cells face more stringent practical restrictions. You can\'t be a nudist if you don\'t wear clothes

> That\'s how we behave.

But most of us are a great deal more complicated and communicative than individual cells. John Larkin may not have noticed.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney