Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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.
On Saturday, July 8, 2023 at 12:31:58â¯PM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:
On Sat, 8 Jul 2023 08:59:10 -0700 (PDT), Fred Bloggs
bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:
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.
On Monday, July 10, 2023 at 2:15:02â¯AM UTC+10, Fred Bloggs wrote:
On Sunday, July 9, 2023 at 11:58:23â¯AM UTC-4, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Monday, July 10, 2023 at 1:36:43â¯AM UTC+10, Fred Bloggs wrote:
On Sunday, July 9, 2023 at 10:01:11â¯AM UTC-4, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Sunday, July 9, 2023 at 11:06:59â¯PM UTC+10, Fred Bloggs wrote:
On Sunday, July 9, 2023 at 1:43:16â¯AM UTC-4, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Sunday, July 9, 2023 at 2:58:32â¯AM UTC+10, Fred Bloggs wrote:
On Saturday, July 8, 2023 at 12:31:58â¯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
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.
designed no mechanism to prevent people in the food rich environment we have
today from becoming morbidly obese. These days they only stop eating when their
girth exceeds the length of their arms.
Even that works well enough for computer programs to be able to use it for
certain types of otherwise very difficult optimisation problems. Sexual
reproduction swapping around mostly working genes (and then culling the
underperforming progeny) is much better though.
That latter is by no means \"random mutations\". It explores the 2^N dimensional
functionality space of the N genes fairly efficiently with each new generation
having more desireable characteristics. Add in a bit of female preference for
nice songs and/or crazy long tails...
Back in the day before digital fruitfly was a thing. I wrote such a simple
program for a university teaching course. It was amazing how over comparatively
few generations it took them to adapt to feast or famine.
On 08/07/2023 22:36, 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.
I don\'t think we can be certain that they always have to be smarter so
much as better at surviving in whatever the prevailing conditions happen
to be. Smarter probably works best for animals to some extent in that it
makes them more adaptable. Collective hive minds might be another viable
solution in insects if they ever get the chance to go for it.
Being big with an expensive brain and body to run can be a huge
disadvantage when food is very scarce. Did for the dinosaurs after the
KT event and left the opening for mammals to take over from them.
Being smarter obviously doesn\'t work for plants.
On Mon, 10 Jul 2023 17:23:53 +0100, Martin Brown <\'\'\'newspam\'\'\'@nonad.co.uk> wrote:
On 08/07/2023 22:36, Dimiter_Popoff wrote:
On 7/9/2023 0:09, Martin Brown wrote:
Being smarter obviously doesn\'t work for plants.
Read \"Finding The Mother Tree\". It\'s about underground fiber networks that connect trees and send messages and nutrients.