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

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.

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.

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?

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..

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.

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.

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.

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!

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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)

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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