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 a sunny day (Sun, 09 Jul 2023 20:05:43 -0700) it happened John Larkin
<jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote in
<c2tmailq4bpv5jao3pv7vj05ng6pfqsib2@4ax.com>:

>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.

Hehe, well there would always be rebels,
'all' is not the right word here.

On 08/07/2023 17:58, 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:
>>

>>> 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.

Some of the most impressive in terms of problem solving ability for
their lack of computational power are slime moulds. They are attracting
some attention as possible models for how cells communicate and
collaborate for the greater good. They are pretty odd sort of amoebae
like things with the ability to both clone and sexually reproduce. It
can solve mazes optimally if suitably encouraged to by food.

https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rstb.2019.0757

NB sexual reproduction is nothing like "random mutation" it is more like
picking one of two possible already working choices for each gene from
the parents. Dominant genes win out so unless you are unlucky enough to
inherit two bad copies (like haemophiliacs do) you get to survive.

>> 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.

Nature does what ever it likes. The appearance of the self replicating
prion in the UK after they skimped on the rendering process and made
cows into cannibals shows how quickly a random mutation in the right
place at the right time can pretty much grow explosively.

>> 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 would be a start. He can't have been much of an omniscient designer
if he 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.

The natural system we evolved in was self limiting when you had to find,
hunt and catch anything that you wanted to eat. Junk food culture put an
end to all that and now 42% of Americans are obese (9% morbidly so).

You invoke Godidit at every opportunity it is your stock answer to
everything and anything that science doesn't quite understand yet.

"Just so" stories don't cut at all in a sci.* group!
>>
>> "Junk DNA" being another example of group-think contempt.

Some of it probably is miscellaneous junk from retroviruses splicing
bits in at random though by no means all of it. How much more of our DNA
has functionality that we don't yet know about remains to be seen.

Epigenetics has always had a bit of a mixed history but there is now
some pretty good evidence that it does leave its mark in the next
generation if the starvation occurs early in the pregnancy. eg.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2579375/#:~:text=Epigenetic%20differences

I'm always a bit wary of biologist's statistics as a physicist I much
prefer a six-sigma detection of any new discovery.
>
> 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.

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.

--
Martin Brown

On Sunday, July 9, 2023 at 8:03:11 PM UTC-4, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
> 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.

There you go again with your relentless focus on nearly irrelevant semantics, which does nothing to improve your insight on the matter apparently.

>
> --
> Bill Sloman, Sydney

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.

Slime moulds are an interesting edge case deserving of more study.

> 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.

IN the words of the old BeeGees song "Stayin' Alive"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I_izvAbhExY

I reckon at least on geological timescales life will find a way to
evolve if you count self reproducing cells as alive. I have a hunch
complex multicellular life is rare and intelligent life rarer still.

It took a mere 500M years for the first life on Earth to evolve (or
perhaps be seeded from outside) from an initially sterile state.
(panspermia still has a few adherents ie. we could be Martians!)

It took another 1.7B years before the first complex eukaryote cells
appeared with a recognisable nucleus and cellular organelles.

By 600My ago there was lots novel complex multicellular life about in
addition. Exactly when they first evolved is tricky because the oldest
fossils are very rare and seldom found (much like the oldest rocks).

We only ever get to see the things that form reliable fossils.

--
Martin Brown

On 7/10/2023 6:04 AM, Martin Brown wrote:
> It would be a start. He can't have been much of an omniscient designer if he

This ------------------^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
is my "proof" of the nonexistence of god. Especially if you want to believe
there is only *one*! The single, star pupil is a piss poor student!

And, incredibly insecure in requiring its creations to WORSHIP it.
Wow, how sad an entity could that be?

> 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.

Or kill without cause, or horde resources beyond their own needs,
or allow certain of its adherents (priests) to violate "its laws",
etc.

And *we* are its BEST creation? <rolls eyes>

Thanks, but I'll go with "none" (random chance) and give it remarkably
well grades considering there is no intelligence inherent in "random".

But, hey, if you need the security of thinking there is someone looking
over you, go for it! It seems to work quite well for the weak minded.
It also gives you license to do <whatever> "in its name"... sounds like
a pretty self-serving approach to life, eh?

[Wouldn't it be a hoot to get to the end of your days and find there's
*nothing* there? Or, some "other" supreme being who really is quite
annoyed with your misuse of "belief"]

> 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...

Think: Monte Carlo simulations. (Why would such a technique exist if
there were closed form solutions available to all problems -- intelligent
design?)

> 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 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:
>>> ....
>>> 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.

Read "Finding The Mother Tree". It's about underground fiber networks
that connect trees and send messages and nutrients.