20 years ago situation was like this, Genetic Mutation Theory was all over the place.
Then I noticed that authors of both, the Big
Bang Theory and the Genetic Mutation Theory are Catholic priests, and I started to write about this, I wrote about it here a few times.
Now:
- BEFORE that I newer heard *anybody* even mention this
- DURING the time I was writing about it I didn't hear anybody even
mention this
- AFTER that time, even to this days, I never heard *anybody* even
mention this
Ok. Before I started to write about it you can clearly find "Genetic Mutation Theory" in Wikipedia. Of course, right in the preamble
of the article you will clearly see who is the author, written in bold letters, so that everybody can see it clearly, right at the first sight.
This also goes for the Big Bang Theory, you will clearly see in the
preamble who is the author of it, in bold letters.
These days you even cannot find the Genetic Mutation Theory in
Wikipedia. You can find Big Bang Theory in Wikipedia, but if you manage
to find in this article who is the actually author of it within 20
minutes, I'll buy you a beer.
Now, science behaves like it never had anything to do with Mendel and his theory, and Harshman even calls me insane.
Of course,
Hrshman behaves also like science never had anything to do with the
Genetic Mutation Theory,
he behaves like he never heard of it,
and
whoever claims that science had something to do with it, he calls him
insane.
This post talks about human intelligence, talks about learning
from books, and talks about science.
On 8/19/23 2:17 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
You can find Big Bang Theory in Wikipedia, but if you
manage to find in this article who is the actually author of it within
20 minutes, I'll buy you a beer.
First sentence of the second paragraph of the Big Bang Theory article: "Crucially, these models are compatible with the Hubble–Lemaître law—the observation that the farther away a galaxy is, the faster it is moving
away from Earth." Under "Development": "Independently deriving
Friedmann's equations in 1927, Georges Lemaître, a Belgian physicist and Roman Catholic priest, proposed that the recession of the nebulae was
due to the expansion of the universe."
Not sure how you will get my beer to me.
On 8/19/23 2:17 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
20 years ago situation was like this, Genetic Mutation Theory
was all over the place.
I have no idea what you're talking about. I suspect you don't either.
Then I noticed that authors of both, the Big Bang Theory and the
Genetic Mutation Theory are Catholic priests, and I started to write
about this, I wrote about it here a few times.
You're right about the Big Bang, but Mendel had zero to do with mutations.
Now:
- BEFORE that I newer heard *anybody* even mention this
- DURING the time I was writing about it I didn't hear anybody even
mention this
- AFTER that time, even to this days, I never heard *anybody* even
mention this
Ok. Before I started to write about it you can clearly find >> "Genetic Mutation Theory" in Wikipedia. Of course, right in the
preamble of the article you will clearly see who is the author,
written in bold letters, so that everybody can see it clearly, right
at the first sight. This also goes for the Big Bang Theory, you will
clearly see in the preamble who is the author of it, in bold letters.
I don't believe you. I don't believe that "Genetic Mutation Theory" was
ever a Wikipedia article. I certainly don't know what such an article
would contain.
These days you even cannot find the Genetic Mutation Theory >> in Wikipedia. You can find Big Bang Theory in Wikipedia, but if you
manage to find in this article who is the actually author of it within
20 minutes, I'll buy you a beer.
First sentence of the second paragraph of the Big Bang Theory article: "Crucially, these models are compatible with the Hubble–Lemaître law—the observation that the farther away a galaxy is, the faster it is moving
away from Earth." Under "Development": "Independently deriving
Friedmann's equations in 1927, Georges Lemaître, a Belgian physicist and Roman Catholic priest, proposed that the recession of the nebulae was
due to the expansion of the universe."
Not sure how you will get my beer to me.
Now, science behaves like it never had anything to do with >> Mendel and his theory, and Harshman even calls me insane.
No, science has much to do with Mendel's theory, but you don't
understand what Mendel's theory is.
Of course, Hrshman behaves also like science never had anything to do
with the Genetic Mutation Theory,
No idea what the Genetic Mutation Theory is, but it can't have anything
to do with Mendel.
he behaves like he never heard of it,
Yes. That's because I never heard of it, or at least I don't know what
you mean by it.
and whoever claims that science had something to do with it, he calls
him insane.
This post talks about human intelligence, talks about
learning from books, and talks about science.
This post seems to talk about none of those things.
On 20.8.2023. 1:56, John Harshman wrote:
On 8/19/23 2:17 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
You can find Big Bang Theory in Wikipedia, but if you manage to find
in this article who is the actually author of it within 20 minutes,
I'll buy you a beer.
First sentence of the second paragraph of the Big Bang Theory article:
"Crucially, these models are compatible with the Hubble–Lemaître
law—the observation that the farther away a galaxy is, the faster it
is moving away from Earth." Under "Development": "Independently
deriving Friedmann's equations in 1927, Georges Lemaître, a Belgian
physicist and Roman Catholic priest, proposed that the recession of
the nebulae was due to the expansion of the universe."
Not sure how you will get my beer to me.
Ok, you don't get a beer, this is the right answer. They say that it is compatible with the Hubble-Lemaitre law (which, as I showed,
is actually Lemaitre's law, but today they call it Hubble's law, hm).
But who is the originator, who is the author of the whole theory, not
only the law it is based on. Well, it is dug deeply into the article:
"In the 1920s and 1930s, almost every major cosmologist preferred an eternal steady-state universe, and several complained that
the beginning of time implied by the Big Bang imported religious
concepts into physics; this objection was later repeated by supporters
of the steady-state theory. This perception was enhanced by the fact
that the originator of the Big Bang concept, Lemaître, was a Roman
Catholic priest."
So, this fact isn't in preamble written with bold letter, like
it should have been, it was just said by the way, talking about
something else. I mean, you cannot conceal this fact better than this.
On 20.8.2023. 1:56, John Harshman wrote:
On 8/19/23 2:17 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
20 years ago situation was like this, Genetic Mutation
Theory was all over the place.
I have no idea what you're talking about. I suspect you don't either.
Then I noticed that authors of both, the Big Bang Theory and the
Genetic Mutation Theory are Catholic priests, and I started to write
about this, I wrote about it here a few times.
You're right about the Big Bang, but Mendel had zero to do with
mutations.
Of course, that's why his theory is called Genetic Mutation Theory.
Now:
- BEFORE that I newer heard *anybody* even mention this
- DURING the time I was writing about it I didn't hear anybody even
mention this
- AFTER that time, even to this days, I never heard *anybody* even
mention this
Ok. Before I started to write about it you can clearly find
"Genetic Mutation Theory" in Wikipedia. Of course, right in the
preamble of the article you will clearly see who is the author,
written in bold letters, so that everybody can see it clearly, right
at the first sight. This also goes for the Big Bang Theory, you will
clearly see in the preamble who is the author of it, in bold letters.
I don't believe you. I don't believe that "Genetic Mutation Theory"
was ever a Wikipedia article. I certainly don't know what such an
article would contain.
In the previous post I provided a citation, with a whole bunch
of references.
These days you even cannot find the Genetic Mutation Theory
in Wikipedia. You can find Big Bang Theory in Wikipedia, but if you
manage to find in this article who is the actually author of it
within 20 minutes, I'll buy you a beer.
First sentence of the second paragraph of the Big Bang Theory article:
"Crucially, these models are compatible with the Hubble–Lemaître
law—the observation that the farther away a galaxy is, the faster it
is moving away from Earth." Under "Development": "Independently
deriving Friedmann's equations in 1927, Georges Lemaître, a Belgian
physicist and Roman Catholic priest, proposed that the recession of
the nebulae was due to the expansion of the universe."
Not sure how you will get my beer to me.
Oh really? No, it is Lemaitre's theory, it isn't by somebody else, or a bunch of people but based on Hubble-Lemaitre something, how
they are twisting it today, it is full blown solely Lemaitre's theory.
And it isn't Hubble-Lemaitre's law, now it is called Hubble's law, but actually it was published by Lemaitre, without Hubble. Now they are
twisting this all around these days, trying to somehow disconnect this
theory from Lemaitre, and desperately connect it to something else. Oh
yes, I am insane, lol.
Now, science behaves like it never had anything to do with >>> Mendel and his theory, and Harshman even calls me insane.
No, science has much to do with Mendel's theory, but you don't
understand what Mendel's theory is.
Of course, Hrshman behaves also like science never had anything to do
with the Genetic Mutation Theory,
No idea what the Genetic Mutation Theory is, but it can't have
anything to do with Mendel.
he behaves like he never heard of it,
Yes. That's because I never heard of it, or at least I don't know what
you mean by it.
and whoever claims that science had something to do with it, he calls
him insane.
This post talks about human intelligence, talks about
learning from books, and talks about science.
This post seems to talk about none of those things.
On 8/19/23 5:22 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
On 20.8.2023. 1:56, John Harshman wrote:
On 8/19/23 2:17 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
20 years ago situation was like this, Genetic Mutation >>>> Theory was all over the place.
I have no idea what you're talking about. I suspect you don't either.
Then I noticed that authors of both, the Big Bang Theory and the
Genetic Mutation Theory are Catholic priests, and I started to write
about this, I wrote about it here a few times.
You're right about the Big Bang, but Mendel had zero to do with
mutations.
Of course, that's why his theory is called Genetic Mutation >> Theory.
Nobody calls it that.
Now:
- BEFORE that I newer heard *anybody* even mention this
- DURING the time I was writing about it I didn't hear anybody even
mention this
- AFTER that time, even to this days, I never heard *anybody* even
mention this
Ok. Before I started to write about it you can clearly find
"Genetic Mutation Theory" in Wikipedia. Of course, right in the
preamble of the article you will clearly see who is the author,
written in bold letters, so that everybody can see it clearly, right
at the first sight. This also goes for the Big Bang Theory, you will
clearly see in the preamble who is the author of it, in bold letters.
I don't believe you. I don't believe that "Genetic Mutation Theory"
was ever a Wikipedia article. I certainly don't know what such an
article would contain.
In the previous post I provided a citation, with a whole
bunch of references.
These days you even cannot find the Genetic Mutation Theory
in Wikipedia. You can find Big Bang Theory in Wikipedia, but if you
manage to find in this article who is the actually author of it
within 20 minutes, I'll buy you a beer.
First sentence of the second paragraph of the Big Bang Theory
article: "Crucially, these models are compatible with the
Hubble–Lemaître law—the observation that the farther away a galaxy
is, the faster it is moving away from Earth." Under "Development":
"Independently deriving Friedmann's equations in 1927, Georges
Lemaître, a Belgian physicist and Roman Catholic priest, proposed
that the recession of the nebulae was due to the expansion of the
universe."
Not sure how you will get my beer to me.
Oh really? No, it is Lemaitre's theory, it isn't by somebody
else, or a bunch of people but based on Hubble-Lemaitre something, how
they are twisting it today, it is full blown solely Lemaitre's theory.
And it isn't Hubble-Lemaitre's law, now it is called Hubble's law, but
actually it was published by Lemaitre, without Hubble. Now they are
twisting this all around these days, trying to somehow disconnect this
theory from Lemaitre, and desperately connect it to something else. Oh
yes, I am insane, lol.
I'm beginning to think you are in fact insane. But I guess I won't get
my beer. That's always a problem when the judge of the challenge is the
one who presented it.
Now, science behaves like it never had anything to do with
Mendel and his theory, and Harshman even calls me insane.
No, science has much to do with Mendel's theory, but you don't
understand what Mendel's theory is.
Of course, Hrshman behaves also like science never had anything to
do with the Genetic Mutation Theory,
No idea what the Genetic Mutation Theory is, but it can't have
anything to do with Mendel.
he behaves like he never heard of it,
Yes. That's because I never heard of it, or at least I don't know
what you mean by it.
and whoever claims that science had something to do with it, he
calls him insane.
This post talks about human intelligence, talks about >>>> learning from books, and talks about science.
This post seems to talk about none of those things.
On 20.8.2023. 3:06, John Harshman wrote:
On 8/19/23 5:22 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
Of course, that's why his theory is called Genetic Mutation
Theory.
Nobody calls it that.
Ok, I figured this out. Definitely 20 years ago it is known that Genetic Mutation Theory was Mendel's (at least, this is how this
came to me), but maybe somebody misunderstood it, because it is based on Mendel's work.
On 20.8.2023. 3:06, John Harshman wrote:
On 8/19/23 5:22 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
On 20.8.2023. 1:56, John Harshman wrote:
On 8/19/23 2:17 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
20 years ago situation was like this, Genetic Mutation >>>>> Theory was all over the place.
I have no idea what you're talking about. I suspect you don't either.
Then I noticed that authors of both, the Big Bang Theory and the
Genetic Mutation Theory are Catholic priests, and I started to
write about this, I wrote about it here a few times.
You're right about the Big Bang, but Mendel had zero to do with
mutations.
Of course, that's why his theory is called Genetic Mutation
Theory.
Nobody calls it that.
Ok, I figured this out. Definitely 20 years ago it is known that Genetic Mutation Theory was Mendel's (at least, this is how this
came to me), but maybe somebody misunderstood it, because it is based on Mendel's work.
Now:
- BEFORE that I newer heard *anybody* even mention this
- DURING the time I was writing about it I didn't hear anybody even
mention this
- AFTER that time, even to this days, I never heard *anybody* even
mention this
Ok. Before I started to write about it you can clearly >>>>> find "Genetic Mutation Theory" in Wikipedia. Of course, right in
the preamble of the article you will clearly see who is the author,
written in bold letters, so that everybody can see it clearly,
right at the first sight. This also goes for the Big Bang Theory,
you will clearly see in the preamble who is the author of it, in
bold letters.
I don't believe you. I don't believe that "Genetic Mutation Theory"
was ever a Wikipedia article. I certainly don't know what such an
article would contain.
In the previous post I provided a citation, with a whole >>> bunch of references.
These days you even cannot find the Genetic Mutation >>>>> Theory in Wikipedia. You can find Big Bang Theory in Wikipedia, but
if you manage to find in this article who is the actually author of
it within 20 minutes, I'll buy you a beer.
First sentence of the second paragraph of the Big Bang Theory
article: "Crucially, these models are compatible with the
Hubble–Lemaître law—the observation that the farther away a galaxy >>>> is, the faster it is moving away from Earth." Under "Development":
"Independently deriving Friedmann's equations in 1927, Georges
Lemaître, a Belgian physicist and Roman Catholic priest, proposed
that the recession of the nebulae was due to the expansion of the
universe."
Not sure how you will get my beer to me.
Oh really? No, it is Lemaitre's theory, it isn't by somebody
else, or a bunch of people but based on Hubble-Lemaitre something,
how they are twisting it today, it is full blown solely Lemaitre's
theory. And it isn't Hubble-Lemaitre's law, now it is called Hubble's
law, but actually it was published by Lemaitre, without Hubble. Now
they are twisting this all around these days, trying to somehow
disconnect this theory from Lemaitre, and desperately connect it to
something else. Oh yes, I am insane, lol.
I'm beginning to think you are in fact insane. But I guess I won't get
my beer. That's always a problem when the judge of the challenge is
the one who presented it.
Now, science behaves like it never had anything to do with
Mendel and his theory, and Harshman even calls me insane.
No, science has much to do with Mendel's theory, but you don't
understand what Mendel's theory is.
Of course, Hrshman behaves also like science never had anything to
do with the Genetic Mutation Theory,
No idea what the Genetic Mutation Theory is, but it can't have
anything to do with Mendel.
he behaves like he never heard of it,
Yes. That's because I never heard of it, or at least I don't know
what you mean by it.
and whoever claims that science had something to do with it, he
calls him insane.
This post talks about human intelligence, talks about >>>>> learning from books, and talks about science.
This post seems to talk about none of those things.
On 8/19/23 7:28 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
On 20.8.2023. 3:06, John Harshman wrote:
On 8/19/23 5:22 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
On 20.8.2023. 1:56, John Harshman wrote:
On 8/19/23 2:17 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
20 years ago situation was like this, Genetic Mutation
Theory was all over the place.
I have no idea what you're talking about. I suspect you don't either. >>>>
Then I noticed that authors of both, the Big Bang Theory and the
Genetic Mutation Theory are Catholic priests, and I started to
write about this, I wrote about it here a few times.
You're right about the Big Bang, but Mendel had zero to do with
mutations.
Of course, that's why his theory is called Genetic Mutation
Theory.
Nobody calls it that.
Ok, I figured this out. Definitely 20 years ago it is known
that Genetic Mutation Theory was Mendel's (at least, this is how this
came to me), but maybe somebody misunderstood it, because it is based on Mendel's work.
Conceivably there is some kind of translation problem here. But no, you
are wrong. Mendel's theory has nothing to do with mutation. You admit at times that you're ignorant of evolutionary biology and genetics. In
this, if in nothing else, you are correct.
Now:
- BEFORE that I newer heard *anybody* even mention this
- DURING the time I was writing about it I didn't hear anybody even >>>>> mention this
- AFTER that time, even to this days, I never heard *anybody* even >>>>> mention this
Ok. Before I started to write about it you can clearly
find "Genetic Mutation Theory" in Wikipedia. Of course, right in
the preamble of the article you will clearly see who is the author, >>>>> written in bold letters, so that everybody can see it clearly,
right at the first sight. This also goes for the Big Bang Theory, >>>>> you will clearly see in the preamble who is the author of it, in
bold letters.
I don't believe you. I don't believe that "Genetic Mutation Theory" >>>> was ever a Wikipedia article. I certainly don't know what such an
article would contain.
In the previous post I provided a citation, with a whole
bunch of references.
These days you even cannot find the Genetic Mutation
Theory in Wikipedia. You can find Big Bang Theory in Wikipedia, but >>>>> if you manage to find in this article who is the actually author of >>>>> it within 20 minutes, I'll buy you a beer.
First sentence of the second paragraph of the Big Bang Theory
article: "Crucially, these models are compatible with the
Hubble–Lemaître law—the observation that the farther away a galaxy >>>> is, the faster it is moving away from Earth." Under "Development":
"Independently deriving Friedmann's equations in 1927, Georges
Lemaître, a Belgian physicist and Roman Catholic priest, proposed
that the recession of the nebulae was due to the expansion of the
universe."
Not sure how you will get my beer to me.
Oh really? No, it is Lemaitre's theory, it isn't by somebody >>> else, or a bunch of people but based on Hubble-Lemaitre something,
how they are twisting it today, it is full blown solely Lemaitre's
theory. And it isn't Hubble-Lemaitre's law, now it is called Hubble's >>> law, but actually it was published by Lemaitre, without Hubble. Now
they are twisting this all around these days, trying to somehow
disconnect this theory from Lemaitre, and desperately connect it to
something else. Oh yes, I am insane, lol.
I'm beginning to think you are in fact insane. But I guess I won't get
my beer. That's always a problem when the judge of the challenge is
the one who presented it.
Now, science behaves like it never had anything to do with >>>>> Mendel and his theory, and Harshman even calls me insane.
No, science has much to do with Mendel's theory, but you don't
understand what Mendel's theory is.
Of course, Hrshman behaves also like science never had anything to >>>>> do with the Genetic Mutation Theory,
No idea what the Genetic Mutation Theory is, but it can't have
anything to do with Mendel.
he behaves like he never heard of it,
Yes. That's because I never heard of it, or at least I don't know
what you mean by it.
and whoever claims that science had something to do with it, he
calls him insane.
This post talks about human intelligence, talks about
learning from books, and talks about science.
This post seems to talk about none of those things.
On Saturday, August 19, 2023 at 7:49:29 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
On 8/19/23 7:28 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
On 20.8.2023. 3:06, John Harshman wrote:
On 8/19/23 5:22 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
On 20.8.2023. 1:56, John Harshman wrote:
On 8/19/23 2:17 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
20 years ago situation was like this, Genetic Mutation >>>>>>> Theory was all over the place.
I have no idea what you're talking about. I suspect you don't either. >>>>>>
Then I noticed that authors of both, the Big Bang Theory and the >>>>>>> Genetic Mutation Theory are Catholic priests, and I started to
write about this, I wrote about it here a few times.
You're right about the Big Bang, but Mendel had zero to do with
mutations.
Of course, that's why his theory is called Genetic Mutation >>>>> Theory.
Nobody calls it that.
Ok, I figured this out. Definitely 20 years ago it is known
that Genetic Mutation Theory was Mendel's (at least, this is how this
came to me), but maybe somebody misunderstood it, because it is based on >>> Mendel's work.
Conceivably there is some kind of translation problem here. But no, you
are wrong. Mendel's theory has nothing to do with mutation. You admit at
times that you're ignorant of evolutionary biology and genetics. In
this, if in nothing else, you are correct.
Ayala:essentially did away with natural selection as a major evolutionary process."
"The rediscovery in 1900 of Mendel's theory of heredity by the Dutch botanist and geneticist Hugo de Vries and others led to an emphasis on the role of heredity in evolution. De Vries proposed a new theory of evolution known as mutationism, which
"The controversy between mutationists (also referred to at the time as Mendelians) and biometricians approached a resolution in the 1920s and 1930s through the theoretical work of geneticists."
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/agricultural-and-biological-sciences/mutationism
Mario appears more accurate about history than you.
Now:
- BEFORE that I newer heard *anybody* even mention this
- DURING the time I was writing about it I didn't hear anybody even >>>>>>> mention this
- AFTER that time, even to this days, I never heard *anybody* even >>>>>>> mention this
Ok. Before I started to write about it you can clearly >>>>>>> find "Genetic Mutation Theory" in Wikipedia. Of course, right in >>>>>>> the preamble of the article you will clearly see who is the author, >>>>>>> written in bold letters, so that everybody can see it clearly,
right at the first sight. This also goes for the Big Bang Theory, >>>>>>> you will clearly see in the preamble who is the author of it, in >>>>>>> bold letters.
I don't believe you. I don't believe that "Genetic Mutation Theory" >>>>>> was ever a Wikipedia article. I certainly don't know what such an
article would contain.
In the previous post I provided a citation, with a whole
bunch of references.
These days you even cannot find the Genetic Mutation
Theory in Wikipedia. You can find Big Bang Theory in Wikipedia, but >>>>>>> if you manage to find in this article who is the actually author of >>>>>>> it within 20 minutes, I'll buy you a beer.
First sentence of the second paragraph of the Big Bang Theory
article: "Crucially, these models are compatible with the
Hubble–Lemaître law—the observation that the farther away a galaxy >>>>>> is, the faster it is moving away from Earth." Under "Development": >>>>>> "Independently deriving Friedmann's equations in 1927, Georges
Lemaître, a Belgian physicist and Roman Catholic priest, proposed >>>>>> that the recession of the nebulae was due to the expansion of the
universe."
Not sure how you will get my beer to me.
Oh really? No, it is Lemaitre's theory, it isn't by somebody >>>>> else, or a bunch of people but based on Hubble-Lemaitre something,
how they are twisting it today, it is full blown solely Lemaitre's
theory. And it isn't Hubble-Lemaitre's law, now it is called Hubble's >>>>> law, but actually it was published by Lemaitre, without Hubble. Now
they are twisting this all around these days, trying to somehow
disconnect this theory from Lemaitre, and desperately connect it to
something else. Oh yes, I am insane, lol.
I'm beginning to think you are in fact insane. But I guess I won't get >>>> my beer. That's always a problem when the judge of the challenge is
the one who presented it.
Now, science behaves like it never had anything to do with >>>>>>> Mendel and his theory, and Harshman even calls me insane.
No, science has much to do with Mendel's theory, but you don't
understand what Mendel's theory is.
Of course, Hrshman behaves also like science never had anything to >>>>>>> do with the Genetic Mutation Theory,
No idea what the Genetic Mutation Theory is, but it can't have
anything to do with Mendel.
he behaves like he never heard of it,
Yes. That's because I never heard of it, or at least I don't know
what you mean by it.
and whoever claims that science had something to do with it, he
calls him insane.
This post talks about human intelligence, talks about
learning from books, and talks about science.
This post seems to talk about none of those things.
On Saturday, August 19, 2023 at 7:49:29 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
On 8/19/23 7:28 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
Ok, I figured this out. Definitely 20 years ago it is known
that Genetic Mutation Theory was Mendel's (at least, this is how this
came to me), but maybe somebody misunderstood it, because it is based on >>> Mendel's work.
Conceivably there is some kind of translation problem here. But no, you
are wrong. Mendel's theory has nothing to do with mutation. You admit at
times that you're ignorant of evolutionary biology and genetics. In
this, if in nothing else, you are correct.
Ayala:essentially did away with natural selection as a major evolutionary process."
"The rediscovery in 1900 of Mendel's theory of heredity by the Dutch botanist and geneticist Hugo de Vries and others led to an emphasis on the role of heredity in evolution. De Vries proposed a new theory of evolution known as mutationism, which
"The controversy between mutationists (also referred to at the time as Mendelians) and biometricians approached a resolution in the 1920s and 1930s through the theoretical work of geneticists."
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/agricultural-and-biological-sciences/mutationism
Mario appears more accurate about history than you.
On 24.8.2023. 3:45, Glenn wrote:
On Saturday, August 19, 2023 at 7:49:29 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
On 8/19/23 7:28 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
Ok, I figured this out. Definitely 20 years ago it is known
that Genetic Mutation Theory was Mendel's (at least, this is how this
came to me), but maybe somebody misunderstood it, because it is
based on
Mendel's work.
Conceivably there is some kind of translation problem here. But no, you
are wrong. Mendel's theory has nothing to do with mutation. You admit at >>> times that you're ignorant of evolutionary biology and genetics. In
this, if in nothing else, you are correct.
Ayala:
"The rediscovery in 1900 of Mendel's theory of heredity by the Dutch
botanist and geneticist Hugo de Vries and others led to an emphasis on
the role of heredity in evolution. De Vries proposed a new theory of
evolution known as mutationism, which essentially did away with
natural selection as a major evolutionary process."
"The controversy between mutationists (also referred to at the time as
Mendelians) and biometricians approached a resolution in the 1920s and
1930s through the theoretical work of geneticists."
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/agricultural-and-biological-sciences/mutationism
Mario appears more accurate about history than you.
Thanks very much. I know that at the time I was seeking info about it, it was called Genetic Mutation Theory in Wikipedia (I
believe), and they wrote that all this originates from Mendel, and later
this was "re-discovered" by three independent guys, in a matter of two months.
Well, I also searched info about those three guys. At that time
only one of those had something in his biography (he had only one thing
in his biography, besides being involved in this, it was probably de
Vries), and the other two had absolutely nothing in their biographies,
except that they rediscovered Mendel (I am using exclusively English
version of Wikipedia). So, by that I figured out that they were just
filling the number, because for something to be accepted the number has
to be three.
Now I am looking at this in Wikipedia, and somehow, like somebody wants deliberately to nullify what I figured out, suddenly they emphasize only two of those three, although clearly they, themselves,
mention that there were three "re-discoverers" in a matter ow two months.
Those two are:
1) Hugo de Vries - son of a deacon in the Mennonite congregation in Haarlem 2) Carl Correns - who worked as tutor at the University of Tubungen. I
found this university always being involved in falsifying history so
that it matches Bible.
The third one is:
3) Erich von Tschermak - who was, actually, largely influenced by his
brother Armin. Well, his brother was elected member of the Pontifical
Academy of Sciences, which is a scientific academy of Vatican City, established in 28 October 1936, and Armin became member of it right from
the beginning, 28 October 1936.
So, Christian religion all over the place.
The second problem is the problem of nomenclature, which is so
obvious. This is called Mutation Theory, but if you try to discuss in a
term of a 'mutation', everybody tells you immediately that these
*aren't* mutations, but rather changes.
Now, if those are changes, why
they are not called changes?
Because you can achieve so much by playing
with words (I've seen this so many times, being raised in communism). If
they would be called genetic changes, this isn't a big deal, nothing
strange about it, everything changes over time, even we change during
our lifetime, the change is natural, the change is gradual, after all, Darwin's theory is about a change. But if you introduce 'mutation', this
is completely different thing. Mutations are unnatural, mutations are
one-off events, mutations are out of any system, mutations are
unsystematic. So now we have, instead of following a simple change which pertain to some particular system, the whole scientific community
searches for those unnatural one-off events that produce some out of
order unsystematic magic, and the whole scientific community suddenly revolves around Adam and Eve.
But the real truth is, all this doesn't exist at all. Those genetic changes are just simple changes, there are no unnatural events,
no "mutations" (just like everybody is so fast to tell you). So, what's
the fuss, then? The fuss is in the fact that scientists don't bloody understand what they are doing at all, they are pulled by their noses,
this is what the fuss is.
On 8/23/23 11:07 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
On 24.8.2023. 3:45, Glenn wrote:
On Saturday, August 19, 2023 at 7:49:29 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote: >>>> On 8/19/23 7:28 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
Ok, I figured this out. Definitely 20 years ago it is known
that Genetic Mutation Theory was Mendel's (at least, this is how this >>>>> came to me), but maybe somebody misunderstood it, because it is
based on
Mendel's work.
Conceivably there is some kind of translation problem here. But no, you >>>> are wrong. Mendel's theory has nothing to do with mutation. You
admit at
times that you're ignorant of evolutionary biology and genetics. In
this, if in nothing else, you are correct.
Ayala:
"The rediscovery in 1900 of Mendel's theory of heredity by the Dutch
botanist and geneticist Hugo de Vries and others led to an emphasis
on the role of heredity in evolution. De Vries proposed a new theory
of evolution known as mutationism, which essentially did away with
natural selection as a major evolutionary process."
"The controversy between mutationists (also referred to at the time
as Mendelians) and biometricians approached a resolution in the 1920s
and 1930s through the theoretical work of geneticists."
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/agricultural-and-biological-sciences/mutationism
Mario appears more accurate about history than you.
Thanks very much. I know that at the time I was seeking info
about it, it was called Genetic Mutation Theory in Wikipedia (I
believe), and they wrote that all this originates from Mendel, and
later this was "re-discovered" by three independent guys, in a matter
of two months.
No, the quote from Ayala says nothing of the sort. Note: "Mendel's
theory of heredity" says nothing about mutation. And "De Vries proposed
a *new* theory of evolution". The only connection between Mendelism and mutationism is that De Vries subscribed to both of them.
Well, I also searched info about those three guys. At that time only
one of those had something in his biography (he had only one thing in
his biography, besides being involved in this, it was probably de
Vries), and the other two had absolutely nothing in their biographies,
except that they rediscovered Mendel (I am using exclusively English
version of Wikipedia). So, by that I figured out that they were just
filling the number, because for something to be accepted the number
has to be three.
Now I am looking at this in Wikipedia, and somehow, like
somebody wants deliberately to nullify what I figured out, suddenly
they emphasize only two of those three, although clearly they,
themselves, mention that there were three "re-discoverers" in a matter
ow two months.
Those two are:
1) Hugo de Vries - son of a deacon in the Mennonite congregation in
Haarlem
2) Carl Correns - who worked as tutor at the University of Tubungen. I
found this university always being involved in falsifying history so
that it matches Bible.
The third one is:
3) Erich von Tschermak - who was, actually, largely influenced by his
brother Armin. Well, his brother was elected member of the Pontifical
Academy of Sciences, which is a scientific academy of Vatican City,
established in 28 October 1936, and Armin became member of it right
from the beginning, 28 October 1936.
So, Christian religion all over the place.
This is typical conspiracy thinking, in which any connection to
anything, no matter how tenuous, produces guilt by association. And your reach has expanded. It used to be the Catholic church, and now it's any Christian sect. I submit that any European or American scientist can be connected to Christianity by a very short chain of relationships.
The second problem is the problem of nomenclature, which is >> so obvious. This is called Mutation Theory, but if you try to discuss
in a term of a 'mutation', everybody tells you immediately that these
*aren't* mutations, but rather changes.
Your pronouns make the sentence conveniently ambiguous. What's "this"?
Not anything Mendel was involved in. What are "these"? Is somebody
supposed to be claiming that mutations don't happen?
Now, if those are changes, why they are not called changes?
What are "those"?
Because you can achieve so much by playing with words (I've seen this
so many times, being raised in communism). If they would be called
genetic changes, this isn't a big deal, nothing strange about it,
everything changes over time, even we change during our lifetime, the
change is natural, the change is gradual, after all, Darwin's theory
is about a change. But if you introduce 'mutation', this is completely
different thing. Mutations are unnatural, mutations are one-off
events, mutations are out of any system, mutations are unsystematic.
So now we have, instead of following a simple change which pertain to
some particular system, the whole scientific community searches for
those unnatural one-off events that produce some out of order
unsystematic magic, and the whole scientific community suddenly
revolves around Adam and Eve.
I don't think you have any idea what mutations are or what scientists
think they are. Nobody thinks that mutations are unnatural (well, except
for some IDers; but not scientists).
But the real truth is, all this doesn't exist at all. Those >> genetic changes are just simple changes, there are no unnatural
events, no "mutations" (just like everybody is so fast to tell you).
So, what's the fuss, then? The fuss is in the fact that scientists
don't bloody understand what they are doing at all, they are pulled by
their noses, this is what the fuss is.
I think you don't understand what you're doing at all, and all the
pronouns in the world can't disguise that.
On 24.8.2023. 15:34, John Harshman wrote:
On 8/23/23 11:07 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
On 24.8.2023. 3:45, Glenn wrote:
On Saturday, August 19, 2023 at 7:49:29 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote: >>>>> On 8/19/23 7:28 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
Ok, I figured this out. Definitely 20 years ago it is known
that Genetic Mutation Theory was Mendel's (at least, this is how this >>>>>> came to me), but maybe somebody misunderstood it, because it is
based on
Mendel's work.
Conceivably there is some kind of translation problem here. But no,
you
are wrong. Mendel's theory has nothing to do with mutation. You
admit at
times that you're ignorant of evolutionary biology and genetics. In
this, if in nothing else, you are correct.
Ayala:
"The rediscovery in 1900 of Mendel's theory of heredity by the Dutch
botanist and geneticist Hugo de Vries and others led to an emphasis
on the role of heredity in evolution. De Vries proposed a new theory
of evolution known as mutationism, which essentially did away with
natural selection as a major evolutionary process."
"The controversy between mutationists (also referred to at the time
as Mendelians) and biometricians approached a resolution in the
1920s and 1930s through the theoretical work of geneticists."
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/agricultural-and-biological-sciences/mutationism
Mario appears more accurate about history than you.
Thanks very much. I know that at the time I was seeking info
about it, it was called Genetic Mutation Theory in Wikipedia (I
believe), and they wrote that all this originates from Mendel, and
later this was "re-discovered" by three independent guys, in a matter
of two months.
No, the quote from Ayala says nothing of the sort. Note: "Mendel's
theory of heredity" says nothing about mutation. And "De Vries
proposed a *new* theory of evolution". The only connection between
Mendelism and mutationism is that De Vries subscribed to both of them.
Hm, when I read it in the past it was said that de Vries rediscovered Mendel, and that he introduced the term 'mutations', and
that was all. But Mendel was the originator and the only important
person in the whole story back then, when I have read about it. Now, I
will definitely not waste my time to research it further because the
idea is utterly stupid, and the fact that the ones who follow the idea
search for Adam and Eve only supports my view on this.
There *is* a *system* (it is so obvious, because it works on each and every species on this planet, each and every species improves,
even if it eventually goes extinct it *improves* before that point) that makes things to better adapt, and the idea of mutation cannot work,
because mutations are harmful, in order to have only useful mutations
you would need to win lottery each and every time, this, simply, doesn't work, although so many would like it to work.
Besides, when I claim something, I claim it based on something,
not just out of thin air. Changes do happen, while I would really like
to see the evidence of those famous useful mutations, other than
circular thinking. As I said, those people probably envisage human "intelligence" as the evidence. But they are completely wrong, there is
*no* human "intelligence". So, human "intelligence" is possible because
of mutations, and the evidence for mutations is human intelligence.
Simple as that, circular thinking.
Well, I also searched info about those three guys. At that time only
one of those had something in his biography (he had only one thing in
his biography, besides being involved in this, it was probably de
Vries), and the other two had absolutely nothing in their
biographies, except that they rediscovered Mendel (I am using
exclusively English version of Wikipedia). So, by that I figured out
that they were just filling the number, because for something to be
accepted the number has to be three.
Now I am looking at this in Wikipedia, and somehow, like >>> somebody wants deliberately to nullify what I figured out, suddenly
they emphasize only two of those three, although clearly they,
themselves, mention that there were three "re-discoverers" in a
matter ow two months.
Those two are:
1) Hugo de Vries - son of a deacon in the Mennonite congregation in
Haarlem
2) Carl Correns - who worked as tutor at the University of Tubungen.
I found this university always being involved in falsifying history
so that it matches Bible.
The third one is:
3) Erich von Tschermak - who was, actually, largely influenced by his
brother Armin. Well, his brother was elected member of the Pontifical
Academy of Sciences, which is a scientific academy of Vatican City,
established in 28 October 1936, and Armin became member of it right
from the beginning, 28 October 1936.
So, Christian religion all over the place.
This is typical conspiracy thinking, in which any connection to
anything, no matter how tenuous, produces guilt by association. And
your reach has expanded. It used to be the Catholic church, and now
it's any Christian sect. I submit that any European or American
scientist can be connected to Christianity by a very short chain of
relationships.
Of course. Isn't it so obvious? Now, somehow, Vatican doesn't have conspiracy? How come, if anybody has it, it is Vatican. I don't
know in what relation to Vatican those Mennonites are, though (and I
don't care).
The second problem is the problem of nomenclature, which is
so obvious. This is called Mutation Theory, but if you try to discuss
in a term of a 'mutation', everybody tells you immediately that these
*aren't* mutations, but rather changes.
Your pronouns make the sentence conveniently ambiguous. What's "this"?
Not anything Mendel was involved in. What are "these"? Is somebody
supposed to be claiming that mutations don't happen?
Oh, of course. Whenever I say that mutations are harmful, and that this cannot work, the one I am discussion this with (it could have
even been you, I don't remember anymore) immediately says that this
actually aren't mutations.
Gee. So, these *are* mutations? Fine. I
really don't get how a person with clear mind can envisage this to work,
it's beyond me. I know that your brain doesn't work, that you accept everything that is written in books without thinking (obviously you
didn't read Bible yet), so for you this is normal.
"Those" supposed 'mutations'. Set your story straight, it is your story, not mine (ah, I see, it isn't your story, you just read itNow, if those are changes, why they are not called changes?
What are "those"?
in books, but you actually don't understand it, or what?). So, if
"those" are mutations, they, simply, cannot work. If "those" aren't
mutations (so, it is just wrong nomenclature), if "those" are just
changes, then they aren't what proponents of "mutations" claim for them
to be.
Because you can achieve so much by playing with words (I've seen this
so many times, being raised in communism). If they would be called
genetic changes, this isn't a big deal, nothing strange about it,
everything changes over time, even we change during our lifetime, the
change is natural, the change is gradual, after all, Darwin's theory
is about a change. But if you introduce 'mutation', this is
completely different thing. Mutations are unnatural, mutations are
one-off events, mutations are out of any system, mutations are
unsystematic. So now we have, instead of following a simple change
which pertain to some particular system, the whole scientific
community searches for those unnatural one-off events that produce
some out of order unsystematic magic, and the whole scientific
community suddenly revolves around Adam and Eve.
I don't think you have any idea what mutations are or what scientists
think they are. Nobody thinks that mutations are unnatural (well,
except for some IDers; but not scientists).
Mutations are errors. Simple as that.
In order to have one
"useful" error, you have to have millions of wrong lottery tickets. So,
this theory works against itself, because the winner would be the one
who *doesn't have* errors, and not the one who has it so much that he
even got the winning one. I would always win a lottery if I buy all the lottery tickets, otherwise no. This, simply, doesn't work.
But the real truth is, all this doesn't exist at all. Those
genetic changes are just simple changes, there are no unnatural
events, no "mutations" (just like everybody is so fast to tell you).
So, what's the fuss, then? The fuss is in the fact that scientists
don't bloody understand what they are doing at all, they are pulled
by their noses, this is what the fuss is.
I think you don't understand what you're doing at all, and all the
pronouns in the world can't disguise that.
And I think that you, simply, don't understand anything, simple
as that. This is why you rely so much on books.
On 8/23/23 6:45 PM, Glenn wrote:
On Saturday, August 19, 2023 at 7:49:29 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
On 8/19/23 7:28 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
On 20.8.2023. 3:06, John Harshman wrote:
On 8/19/23 5:22 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
On 20.8.2023. 1:56, John Harshman wrote:
On 8/19/23 2:17 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
20 years ago situation was like this, Genetic Mutation
Theory was all over the place.
I have no idea what you're talking about. I suspect you don't either. >>>>>>
Then I noticed that authors of both, the Big Bang Theory and the >>>>>>> Genetic Mutation Theory are Catholic priests, and I started to >>>>>>> write about this, I wrote about it here a few times.
You're right about the Big Bang, but Mendel had zero to do with >>>>>> mutations.
Of course, that's why his theory is called Genetic Mutation
Theory.
Nobody calls it that.
Ok, I figured this out. Definitely 20 years ago it is known
that Genetic Mutation Theory was Mendel's (at least, this is how this >>> came to me), but maybe somebody misunderstood it, because it is based on >>> Mendel's work.
Conceivably there is some kind of translation problem here. But no, you >> are wrong. Mendel's theory has nothing to do with mutation. You admit at >> times that you're ignorant of evolutionary biology and genetics. In
this, if in nothing else, you are correct.
essentially did away with natural selection as a major evolutionary process."Ayala:
"The rediscovery in 1900 of Mendel's theory of heredity by the Dutch botanist and geneticist Hugo de Vries and others led to an emphasis on the role of heredity in evolution. De Vries proposed a new theory of evolution known as mutationism, which
"The controversy between mutationists (also referred to at the time as Mendelians) and biometricians approached a resolution in the 1920s and 1930s through the theoretical work of geneticists."
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/agricultural-and-biological-sciences/mutationism
Mario appears more accurate about history than you.Mario is no better at reading than you are, which is not very good, apparently. Mendel wasn't the mutationist, DeVries was. The mutationists were indeed Mendelians, and the biometricians were not. But that doesn't mean that Mendel had anything personally to do with mutationism. He
didn't. Your quotes make my case, not Mario's. So thanks.
Now:
- BEFORE that I newer heard *anybody* even mention this
- DURING the time I was writing about it I didn't hear anybody even >>>>>>> mention this
- AFTER that time, even to this days, I never heard *anybody* even >>>>>>> mention this
Ok. Before I started to write about it you can clearly
find "Genetic Mutation Theory" in Wikipedia. Of course, right in >>>>>>> the preamble of the article you will clearly see who is the author, >>>>>>> written in bold letters, so that everybody can see it clearly, >>>>>>> right at the first sight. This also goes for the Big Bang Theory, >>>>>>> you will clearly see in the preamble who is the author of it, in >>>>>>> bold letters.
I don't believe you. I don't believe that "Genetic Mutation Theory" >>>>>> was ever a Wikipedia article. I certainly don't know what such an >>>>>> article would contain.
In the previous post I provided a citation, with a whole
bunch of references.
These days you even cannot find the Genetic Mutation
Theory in Wikipedia. You can find Big Bang Theory in Wikipedia, but >>>>>>> if you manage to find in this article who is the actually author of >>>>>>> it within 20 minutes, I'll buy you a beer.
First sentence of the second paragraph of the Big Bang Theory
article: "Crucially, these models are compatible with the
Hubble–Lemaître law—the observation that the farther away a galaxy
is, the faster it is moving away from Earth." Under "Development": >>>>>> "Independently deriving Friedmann's equations in 1927, Georges
Lemaître, a Belgian physicist and Roman Catholic priest, proposed >>>>>> that the recession of the nebulae was due to the expansion of the >>>>>> universe."
Not sure how you will get my beer to me.
Oh really? No, it is Lemaitre's theory, it isn't by somebody
else, or a bunch of people but based on Hubble-Lemaitre something, >>>>> how they are twisting it today, it is full blown solely Lemaitre's >>>>> theory. And it isn't Hubble-Lemaitre's law, now it is called Hubble's >>>>> law, but actually it was published by Lemaitre, without Hubble. Now >>>>> they are twisting this all around these days, trying to somehow
disconnect this theory from Lemaitre, and desperately connect it to >>>>> something else. Oh yes, I am insane, lol.
I'm beginning to think you are in fact insane. But I guess I won't get >>>> my beer. That's always a problem when the judge of the challenge is >>>> the one who presented it.
Now, science behaves like it never had anything to do with
Mendel and his theory, and Harshman even calls me insane.
No, science has much to do with Mendel's theory, but you don't
understand what Mendel's theory is.
Of course, Hrshman behaves also like science never had anything to >>>>>>> do with the Genetic Mutation Theory,
No idea what the Genetic Mutation Theory is, but it can't have
anything to do with Mendel.
he behaves like he never heard of it,
Yes. That's because I never heard of it, or at least I don't know >>>>>> what you mean by it.
and whoever claims that science had something to do with it, he >>>>>>> calls him insane.
This post talks about human intelligence, talks about
learning from books, and talks about science.
This post seems to talk about none of those things.
On Saturday, August 19, 2023 at 7:49:29 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:essentially did away with natural selection as a major evolutionary process."
On 8/19/23 7:28 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
On 20.8.2023. 3:06, John Harshman wrote:
On 8/19/23 5:22 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
On 20.8.2023. 1:56, John Harshman wrote:
On 8/19/23 2:17 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
20 years ago situation was like this, Genetic Mutation
Theory was all over the place.
I have no idea what you're talking about. I suspect you don't either. >>>>
Then I noticed that authors of both, the Big Bang Theory and the >>>>> Genetic Mutation Theory are Catholic priests, and I started to
write about this, I wrote about it here a few times.
You're right about the Big Bang, but Mendel had zero to do with
mutations.
Of course, that's why his theory is called Genetic Mutation
Theory.
Nobody calls it that.
Ok, I figured this out. Definitely 20 years ago it is known
that Genetic Mutation Theory was Mendel's (at least, this is how this came to me), but maybe somebody misunderstood it, because it is based on Mendel's work.
Conceivably there is some kind of translation problem here. But no, you are wrong. Mendel's theory has nothing to do with mutation. You admit at times that you're ignorant of evolutionary biology and genetics. In
this, if in nothing else, you are correct.
Ayala:
"The rediscovery in 1900 of Mendel's theory of heredity by the Dutch botanist and geneticist Hugo de Vries and others led to an emphasis on the role of heredity in evolution. De Vries proposed a new theory of evolution known as mutationism, which
"The controversy between mutationists (also referred to at the time as Mendelians) and biometricians approached a resolution in the 1920s and 1930s through the theoretical work of geneticists."
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/agricultural-and-biological-sciences/mutationism
Mario appears more accurate about history than you.
No, it is Lemaitre's theory, it isn't by somebody
else, or a bunch of people but based on Hubble-Lemaitre something,
how they are twisting it today, it is full blown solely Lemaitre's
theory. And it isn't Hubble-Lemaitre's law, now it is called Hubble's >>> law,
but actually it was published by Lemaitre, without Hubble. Now
they are twisting this all around these days, trying to somehow
disconnect this theory from Lemaitre, and desperately connect it to >>> something else. Oh yes, I am insane, lol.
On Wednesday, August 23, 2023 at 8:40:26 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:essentially did away with natural selection as a major evolutionary process." >>>
On 8/23/23 6:45 PM, Glenn wrote:
On Saturday, August 19, 2023 at 7:49:29 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote: >>>> On 8/19/23 7:28 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
On 20.8.2023. 3:06, John Harshman wrote:
On 8/19/23 5:22 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
On 20.8.2023. 1:56, John Harshman wrote:
On 8/19/23 2:17 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
20 years ago situation was like this, Genetic Mutation
Theory was all over the place.
I have no idea what you're talking about. I suspect you don't either. >>>>>>>>
Then I noticed that authors of both, the Big Bang Theory and the >>>>>>>>> Genetic Mutation Theory are Catholic priests, and I started to >>>>>>>>> write about this, I wrote about it here a few times.
You're right about the Big Bang, but Mendel had zero to do with >>>>>>>> mutations.
Of course, that's why his theory is called Genetic Mutation
Theory.
Nobody calls it that.
Ok, I figured this out. Definitely 20 years ago it is known
that Genetic Mutation Theory was Mendel's (at least, this is how this >>>>> came to me), but maybe somebody misunderstood it, because it is based on >>>>> Mendel's work.
Conceivably there is some kind of translation problem here. But no, you >>>> are wrong. Mendel's theory has nothing to do with mutation. You admit at >>>> times that you're ignorant of evolutionary biology and genetics. In
this, if in nothing else, you are correct.
Ayala:
"The rediscovery in 1900 of Mendel's theory of heredity by the Dutch botanist and geneticist Hugo de Vries and others led to an emphasis on the role of heredity in evolution. De Vries proposed a new theory of evolution known as mutationism, which
"The controversy between mutationists (also referred to at the time as Mendelians) and biometricians approached a resolution in the 1920s and 1930s through the theoretical work of geneticists."Mario is no better at reading than you are, which is not very good,
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/agricultural-and-biological-sciences/mutationism
Mario appears more accurate about history than you.
apparently. Mendel wasn't the mutationist, DeVries was. The mutationists
were indeed Mendelians, and the biometricians were not. But that doesn't
mean that Mendel had anything personally to do with mutationism. He
didn't. Your quotes make my case, not Mario's. So thanks.
You have no case, other than to interpret the relevant statements by Mario as you wished:That's exactly what Mario claimed. And the idea of mutations wasn't
" Ok, I figured this out. Definitely 20 years ago it is known
that Genetic Mutation Theory was Mendel's (at least, this is how this
came to me), but maybe somebody misunderstood it, because it is based on
Mendel's work."
You may have nitpicked about the claim that the idea of mutations
were based on Mendel's work, but instead you made it sound like Mario
claimed that Mendel personally came up with the idea of mutation -
which he most certainly does not.
But as usual, you'll avoid this and continue to play games. But thenI never said that. But I am much better than reading (even, apparently,
you are much better at reading than anyone else on the planet.
Now:
- BEFORE that I newer heard *anybody* even mention this
- DURING the time I was writing about it I didn't hear anybody even >>>>>>>>> mention this
- AFTER that time, even to this days, I never heard *anybody* even >>>>>>>>> mention this
Ok. Before I started to write about it you can clearly
find "Genetic Mutation Theory" in Wikipedia. Of course, right in >>>>>>>>> the preamble of the article you will clearly see who is the author, >>>>>>>>> written in bold letters, so that everybody can see it clearly, >>>>>>>>> right at the first sight. This also goes for the Big Bang Theory, >>>>>>>>> you will clearly see in the preamble who is the author of it, in >>>>>>>>> bold letters.
I don't believe you. I don't believe that "Genetic Mutation Theory" >>>>>>>> was ever a Wikipedia article. I certainly don't know what such an >>>>>>>> article would contain.
In the previous post I provided a citation, with a whole
bunch of references.
These days you even cannot find the Genetic Mutation
Theory in Wikipedia. You can find Big Bang Theory in Wikipedia, but >>>>>>>>> if you manage to find in this article who is the actually author of >>>>>>>>> it within 20 minutes, I'll buy you a beer.
First sentence of the second paragraph of the Big Bang Theory
article: "Crucially, these models are compatible with the
Hubble–Lemaître law—the observation that the farther away a galaxy
is, the faster it is moving away from Earth." Under "Development": >>>>>>>> "Independently deriving Friedmann's equations in 1927, Georges >>>>>>>> Lemaître, a Belgian physicist and Roman Catholic priest, proposed >>>>>>>> that the recession of the nebulae was due to the expansion of the >>>>>>>> universe."
Not sure how you will get my beer to me.
Oh really? No, it is Lemaitre's theory, it isn't by somebody
else, or a bunch of people but based on Hubble-Lemaitre something, >>>>>>> how they are twisting it today, it is full blown solely Lemaitre's >>>>>>> theory. And it isn't Hubble-Lemaitre's law, now it is called Hubble's >>>>>>> law, but actually it was published by Lemaitre, without Hubble. Now >>>>>>> they are twisting this all around these days, trying to somehow
disconnect this theory from Lemaitre, and desperately connect it to >>>>>>> something else. Oh yes, I am insane, lol.
I'm beginning to think you are in fact insane. But I guess I won't get >>>>>> my beer. That's always a problem when the judge of the challenge is >>>>>> the one who presented it.
Now, science behaves like it never had anything to do with
Mendel and his theory, and Harshman even calls me insane.
No, science has much to do with Mendel's theory, but you don't >>>>>>>> understand what Mendel's theory is.
Of course, Hrshman behaves also like science never had anything to >>>>>>>>> do with the Genetic Mutation Theory,
No idea what the Genetic Mutation Theory is, but it can't have >>>>>>>> anything to do with Mendel.
he behaves like he never heard of it,
Yes. That's because I never heard of it, or at least I don't know >>>>>>>> what you mean by it.
and whoever claims that science had something to do with it, he >>>>>>>>> calls him insane.
This post talks about human intelligence, talks about
learning from books, and talks about science.
This post seems to talk about none of those things.
On 8/24/23 8:59 AM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
On 24.8.2023. 15:34, John Harshman wrote:
On 8/23/23 11:07 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
On 24.8.2023. 3:45, Glenn wrote:
On Saturday, August 19, 2023 at 7:49:29 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote: >>>>>> On 8/19/23 7:28 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
Ok, I figured this out. Definitely 20 years ago it is known
that Genetic Mutation Theory was Mendel's (at least, this is how >>>>>>> this
came to me), but maybe somebody misunderstood it, because it is
based on
Mendel's work.
Conceivably there is some kind of translation problem here. But
no, you
are wrong. Mendel's theory has nothing to do with mutation. You
admit at
times that you're ignorant of evolutionary biology and genetics. In >>>>>> this, if in nothing else, you are correct.
Ayala:
"The rediscovery in 1900 of Mendel's theory of heredity by the
Dutch botanist and geneticist Hugo de Vries and others led to an
emphasis on the role of heredity in evolution. De Vries proposed a
new theory of evolution known as mutationism, which essentially did
away with natural selection as a major evolutionary process."
"The controversy between mutationists (also referred to at the time
as Mendelians) and biometricians approached a resolution in the
1920s and 1930s through the theoretical work of geneticists."
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/agricultural-and-biological-sciences/mutationism
Mario appears more accurate about history than you.
Thanks very much. I know that at the time I was seeking >>>> info about it, it was called Genetic Mutation Theory in Wikipedia (I
believe), and they wrote that all this originates from Mendel, and
later this was "re-discovered" by three independent guys, in a
matter of two months.
No, the quote from Ayala says nothing of the sort. Note: "Mendel's
theory of heredity" says nothing about mutation. And "De Vries
proposed a *new* theory of evolution". The only connection between
Mendelism and mutationism is that De Vries subscribed to both of them.
Hm, when I read it in the past it was said that de Vries
rediscovered Mendel, and that he introduced the term 'mutations', and
that was all. But Mendel was the originator and the only important
person in the whole story back then, when I have read about it. Now, I
will definitely not waste my time to research it further because the
idea is utterly stupid, and the fact that the ones who follow the idea
search for Adam and Eve only supports my view on this.
I get the idea you're really talking about something else. What idea is utterly stupid, and who searches for Adam and Eve?
But again, Mendel never said anything about mutations, using that term
or any other. De Vries rediscovered Mendel *and* De Vries was a
mutationist. There is no connection between those two things other than
that De Vries entertained them both.
There *is* a *system* (it is so obvious, because it works on
each and every species on this planet, each and every species
improves, even if it eventually goes extinct it *improves* before that
point) that makes things to better adapt, and the idea of mutation
cannot work, because mutations are harmful, in order to have only
useful mutations you would need to win lottery each and every time,
this, simply, doesn't work, although so many would like it to work.
Not true. Most mutations are neutral, some are harmful, and some are beneficial. Which ones are which depends quite a bit on the environment.
And you completely ignore natural selection, which eliminates the
harmful ones and fixes the beneficial ones.
Besides, when I claim something, I claim it based on
something, not just out of thin air. Changes do happen, while I would
really like to see the evidence of those famous useful mutations,
other than circular thinking. As I said, those people probably
envisage human "intelligence" as the evidence. But they are completely
wrong, there is *no* human "intelligence". So, human "intelligence" is
possible because of mutations, and the evidence for mutations is human
intelligence. Simple as that, circular thinking.
Still don't know who "those people" are. The evidence of mutations is differences in the genomes of parents and children, genetic variation
within populations, and genetic differences between species, all of
which are the sort of thing we observe happening and whose causes we know.
Well, I also searched info about those three guys. At that time only
one of those had something in his biography (he had only one thing
in his biography, besides being involved in this, it was probably de
Vries), and the other two had absolutely nothing in their
biographies, except that they rediscovered Mendel (I am using
exclusively English version of Wikipedia). So, by that I figured out
that they were just filling the number, because for something to be
accepted the number has to be three.
Now I am looking at this in Wikipedia, and somehow, like >>>> somebody wants deliberately to nullify what I figured out, suddenly
they emphasize only two of those three, although clearly they,
themselves, mention that there were three "re-discoverers" in a
matter ow two months.
Those two are:
1) Hugo de Vries - son of a deacon in the Mennonite congregation in
Haarlem
2) Carl Correns - who worked as tutor at the University of Tubungen.
I found this university always being involved in falsifying history
so that it matches Bible.
The third one is:
3) Erich von Tschermak - who was, actually, largely influenced by
his brother Armin. Well, his brother was elected member of the
Pontifical Academy of Sciences, which is a scientific academy of
Vatican City, established in 28 October 1936, and Armin became
member of it right from the beginning, 28 October 1936.
So, Christian religion all over the place.
This is typical conspiracy thinking, in which any connection to
anything, no matter how tenuous, produces guilt by association. And
your reach has expanded. It used to be the Catholic church, and now
it's any Christian sect. I submit that any European or American
scientist can be connected to Christianity by a very short chain of
relationships.
Of course. Isn't it so obvious? Now, somehow, Vatican doesn't
have conspiracy? How come, if anybody has it, it is Vatican. I don't
know in what relation to Vatican those Mennonites are, though (and I
don't care).
This is crazy talk, pure and simple.
The second problem is the problem of nomenclature, which is
so obvious. This is called Mutation Theory, but if you try to
discuss in a term of a 'mutation', everybody tells you immediately
that these *aren't* mutations, but rather changes.
Your pronouns make the sentence conveniently ambiguous. What's
"this"? Not anything Mendel was involved in. What are "these"? Is
somebody supposed to be claiming that mutations don't happen?
Oh, of course. Whenever I say that mutations are harmful, and
that this cannot work, the one I am discussion this with (it could
have even been you, I don't remember anymore) immediately says that
this actually aren't mutations.
I have no idea what you think you're talking about here. Mutations
aren't mutations? What cannot work? Could you try very hard to be clearer?
Gee. So, these *are* mutations? Fine. I really don't get how a person
with clear mind can envisage this to work, it's beyond me. I know that
your brain doesn't work, that you accept everything that is written in
books without thinking (obviously you didn't read Bible yet), so for
you this is normal.
Again, what are "these"? What is "this"?
"Those" supposed 'mutations'. Set your story straight, it isNow, if those are changes, why they are not called changes?
What are "those"?
your story, not mine (ah, I see, it isn't your story, you just read it
in books, but you actually don't understand it, or what?). So, if
"those" are mutations, they, simply, cannot work. If "those" aren't
mutations (so, it is just wrong nomenclature), if "those" are just
changes, then they aren't what proponents of "mutations" claim for
them to be.
What are the supposed mutations you're talking about? Why can't they
work, and what would it mean to work?
Because you can achieve so much by playing with words (I've seen
this so many times, being raised in communism). If they would be
called genetic changes, this isn't a big deal, nothing strange about
it, everything changes over time, even we change during our
lifetime, the change is natural, the change is gradual, after all,
Darwin's theory is about a change. But if you introduce 'mutation',
this is completely different thing. Mutations are unnatural,
mutations are one-off events, mutations are out of any system,
mutations are unsystematic. So now we have, instead of following a
simple change which pertain to some particular system, the whole
scientific community searches for those unnatural one-off events
that produce some out of order unsystematic magic, and the whole
scientific community suddenly revolves around Adam and Eve.
I don't think you have any idea what mutations are or what scientists
think they are. Nobody thinks that mutations are unnatural (well,
except for some IDers; but not scientists).
Mutations are errors. Simple as that.
"Error" is a value-laden word, implying that someone is making a
mistake. But there isn't anybody involved. We call them errors if they
result in a different sequence than was there before, though in fact we
don't call recombination an error or a mutation, and it results in a different sequence. Go figure.
In order to have one "useful" error, you have to have millions of
wrong lottery tickets. So, this theory works against itself, because
the winner would be the one who *doesn't have* errors, and not the one
who has it so much that he even got the winning one. I would always
win a lottery if I buy all the lottery tickets, otherwise no. This,
simply, doesn't work.
You made up a distribution from thin air and forgot entirely about
natural selection.
But the real truth is, all this doesn't exist at all. Those
genetic changes are just simple changes, there are no unnatural
events, no "mutations" (just like everybody is so fast to tell you).
So, what's the fuss, then? The fuss is in the fact that scientists
don't bloody understand what they are doing at all, they are pulled
by their noses, this is what the fuss is.
I think you don't understand what you're doing at all, and all the
pronouns in the world can't disguise that.
And I think that you, simply, don't understand anything,
simple as that. This is why you rely so much on books.
Better books than fantasies based on ignorance, wouldn't you say?
On 24.8.2023. 19:56, John Harshman wrote:
On 8/24/23 8:59 AM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
On 24.8.2023. 15:34, John Harshman wrote:
On 8/23/23 11:07 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
On 24.8.2023. 3:45, Glenn wrote:
On Saturday, August 19, 2023 at 7:49:29 PM UTC-7, John Harshman
wrote:
On 8/19/23 7:28 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
Ok, I figured this out. Definitely 20 years ago it is >>>>>>>> known
that Genetic Mutation Theory was Mendel's (at least, this is how >>>>>>>> this
came to me), but maybe somebody misunderstood it, because it is >>>>>>>> based on
Mendel's work.
Conceivably there is some kind of translation problem here. But
no, you
are wrong. Mendel's theory has nothing to do with mutation. You
admit at
times that you're ignorant of evolutionary biology and genetics. In >>>>>>> this, if in nothing else, you are correct.
Ayala:
"The rediscovery in 1900 of Mendel's theory of heredity by the
Dutch botanist and geneticist Hugo de Vries and others led to an
emphasis on the role of heredity in evolution. De Vries proposed a >>>>>> new theory of evolution known as mutationism, which essentially
did away with natural selection as a major evolutionary process."
"The controversy between mutationists (also referred to at the
time as Mendelians) and biometricians approached a resolution in
the 1920s and 1930s through the theoretical work of geneticists."
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/agricultural-and-biological-sciences/mutationism
Mario appears more accurate about history than you.
Thanks very much. I know that at the time I was seeking >>>>> info about it, it was called Genetic Mutation Theory in Wikipedia
(I believe), and they wrote that all this originates from Mendel,
and later this was "re-discovered" by three independent guys, in a
matter of two months.
No, the quote from Ayala says nothing of the sort. Note: "Mendel's
theory of heredity" says nothing about mutation. And "De Vries
proposed a *new* theory of evolution". The only connection between
Mendelism and mutationism is that De Vries subscribed to both of them.
Hm, when I read it in the past it was said that de Vries >>> rediscovered Mendel, and that he introduced the term 'mutations', and
that was all. But Mendel was the originator and the only important
person in the whole story back then, when I have read about it. Now,
I will definitely not waste my time to research it further because
the idea is utterly stupid, and the fact that the ones who follow the
idea search for Adam and Eve only supports my view on this.
I get the idea you're really talking about something else. What idea
is utterly stupid, and who searches for Adam and Eve?
Everybody. Everybody searches for this moment when some mutation happened, and like, the original owner of it would be, either
Adam, or Eve. I cannot believe that you never heard those terms, they
are all around. They are connected to mutations, because the Adam/Eve is
the one who first got it.
But again, Mendel never said anything about mutations, using that term
or any other. De Vries rediscovered Mendel *and* De Vries was a
mutationist. There is no connection between those two things other
than that De Vries entertained them both.
There *is* a *system* (it is so obvious, because it works on
each and every species on this planet, each and every species
improves, even if it eventually goes extinct it *improves* before
that point) that makes things to better adapt, and the idea of
mutation cannot work, because mutations are harmful, in order to have
only useful mutations you would need to win lottery each and every
time, this, simply, doesn't work, although so many would like it to
work.
Not true. Most mutations are neutral, some are harmful, and some are
beneficial. Which ones are which depends quite a bit on the
environment. And you completely ignore natural selection, which
eliminates the harmful ones and fixes the beneficial ones.
Mutations cannot be eliminated by natural selection, there is no time for it.
Since the waste majority of them are harmful, because
they are mutations, there is no place for them in the system, they are
not systematic, as you try to imply, they are pure errors, they have to
be eliminated.
This is like, imagine if there is life on Mars. We have
our diseases, they have their. If we come to Mars their diseases will
not affect us, just like pig diseases will not affect us, because those diseases work in pig system, and our evolve in our system. Of course,
there are variations on a theme, pigs can be transporters of our
disease, but only if we are long time in contact, and things like that.
In short, for something to affect us it has to be part of our system.
This "system", though, can go long time into the past, there is a bit of fish, and who knows what, still in us, but it has to be a part of us
already. No aliens will find home in our body, because things aren't so simple at all. Even Lego cubes, in order to build something, has to be
made per exact measures. No place for errors, there was no "evolution by errors". When evolution started, it was a system. This system improved,
but its basis always stays the same. For example, no matter how smart
you are, you never can follow five points in space. You will have
absolutely no problems with four points, but five points is too much. It
is too much for humans, but this goes for amoeba also, it can defend
from four attackers, not from five. Why? Because all the nervous systems
are based on four pipelines, amoeba and human, doesn't matter. There
will *never* be a mutation that will give you five pipelines. At least,
this didn't happen so far, although it would give you the immense
advantage, like a difference between 8 and 16 bit computers. Not because system with five pipelines wouldn't be possible, it is because this
system wouldn't be possible to implement into body which revolves around
four pipelines. So, this mutation would be, actually, deadly. Just the
same, all mutations are harmful, because this is a complex interlaced
system, no part works on its own, every part has to have connections to
other parts. You can dream about your mutation working, but only because
your dreams are childish, and not thorough enough.
Besides, when I claim something, I claim it based on
something, not just out of thin air. Changes do happen, while I would
really like to see the evidence of those famous useful mutations,
other than circular thinking. As I said, those people probably
envisage human "intelligence" as the evidence. But they are
completely wrong, there is *no* human "intelligence". So, human
"intelligence" is possible because of mutations, and the evidence for
mutations is human intelligence. Simple as that, circular thinking.
Still don't know who "those people" are. The evidence of mutations is
differences in the genomes of parents and children, genetic variation
within populations, and genetic differences between species, all of
which are the sort of thing we observe happening and whose causes we
know.
The difference is the evidence of change, not the evidence of mutations.
Well, I also searched info about those three guys. At that time
only one of those had something in his biography (he had only one
thing in his biography, besides being involved in this, it was
probably de Vries), and the other two had absolutely nothing in
their biographies, except that they rediscovered Mendel (I am using
exclusively English version of Wikipedia). So, by that I figured
out that they were just filling the number, because for something
to be accepted the number has to be three.
Now I am looking at this in Wikipedia, and somehow, like >>>>> somebody wants deliberately to nullify what I figured out, suddenly
they emphasize only two of those three, although clearly they,
themselves, mention that there were three "re-discoverers" in a
matter ow two months.
Those two are:
1) Hugo de Vries - son of a deacon in the Mennonite congregation in
Haarlem
2) Carl Correns - who worked as tutor at the University of
Tubungen. I found this university always being involved in
falsifying history so that it matches Bible.
The third one is:
3) Erich von Tschermak - who was, actually, largely influenced by
his brother Armin. Well, his brother was elected member of the
Pontifical Academy of Sciences, which is a scientific academy of
Vatican City, established in 28 October 1936, and Armin became
member of it right from the beginning, 28 October 1936.
So, Christian religion all over the place.
This is typical conspiracy thinking, in which any connection to
anything, no matter how tenuous, produces guilt by association. And
your reach has expanded. It used to be the Catholic church, and now
it's any Christian sect. I submit that any European or American
scientist can be connected to Christianity by a very short chain of
relationships.
Of course. Isn't it so obvious? Now, somehow, Vatican
doesn't have conspiracy? How come, if anybody has it, it is Vatican.
I don't know in what relation to Vatican those Mennonites are, though
(and I don't care).
This is crazy talk, pure and simple.
The second problem is the problem of nomenclature, which >>>>> is so obvious. This is called Mutation Theory, but if you try to
discuss in a term of a 'mutation', everybody tells you immediately
that these *aren't* mutations, but rather changes.
Your pronouns make the sentence conveniently ambiguous. What's
"this"? Not anything Mendel was involved in. What are "these"? Is
somebody supposed to be claiming that mutations don't happen?
Oh, of course. Whenever I say that mutations are harmful, >>> and that this cannot work, the one I am discussion this with (it
could have even been you, I don't remember anymore) immediately says
that this actually aren't mutations.
I have no idea what you think you're talking about here. Mutations
aren't mutations? What cannot work? Could you try very hard to be
clearer?
Gee. So, these *are* mutations? Fine. I really don't get how a person
with clear mind can envisage this to work, it's beyond me. I know
that your brain doesn't work, that you accept everything that is
written in books without thinking (obviously you didn't read Bible
yet), so for you this is normal.
Again, what are "these"? What is "this"?
"These" and "this" has nothing to do with me, they are invented
by people who are discussing mutations.
You can be "clear" when you are talking about those things only
if you are God, and you know absolutely everything about everything. And people who claim that they know everything about everything, are the
ones who don't know much, the fact that God created the Universe in
seven days is "everything" they think it needs to be known. The same way
is your way, "Everything is product of mutations.". Well, don't you say.
Yes, you are very clear about that, lol. How this incorporates into
existing system? "Well, it doesn't have to incorporate, you know." Well, don't you say.
"Those" supposed 'mutations'. Set your story straight, it isNow, if those are changes, why they are not called changes?
What are "those"?
your story, not mine (ah, I see, it isn't your story, you just read
it in books, but you actually don't understand it, or what?). So, if
"those" are mutations, they, simply, cannot work. If "those" aren't
mutations (so, it is just wrong nomenclature), if "those" are just
changes, then they aren't what proponents of "mutations" claim for
them to be.
What are the supposed mutations you're talking about? Why can't they
work, and what would it mean to work?
Because you can achieve so much by playing with words (I've seen
this so many times, being raised in communism). If they would be
called genetic changes, this isn't a big deal, nothing strange
about it, everything changes over time, even we change during our
lifetime, the change is natural, the change is gradual, after all,
Darwin's theory is about a change. But if you introduce 'mutation',
this is completely different thing. Mutations are unnatural,
mutations are one-off events, mutations are out of any system,
mutations are unsystematic. So now we have, instead of following a
simple change which pertain to some particular system, the whole
scientific community searches for those unnatural one-off events
that produce some out of order unsystematic magic, and the whole
scientific community suddenly revolves around Adam and Eve.
I don't think you have any idea what mutations are or what
scientists think they are. Nobody thinks that mutations are
unnatural (well, except for some IDers; but not scientists).
Mutations are errors. Simple as that.
"Error" is a value-laden word, implying that someone is making a
mistake. But there isn't anybody involved. We call them errors if they
result in a different sequence than was there before, though in fact
we don't call recombination an error or a mutation, and it results in
a different sequence. Go figure.
Different sequence? What bloody sequence? "Sequences" don't program the making of a body. I know that sequences are involved, but if
you can tell me *how* a specific sequence works, I'll buy you another
beer, :) .
In order to have one "useful" error, you have to have millions of
wrong lottery tickets. So, this theory works against itself, because
the winner would be the one who *doesn't have* errors, and not the
one who has it so much that he even got the winning one. I would
always win a lottery if I buy all the lottery tickets, otherwise no.
This, simply, doesn't work.
You made up a distribution from thin air and forgot entirely about
natural selection.
But the real truth is, all this doesn't exist at all. >>>>> Those genetic changes are just simple changes, there are no
unnatural events, no "mutations" (just like everybody is so fast to
tell you). So, what's the fuss, then? The fuss is in the fact that
scientists don't bloody understand what they are doing at all, they
are pulled by their noses, this is what the fuss is.
I think you don't understand what you're doing at all, and all the
pronouns in the world can't disguise that.
And I think that you, simply, don't understand anything, >>> simple as that. This is why you rely so much on books.
Better books than fantasies based on ignorance, wouldn't you say?
On Thursday, August 24, 2023 at 11:41:49 AM UTC-7, Peter Nyikos wrote:essentially did away with natural selection as a major evolutionary process." >>>
On Wednesday, August 23, 2023 at 9:45:27 PM UTC-4, Glenn wrote:
On Saturday, August 19, 2023 at 7:49:29 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote: >>>> On 8/19/23 7:28 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
On 20.8.2023. 3:06, John Harshman wrote:
On 8/19/23 5:22 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
On 20.8.2023. 1:56, John Harshman wrote:
On 8/19/23 2:17 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
20 years ago situation was like this, Genetic Mutation
Theory was all over the place.
I have no idea what you're talking about. I suspect you don't either. >>>>>>>>
Then I noticed that authors of both, the Big Bang Theory and the >>>>>>>>> Genetic Mutation Theory are Catholic priests, and I started to >>>>>>>>> write about this, I wrote about it here a few times.
You're right about the Big Bang, but Mendel had zero to do with >>>>>>>> mutations.
Of course, that's why his theory is called Genetic Mutation
Theory.
Nobody calls it that.
Ok, I figured this out. Definitely 20 years ago it is known
that Genetic Mutation Theory was Mendel's (at least, this is how this >>>>> came to me), but maybe somebody misunderstood it, because it is based on >>>>> Mendel's work.
Conceivably there is some kind of translation problem here. But no, you >>>> are wrong. Mendel's theory has nothing to do with mutation. You admit at >>>> times that you're ignorant of evolutionary biology and genetics. In
this, if in nothing else, you are correct.
Ayala:
"The rediscovery in 1900 of Mendel's theory of heredity by the Dutch botanist and geneticist Hugo de Vries and others led to an emphasis on the role of heredity in evolution. De Vries proposed a new theory of evolution known as mutationism, which
Here's another:"The controversy between mutationists (also referred to at the time as Mendelians) and biometricians approached a resolution in the 1920s and 1930s through the theoretical work of geneticists."It's a fascinating history that your link brings to light, but it seems that "Mendelian"
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/agricultural-and-biological-sciences/mutationism
Mario appears more accurate about history than you.
is one of those misnomers that have confused people since time immemorial. >>
Ripley collected an impressive number of them in the very first (and by far the most interesting, despite
a number of bad mistakes) of his "Believe It or Not" books. Here are two of the ones that
stuck in my mind after all the decades since I last saw the book.
"Dresden china" (porcelain) is manufactured in Meissen.
"Panama hats" are produced in Ecuador.
Here is a pair of scientific ones that come to mind.
"Bode's law" of planetary spacing was due to Titius. [Also, Neptune disproved it by
being a lot closer to the sun than the "law" states.]
"Darwin's theory of natural selection" was independently discovered
by Wallace, and also by an obscure person well before Darwin formulated it. >>
There are also a lot of misnomers in chess and mathematics,
but I don't want to get into them now.
Also, there are innumerable cases of famous people being credited
with sayings that are not due to them. One that Ripley himself mentioned
in that first book was "Let them eat cake," supposedly in reaction to
news of a bread shortage. It was falsely attributed to
Marie Antionette, but that attribution was thoroughly discredited from
several directions here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Let_them_eat_cake
"Genetic algorithm (GA) is an optimization searching algorithm based on the theory of evolution and the genetic mutation theory of Mendel (Atmar, 1994, Chaudhry et al., 2000, Fogel, 1994, Srinivas and Patnaik, 1994)
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0957417411001114
The upshot of all this is that no evidence has been posted by Mario
to suggest that "Mendelian" extended to Mendel having been
in any way involved in any theory about mutations.
Well that depends on what "mutations" mean, and what de Vries meant.
" In 1901 the geneticist Hugo de Vries gave the name "mutation" to
seemingly new forms that suddenly arose in his experiments on the
evening primrose Oenothera lamarckiana. In the first decade of the
20th century, mutationism, or as de Vries named it mutationstheorie,
became a rival to Darwinism supported for a while by geneticists
including William Bateson, Thomas Hunt Morgan, and Reginald
Punnett."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutationism
Think "he rediscovered Mendel's work"...but by all means, do more
research on the subject. Suffice to say that Harshman is making a
mountain out of a molehill, all clearly to serve his needs of being
seen as "in the know" and everyone else not, and stupid, or insane as
well.
From the next paragraph of the Wiki quote above:
"Despite the controversy, the early mutationists had by 1918 already
accepted natural selection and explained continuous variation as the
result of multiple genes acting on the same characteristic, such as
height. "
I have one more point to make below.
<snip for focus>
This is a "law" about how further a galaxy is, the faster it recedes from us.No, it is Lemaitre's theory, it isn't by somebody
else, or a bunch of people but based on Hubble-Lemaitre something, >>>>>>> how they are twisting it today, it is full blown solely Lemaitre's >>>>>>> theory. And it isn't Hubble-Lemaitre's law, now it is called Hubble's >>>>>>> law,
It is just an approximation, inasmuch as some nearby galaxies are approaching us
rather than receding. But Hubble never made the sophisticated calculations >> from Einstein's theory of general relativity that inspired Lemaitre to propose
that the universe is expanding from a very small initial configuration.
As far as I know, no cosmologist has ever claimed that Hubble
proposed any form of the Big Bang theory.
There is no such twisting, only just another misnomer (or misunderstanding >> of what Hubble's law is about) at work.but actually it was published by Lemaitre, without Hubble. Now
they are twisting this all around these days, trying to somehow
disconnect this theory from Lemaitre, and desperately connect it to >>>>>>> something else. Oh yes, I am insane, lol.
Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of South Carolina
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos
On Wednesday, August 23, 2023 at 9:45:27 PM UTC-4, Glenn wrote:essentially did away with natural selection as a major evolutionary process."
On Saturday, August 19, 2023 at 7:49:29 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
On 8/19/23 7:28 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
On 20.8.2023. 3:06, John Harshman wrote:
On 8/19/23 5:22 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
On 20.8.2023. 1:56, John Harshman wrote:
On 8/19/23 2:17 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
20 years ago situation was like this, Genetic Mutation
Theory was all over the place.
I have no idea what you're talking about. I suspect you don't either.
Then I noticed that authors of both, the Big Bang Theory and the >>>>> Genetic Mutation Theory are Catholic priests, and I started to >>>>> write about this, I wrote about it here a few times.
You're right about the Big Bang, but Mendel had zero to do with >>>> mutations.
Of course, that's why his theory is called Genetic Mutation
Theory.
Nobody calls it that.
Ok, I figured this out. Definitely 20 years ago it is known
that Genetic Mutation Theory was Mendel's (at least, this is how this came to me), but maybe somebody misunderstood it, because it is based on
Mendel's work.
Conceivably there is some kind of translation problem here. But no, you are wrong. Mendel's theory has nothing to do with mutation. You admit at times that you're ignorant of evolutionary biology and genetics. In this, if in nothing else, you are correct.
Ayala:
"The rediscovery in 1900 of Mendel's theory of heredity by the Dutch botanist and geneticist Hugo de Vries and others led to an emphasis on the role of heredity in evolution. De Vries proposed a new theory of evolution known as mutationism, which
"The controversy between mutationists (also referred to at the time as Mendelians) and biometricians approached a resolution in the 1920s and 1930s through the theoretical work of geneticists."
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/agricultural-and-biological-sciences/mutationism
Mario appears more accurate about history than you.It's a fascinating history that your link brings to light, but it seems that "Mendelian"
is one of those misnomers that have confused people since time immemorial.
Ripley collected an impressive number of them in the very first (and by far the most interesting, despite
a number of bad mistakes) of his "Believe It or Not" books. Here are two of the ones that
stuck in my mind after all the decades since I last saw the book.
"Dresden china" (porcelain) is manufactured in Meissen.
"Panama hats" are produced in Ecuador.
Here is a pair of scientific ones that come to mind.
"Bode's law" of planetary spacing was due to Titius. [Also, Neptune disproved it by
being a lot closer to the sun than the "law" states.]
"Darwin's theory of natural selection" was independently discovered
by Wallace, and also by an obscure person well before Darwin formulated it.
There are also a lot of misnomers in chess and mathematics,
but I don't want to get into them now.
Also, there are innumerable cases of famous people being credited
with sayings that are not due to them. One that Ripley himself mentioned
in that first book was "Let them eat cake," supposedly in reaction to
news of a bread shortage. It was falsely attributed to
Marie Antionette, but that attribution was thoroughly discredited from several directions here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Let_them_eat_cake
The upshot of all this is that no evidence has been posted by Mario
to suggest that "Mendelian" extended to Mendel having been
in any way involved in any theory about mutations.
I have one more point to make below.
<snip for focus>
This is a "law" about how further a galaxy is, the faster it recedes from us.No, it is Lemaitre's theory, it isn't by somebody
else, or a bunch of people but based on Hubble-Lemaitre something, >>> how they are twisting it today, it is full blown solely Lemaitre's >>> theory. And it isn't Hubble-Lemaitre's law, now it is called Hubble's
law,
It is just an approximation, inasmuch as some nearby galaxies are approaching us
rather than receding. But Hubble never made the sophisticated calculations from Einstein's theory of general relativity that inspired Lemaitre to propose
that the universe is expanding from a very small initial configuration.
As far as I know, no cosmologist has ever claimed that Hubble
proposed any form of the Big Bang theory.
There is no such twisting, only just another misnomer (or misunderstanding of what Hubble's law is about) at work.but actually it was published by Lemaitre, without Hubble. Now
they are twisting this all around these days, trying to somehow
disconnect this theory from Lemaitre, and desperately connect it to >>> something else. Oh yes, I am insane, lol.
Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of South Carolina
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos
It's true that the "mutations" De Vries noted were not actually
mutations in the modern sense. Oenothera just has unusual genetics. But
the idea was extended quickly to things we would call mutations. Still nothing to do with Mendel, and nothing relevant to the discussion.
On 25.8.2023. 1:14, John Harshman wrote:
It's true that the "mutations" De Vries noted were not actually
mutations in the modern sense. Oenothera just has unusual genetics.
But the idea was extended quickly to things we would call mutations.
Still nothing to do with Mendel, and nothing relevant to the discussion.
The only thing you need mutations for is to explain the uniqueness of humans. And this is what all those people tied to church wanted, and nothing else.
On 8/24/23 1:28 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
On 24.8.2023. 19:56, John Harshman wrote:
On 8/24/23 8:59 AM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
On 24.8.2023. 15:34, John Harshman wrote:
On 8/23/23 11:07 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:Hm, when I read it in the past it was said that de Vries >>>> rediscovered Mendel, and that he introduced the term 'mutations',
On 24.8.2023. 3:45, Glenn wrote:
On Saturday, August 19, 2023 at 7:49:29 PM UTC-7, John Harshman >>>>>>> wrote:
On 8/19/23 7:28 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
Ok, I figured this out. Definitely 20 years ago it is
known
that Genetic Mutation Theory was Mendel's (at least, this is >>>>>>>>> how this
came to me), but maybe somebody misunderstood it, because it is >>>>>>>>> based on
Mendel's work.
Conceivably there is some kind of translation problem here. But >>>>>>>> no, you
are wrong. Mendel's theory has nothing to do with mutation. You >>>>>>>> admit at
times that you're ignorant of evolutionary biology and genetics. In >>>>>>>> this, if in nothing else, you are correct.
Ayala:
"The rediscovery in 1900 of Mendel's theory of heredity by the
Dutch botanist and geneticist Hugo de Vries and others led to an >>>>>>> emphasis on the role of heredity in evolution. De Vries proposed >>>>>>> a new theory of evolution known as mutationism, which essentially >>>>>>> did away with natural selection as a major evolutionary process." >>>>>>>
"The controversy between mutationists (also referred to at the
time as Mendelians) and biometricians approached a resolution in >>>>>>> the 1920s and 1930s through the theoretical work of geneticists." >>>>>>>
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/agricultural-and-biological-sciences/mutationism
Mario appears more accurate about history than you.
Thanks very much. I know that at the time I was seeking >>>>>> info about it, it was called Genetic Mutation Theory in Wikipedia
(I believe), and they wrote that all this originates from Mendel,
and later this was "re-discovered" by three independent guys, in a >>>>>> matter of two months.
No, the quote from Ayala says nothing of the sort. Note: "Mendel's
theory of heredity" says nothing about mutation. And "De Vries
proposed a *new* theory of evolution". The only connection between
Mendelism and mutationism is that De Vries subscribed to both of them. >>>>
and that was all. But Mendel was the originator and the only
important person in the whole story back then, when I have read
about it. Now, I will definitely not waste my time to research it
further because the idea is utterly stupid, and the fact that the
ones who follow the idea search for Adam and Eve only supports my
view on this.
I get the idea you're really talking about something else. What idea
is utterly stupid, and who searches for Adam and Eve?
Everybody. Everybody searches for this moment when some
mutation happened, and like, the original owner of it would be, either
Adam, or Eve. I cannot believe that you never heard those terms, they
are all around. They are connected to mutations, because the Adam/Eve
is the one who first got it.
Wait, are you talking about mitochondrial Eve and Y chromosome Adam?
Those are just fanciful names attached to real things, the most recent ancestor of everyone's mitochondria and the most recent ancestor of all current Y chromosomes. Nothing to do with the biblical characters of the
same names. Nor are they attached to mutations. It's quite likely that mt-Eve's mother had an identical mitochondrial genome, and likely
several prior generations too. Mitochondria do have a high mutation rate
but the genome is also tiny.
But again, Mendel never said anything about mutations, using that
term or any other. De Vries rediscovered Mendel *and* De Vries was a
mutationist. There is no connection between those two things other
than that De Vries entertained them both.
There *is* a *system* (it is so obvious, because it works >>>> on each and every species on this planet, each and every species
improves, even if it eventually goes extinct it *improves* before
that point) that makes things to better adapt, and the idea of
mutation cannot work, because mutations are harmful, in order to
have only useful mutations you would need to win lottery each and
every time, this, simply, doesn't work, although so many would like
it to work.
Not true. Most mutations are neutral, some are harmful, and some are
beneficial. Which ones are which depends quite a bit on the
environment. And you completely ignore natural selection, which
eliminates the harmful ones and fixes the beneficial ones.
Mutations cannot be eliminated by natural selection, there is
no time for it.
That makes no sense. Of course there's time for it.
Since the waste majority of them are harmful, because they are
mutations, there is no place for them in the system, they are not
systematic, as you try to imply, they are pure errors, they have to be
eliminated.
And that's gibberish.
This is like, imagine if there is life on Mars. We have our diseases,
they have their. If we come to Mars their diseases will not affect us,
just like pig diseases will not affect us, because those diseases work
in pig system, and our evolve in our system. Of course, there are
variations on a theme, pigs can be transporters of our disease, but
only if we are long time in contact, and things like that. In short,
for something to affect us it has to be part of our system.
It's not clear what you mean by "system", and of course there are many diseases that began in other species and found their way into humans.
This "system", though, can go long time into the past, there is a bit
of fish, and who knows what, still in us, but it has to be a part of
us already. No aliens will find home in our body, because things
aren't so simple at all. Even Lego cubes, in order to build something,
has to be made per exact measures. No place for errors, there was no
"evolution by errors". When evolution started, it was a system. This
system improved, but its basis always stays the same. For example, no
matter how smart you are, you never can follow five points in space.
You will have absolutely no problems with four points, but five points
is too much. It is too much for humans, but this goes for amoeba also,
it can defend from four attackers, not from five. Why? Because all the
nervous systems are based on four pipelines, amoeba and human, doesn't
matter. There will *never* be a mutation that will give you five
pipelines. At least, this didn't happen so far, although it would give
you the immense advantage, like a difference between 8 and 16 bit
computers. Not because system with five pipelines wouldn't be
possible, it is because this system wouldn't be possible to implement
into body which revolves around four pipelines. So, this mutation
would be, actually, deadly. Just the same, all mutations are harmful,
because this is a complex interlaced system, no part works on its own,
every part has to have connections to other parts. You can dream about
your mutation working, but only because your dreams are childish, and
not thorough enough.
And that takes gibberish to a new level. Four pipelines??
Besides, when I claim something, I claim it based onStill don't know who "those people" are. The evidence of mutations is
something, not just out of thin air. Changes do happen, while I
would really like to see the evidence of those famous useful
mutations, other than circular thinking. As I said, those people
probably envisage human "intelligence" as the evidence. But they are
completely wrong, there is *no* human "intelligence". So, human
"intelligence" is possible because of mutations, and the evidence
for mutations is human intelligence. Simple as that, circular thinking. >>>
differences in the genomes of parents and children, genetic variation
within populations, and genetic differences between species, all of
which are the sort of thing we observe happening and whose causes we
know.
The difference is the evidence of change, not the evidence of
mutations.
What, in your opinion, causes those changes, particularly the hundred or
so in which you differ from both your parents?
Well, I also searched info about those three guys. At that time
only one of those had something in his biography (he had only one
thing in his biography, besides being involved in this, it was
probably de Vries), and the other two had absolutely nothing in
their biographies, except that they rediscovered Mendel (I am
using exclusively English version of Wikipedia). So, by that I
figured out that they were just filling the number, because for
something to be accepted the number has to be three.
Now I am looking at this in Wikipedia, and somehow, like
somebody wants deliberately to nullify what I figured out,
suddenly they emphasize only two of those three, although clearly
they, themselves, mention that there were three "re-discoverers"
in a matter ow two months.
Those two are:
1) Hugo de Vries - son of a deacon in the Mennonite congregation
in Haarlem
2) Carl Correns - who worked as tutor at the University of
Tubungen. I found this university always being involved in
falsifying history so that it matches Bible.
The third one is:
3) Erich von Tschermak - who was, actually, largely influenced by
his brother Armin. Well, his brother was elected member of the
Pontifical Academy of Sciences, which is a scientific academy of
Vatican City, established in 28 October 1936, and Armin became
member of it right from the beginning, 28 October 1936.
So, Christian religion all over the place.
This is typical conspiracy thinking, in which any connection to
anything, no matter how tenuous, produces guilt by association. And
your reach has expanded. It used to be the Catholic church, and now
it's any Christian sect. I submit that any European or American
scientist can be connected to Christianity by a very short chain of
relationships.
Of course. Isn't it so obvious? Now, somehow, Vatican >>>> doesn't have conspiracy? How come, if anybody has it, it is Vatican.
I don't know in what relation to Vatican those Mennonites are,
though (and I don't care).
This is crazy talk, pure and simple.
The second problem is the problem of nomenclature, which
is so obvious. This is called Mutation Theory, but if you try to
discuss in a term of a 'mutation', everybody tells you immediately >>>>>> that these *aren't* mutations, but rather changes.
Your pronouns make the sentence conveniently ambiguous. What's
"this"? Not anything Mendel was involved in. What are "these"? Is
somebody supposed to be claiming that mutations don't happen?
Oh, of course. Whenever I say that mutations are harmful, >>>> and that this cannot work, the one I am discussion this with (it
could have even been you, I don't remember anymore) immediately says
that this actually aren't mutations.
I have no idea what you think you're talking about here. Mutations
aren't mutations? What cannot work? Could you try very hard to be
clearer?
Gee. So, these *are* mutations? Fine. I really don't get how a
person with clear mind can envisage this to work, it's beyond me. I
know that your brain doesn't work, that you accept everything that
is written in books without thinking (obviously you didn't read
Bible yet), so for you this is normal.
Again, what are "these"? What is "this"?
"These" and "this" has nothing to do with me, they are
invented by people who are discussing mutations.
Sure. but what are they? What were you trying to say in that sentence?
You can be "clear" when you are talking about those things >> only if you are God, and you know absolutely everything about
everything. And people who claim that they know everything about
everything, are the ones who don't know much, the fact that God
created the Universe in seven days is "everything" they think it needs
to be known. The same way is your way, "Everything is product of
mutations.". Well, don't you say. Yes, you are very clear about that,
lol. How this incorporates into existing system? "Well, it doesn't
have to incorporate, you know." Well, don't you say.
I'm not quite sure, but I think I don't say.
"Those" supposed 'mutations'. Set your story straight, it >>>> is your story, not mine (ah, I see, it isn't your story, you justNow, if those are changes, why they are not called changes?
What are "those"?
read it in books, but you actually don't understand it, or what?).
So, if "those" are mutations, they, simply, cannot work. If "those"
aren't mutations (so, it is just wrong nomenclature), if "those" are
just changes, then they aren't what proponents of "mutations" claim
for them to be.
What are the supposed mutations you're talking about? Why can't they
work, and what would it mean to work?
Because you can achieve so much by playing with words (I've seen
this so many times, being raised in communism). If they would be
called genetic changes, this isn't a big deal, nothing strange
about it, everything changes over time, even we change during our
lifetime, the change is natural, the change is gradual, after all, >>>>>> Darwin's theory is about a change. But if you introduce
'mutation', this is completely different thing. Mutations are
unnatural, mutations are one-off events, mutations are out of any
system, mutations are unsystematic. So now we have, instead of
following a simple change which pertain to some particular system, >>>>>> the whole scientific community searches for those unnatural
one-off events that produce some out of order unsystematic magic,
and the whole scientific community suddenly revolves around Adam
and Eve.
I don't think you have any idea what mutations are or what
scientists think they are. Nobody thinks that mutations are
unnatural (well, except for some IDers; but not scientists).
Mutations are errors. Simple as that.
"Error" is a value-laden word, implying that someone is making a
mistake. But there isn't anybody involved. We call them errors if
they result in a different sequence than was there before, though in
fact we don't call recombination an error or a mutation, and it
results in a different sequence. Go figure.
Different sequence? What bloody sequence? "Sequences" don't >> program the making of a body. I know that sequences are involved, but
if you can tell me *how* a specific sequence works, I'll buy you
another beer, :) .
Well, some sequences get translated into proteins, some produce
functional RNAs, some arer targets of transcription factors or other regulatory molecules, and others are just junk. We know how quite a few
of them work. There's a whole body of science involving this. If you're interested in development, I recommend a number of books by the
biologist Sean Carroll (not to be confused with the physicist of the
same name).
In order to have one "useful" error, you have to have millions of
wrong lottery tickets. So, this theory works against itself, because
the winner would be the one who *doesn't have* errors, and not the
one who has it so much that he even got the winning one. I would
always win a lottery if I buy all the lottery tickets, otherwise no.
This, simply, doesn't work.
You made up a distribution from thin air and forgot entirely about
natural selection.
But the real truth is, all this doesn't exist at all. >>>>>> Those genetic changes are just simple changes, there are no
unnatural events, no "mutations" (just like everybody is so fast
to tell you). So, what's the fuss, then? The fuss is in the fact
that scientists don't bloody understand what they are doing at
all, they are pulled by their noses, this is what the fuss is.
I think you don't understand what you're doing at all, and all the
pronouns in the world can't disguise that.
And I think that you, simply, don't understand anything, >>>> simple as that. This is why you rely so much on books.
Better books than fantasies based on ignorance, wouldn't you say?
On 24.8.2023. 23:05, John Harshman wrote:
On 8/24/23 1:28 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
On 24.8.2023. 19:56, John Harshman wrote:
On 8/24/23 8:59 AM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
On 24.8.2023. 15:34, John Harshman wrote:
On 8/23/23 11:07 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
On 24.8.2023. 3:45, Glenn wrote:
On Saturday, August 19, 2023 at 7:49:29 PM UTC-7, John Harshman >>>>>>>> wrote:
On 8/19/23 7:28 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
Ok, I figured this out. Definitely 20 years ago it is
known
that Genetic Mutation Theory was Mendel's (at least, this is >>>>>>>>>> how this
came to me), but maybe somebody misunderstood it, because it >>>>>>>>>> is based on
Mendel's work.
Conceivably there is some kind of translation problem here. But >>>>>>>>> no, you
are wrong. Mendel's theory has nothing to do with mutation. You >>>>>>>>> admit at
times that you're ignorant of evolutionary biology and
genetics. In
this, if in nothing else, you are correct.
Ayala:
"The rediscovery in 1900 of Mendel's theory of heredity by the >>>>>>>> Dutch botanist and geneticist Hugo de Vries and others led to an >>>>>>>> emphasis on the role of heredity in evolution. De Vries proposed >>>>>>>> a new theory of evolution known as mutationism, which
essentially did away with natural selection as a major
evolutionary process."
"The controversy between mutationists (also referred to at the >>>>>>>> time as Mendelians) and biometricians approached a resolution in >>>>>>>> the 1920s and 1930s through the theoretical work of geneticists." >>>>>>>>
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/agricultural-and-biological-sciences/mutationism
Mario appears more accurate about history than you.
Thanks very much. I know that at the time I was seeking
info about it, it was called Genetic Mutation Theory in Wikipedia >>>>>>> (I believe), and they wrote that all this originates from Mendel, >>>>>>> and later this was "re-discovered" by three independent guys, in >>>>>>> a matter of two months.
No, the quote from Ayala says nothing of the sort. Note: "Mendel's >>>>>> theory of heredity" says nothing about mutation. And "De Vries
proposed a *new* theory of evolution". The only connection between >>>>>> Mendelism and mutationism is that De Vries subscribed to both of
them.
Hm, when I read it in the past it was said that de Vries >>>>> rediscovered Mendel, and that he introduced the term 'mutations',
and that was all. But Mendel was the originator and the only
important person in the whole story back then, when I have read
about it. Now, I will definitely not waste my time to research it
further because the idea is utterly stupid, and the fact that the
ones who follow the idea search for Adam and Eve only supports my
view on this.
I get the idea you're really talking about something else. What idea
is utterly stupid, and who searches for Adam and Eve?
Everybody. Everybody searches for this moment when some >>> mutation happened, and like, the original owner of it would be,
either Adam, or Eve. I cannot believe that you never heard those
terms, they are all around. They are connected to mutations, because
the Adam/Eve is the one who first got it.
Wait, are you talking about mitochondrial Eve and Y chromosome Adam?
Those are just fanciful names attached to real things, the most recent
ancestor of everyone's mitochondria and the most recent ancestor of
all current Y chromosomes. Nothing to do with the biblical characters
of the same names. Nor are they attached to mutations. It's quite
likely that mt-Eve's mother had an identical mitochondrial genome, and
likely several prior generations too. Mitochondria do have a high
mutation rate but the genome is also tiny.
But again, Mendel never said anything about mutations, using that
term or any other. De Vries rediscovered Mendel *and* De Vries was a
mutationist. There is no connection between those two things other
than that De Vries entertained them both.
There *is* a *system* (it is so obvious, because it works
on each and every species on this planet, each and every species
improves, even if it eventually goes extinct it *improves* before
that point) that makes things to better adapt, and the idea of
mutation cannot work, because mutations are harmful, in order to
have only useful mutations you would need to win lottery each and
every time, this, simply, doesn't work, although so many would like
it to work.
Not true. Most mutations are neutral, some are harmful, and some are
beneficial. Which ones are which depends quite a bit on the
environment. And you completely ignore natural selection, which
eliminates the harmful ones and fixes the beneficial ones.
Mutations cannot be eliminated by natural selection, there >>> is no time for it.
That makes no sense. Of course there's time for it.
So, you will carry all the negative mutations along with one positive for considerable amount of time, until natural selection
somehow figures out that you have one positive as well?
Since the waste majority of them are harmful, because they are
mutations, there is no place for them in the system, they are not
systematic, as you try to imply, they are pure errors, they have to
be eliminated.
And that's gibberish.
Hm, in your world there are only positive mutations, or what? As I see it, you get, by chance, one positive out of million negative. I don't get how you are imagining all this? One positive, one negative? Or what?
This is like, imagine if there is life on Mars. We have our diseases,
they have their. If we come to Mars their diseases will not affect
us, just like pig diseases will not affect us, because those diseases
work in pig system, and our evolve in our system. Of course, there
are variations on a theme, pigs can be transporters of our disease,
but only if we are long time in contact, and things like that. In
short, for something to affect us it has to be part of our system.
It's not clear what you mean by "system", and of course there are many
diseases that began in other species and found their way into humans.
This "system", though, can go long time into the past, there is a bit
of fish, and who knows what, still in us, but it has to be a part of
us already. No aliens will find home in our body, because things
aren't so simple at all. Even Lego cubes, in order to build
something, has to be made per exact measures. No place for errors,
there was no "evolution by errors". When evolution started, it was a
system. This system improved, but its basis always stays the same.
For example, no matter how smart you are, you never can follow five
points in space. You will have absolutely no problems with four
points, but five points is too much. It is too much for humans, but
this goes for amoeba also, it can defend from four attackers, not
from five. Why? Because all the nervous systems are based on four
pipelines, amoeba and human, doesn't matter. There will *never* be a
mutation that will give you five pipelines. At least, this didn't
happen so far, although it would give you the immense advantage, like
a difference between 8 and 16 bit computers. Not because system with
five pipelines wouldn't be possible, it is because this system
wouldn't be possible to implement into body which revolves around
four pipelines. So, this mutation would be, actually, deadly. Just
the same, all mutations are harmful, because this is a complex
interlaced system, no part works on its own, every part has to have
connections to other parts. You can dream about your mutation
working, but only because your dreams are childish, and not thorough
enough.
And that takes gibberish to a new level. Four pipelines??
This is why reading books doesn't work. I read articles, not books. That way you learn much more, but for sure, if you read books you
are expert in knowing that particular book. I am not interested in
selected books, I am scooping knowledge, in various ways.
This is why we have so many experts in one particular book (Bible), talking stupidity all the time.
See, just try to follow the position of five objects around you. This is so easy. But, of course, it isn't easy for you, first you
need to read it in some book.
And, my advice, this is well known thing. The next time five youngsters approach to you asking to buy drugs or weapons (or anything illegal), I'll tell you a secret, these are young policemen in disguise.
Yes, there are always five of them. The reason? They know this trick.
And you don't know it, it isn't written in any book that you've read.
Besides, when I claim something, I claim it based on >>>>> something, not just out of thin air. Changes do happen, while I
would really like to see the evidence of those famous useful
mutations, other than circular thinking. As I said, those people
probably envisage human "intelligence" as the evidence. But they
are completely wrong, there is *no* human "intelligence". So, human
"intelligence" is possible because of mutations, and the evidence
for mutations is human intelligence. Simple as that, circular
thinking.
Still don't know who "those people" are. The evidence of mutations
is differences in the genomes of parents and children, genetic
variation within populations, and genetic differences between
species, all of which are the sort of thing we observe happening and
whose causes we know.
The difference is the evidence of change, not the evidence >>> of mutations.
What, in your opinion, causes those changes, particularly the hundred
or so in which you differ from both your parents?
I don't know, I don't have an opinion. Errors aren't, for sure.
Well, I also searched info about those three guys. At that time
only one of those had something in his biography (he had only one >>>>>>> thing in his biography, besides being involved in this, it was
probably de Vries), and the other two had absolutely nothing in
their biographies, except that they rediscovered Mendel (I am
using exclusively English version of Wikipedia). So, by that I
figured out that they were just filling the number, because for
something to be accepted the number has to be three.
Now I am looking at this in Wikipedia, and somehow, like
somebody wants deliberately to nullify what I figured out,
suddenly they emphasize only two of those three, although clearly >>>>>>> they, themselves, mention that there were three "re-discoverers" >>>>>>> in a matter ow two months.
Those two are:
1) Hugo de Vries - son of a deacon in the Mennonite congregation >>>>>>> in Haarlem
2) Carl Correns - who worked as tutor at the University of
Tubungen. I found this university always being involved in
falsifying history so that it matches Bible.
The third one is:
3) Erich von Tschermak - who was, actually, largely influenced by >>>>>>> his brother Armin. Well, his brother was elected member of the
Pontifical Academy of Sciences, which is a scientific academy of >>>>>>> Vatican City, established in 28 October 1936, and Armin became
member of it right from the beginning, 28 October 1936.
So, Christian religion all over the place.
This is typical conspiracy thinking, in which any connection to
anything, no matter how tenuous, produces guilt by association.
And your reach has expanded. It used to be the Catholic church,
and now it's any Christian sect. I submit that any European or
American scientist can be connected to Christianity by a very
short chain of relationships.
Of course. Isn't it so obvious? Now, somehow, Vatican >>>>> doesn't have conspiracy? How come, if anybody has it, it is
Vatican. I don't know in what relation to Vatican those Mennonites
are, though (and I don't care).
This is crazy talk, pure and simple.
The second problem is the problem of nomenclature, which
is so obvious. This is called Mutation Theory, but if you try to >>>>>>> discuss in a term of a 'mutation', everybody tells you
immediately that these *aren't* mutations, but rather changes.
Your pronouns make the sentence conveniently ambiguous. What's
"this"? Not anything Mendel was involved in. What are "these"? Is
somebody supposed to be claiming that mutations don't happen?
Oh, of course. Whenever I say that mutations are harmful,
and that this cannot work, the one I am discussion this with (it
could have even been you, I don't remember anymore) immediately
says that this actually aren't mutations.
I have no idea what you think you're talking about here. Mutations
aren't mutations? What cannot work? Could you try very hard to be
clearer?
Gee. So, these *are* mutations? Fine. I really don't get how a
person with clear mind can envisage this to work, it's beyond me. I
know that your brain doesn't work, that you accept everything that
is written in books without thinking (obviously you didn't read
Bible yet), so for you this is normal.
Again, what are "these"? What is "this"?
"These" and "this" has nothing to do with me, they are
invented by people who are discussing mutations.
Sure. but what are they? What were you trying to say in that sentence?
You can be "clear" when you are talking about those things >>> only if you are God, and you know absolutely everything about
everything. And people who claim that they know everything about
everything, are the ones who don't know much, the fact that God
created the Universe in seven days is "everything" they think it
needs to be known. The same way is your way, "Everything is product
of mutations.". Well, don't you say. Yes, you are very clear about
that, lol. How this incorporates into existing system? "Well, it
doesn't have to incorporate, you know." Well, don't you say.
I'm not quite sure, but I think I don't say.
"Those" supposed 'mutations'. Set your story straight, itNow, if those are changes, why they are not called changes?
What are "those"?
is your story, not mine (ah, I see, it isn't your story, you just
read it in books, but you actually don't understand it, or what?).
So, if "those" are mutations, they, simply, cannot work. If "those"
aren't mutations (so, it is just wrong nomenclature), if "those"
are just changes, then they aren't what proponents of "mutations"
claim for them to be.
What are the supposed mutations you're talking about? Why can't they
work, and what would it mean to work?
Because you can achieve so much by playing with words (I've seen >>>>>>> this so many times, being raised in communism). If they would be >>>>>>> called genetic changes, this isn't a big deal, nothing strange
about it, everything changes over time, even we change during our >>>>>>> lifetime, the change is natural, the change is gradual, after
all, Darwin's theory is about a change. But if you introduce
'mutation', this is completely different thing. Mutations are
unnatural, mutations are one-off events, mutations are out of any >>>>>>> system, mutations are unsystematic. So now we have, instead of
following a simple change which pertain to some particular
system, the whole scientific community searches for those
unnatural one-off events that produce some out of order
unsystematic magic, and the whole scientific community suddenly
revolves around Adam and Eve.
I don't think you have any idea what mutations are or what
scientists think they are. Nobody thinks that mutations are
unnatural (well, except for some IDers; but not scientists).
Mutations are errors. Simple as that.
"Error" is a value-laden word, implying that someone is making a
mistake. But there isn't anybody involved. We call them errors if
they result in a different sequence than was there before, though in
fact we don't call recombination an error or a mutation, and it
results in a different sequence. Go figure.
Different sequence? What bloody sequence? "Sequences" don't
program the making of a body. I know that sequences are involved, but
if you can tell me *how* a specific sequence works, I'll buy you
another beer, :) .
Well, some sequences get translated into proteins, some produce
functional RNAs, some arer targets of transcription factors or other
regulatory molecules, and others are just junk. We know how quite a
few of them work. There's a whole body of science involving this. If
you're interested in development, I recommend a number of books by the
biologist Sean Carroll (not to be confused with the physicist of the
same name).
I'll be interested when they make me a dog with wings, made out
of materials that they dug from the ground, and he has to have pink fur
(not that I fancy pink, :), it is just an unnatural color for fur).
In order to have one "useful" error, you have to have millions of
wrong lottery tickets. So, this theory works against itself,
because the winner would be the one who *doesn't have* errors, and
not the one who has it so much that he even got the winning one. I
would always win a lottery if I buy all the lottery tickets,
otherwise no. This, simply, doesn't work.
You made up a distribution from thin air and forgot entirely about
natural selection.
But the real truth is, all this doesn't exist at all. >>>>>>> Those genetic changes are just simple changes, there are no
unnatural events, no "mutations" (just like everybody is so fast >>>>>>> to tell you). So, what's the fuss, then? The fuss is in the fact >>>>>>> that scientists don't bloody understand what they are doing at
all, they are pulled by their noses, this is what the fuss is.
I think you don't understand what you're doing at all, and all the >>>>>> pronouns in the world can't disguise that.
And I think that you, simply, don't understand anything, >>>>> simple as that. This is why you rely so much on books.
Better books than fantasies based on ignorance, wouldn't you say?
On 8/24/23 4:32 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
On 24.8.2023. 23:05, John Harshman wrote:
On 8/24/23 1:28 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
On 24.8.2023. 19:56, John Harshman wrote:
On 8/24/23 8:59 AM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
On 24.8.2023. 15:34, John Harshman wrote:
On 8/23/23 11:07 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
On 24.8.2023. 3:45, Glenn wrote:
On Saturday, August 19, 2023 at 7:49:29 PM UTC-7, John Harshman >>>>>>>>> wrote:
On 8/19/23 7:28 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
Ok, I figured this out. Definitely 20 years ago it >>>>>>>>>>> is known
that Genetic Mutation Theory was Mendel's (at least, this is >>>>>>>>>>> how this
came to me), but maybe somebody misunderstood it, because it >>>>>>>>>>> is based on
Mendel's work.
Conceivably there is some kind of translation problem here. >>>>>>>>>> But no, you
are wrong. Mendel's theory has nothing to do with mutation. >>>>>>>>>> You admit at
times that you're ignorant of evolutionary biology and
genetics. In
this, if in nothing else, you are correct.
Ayala:
"The rediscovery in 1900 of Mendel's theory of heredity by the >>>>>>>>> Dutch botanist and geneticist Hugo de Vries and others led to >>>>>>>>> an emphasis on the role of heredity in evolution. De Vries
proposed a new theory of evolution known as mutationism, which >>>>>>>>> essentially did away with natural selection as a major
evolutionary process."
"The controversy between mutationists (also referred to at the >>>>>>>>> time as Mendelians) and biometricians approached a resolution >>>>>>>>> in the 1920s and 1930s through the theoretical work of
geneticists."
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/agricultural-and-biological-sciences/mutationism
Mario appears more accurate about history than you.
Thanks very much. I know that at the time I was seeking
info about it, it was called Genetic Mutation Theory in
Wikipedia (I believe), and they wrote that all this originates >>>>>>>> from Mendel, and later this was "re-discovered" by three
independent guys, in a matter of two months.
No, the quote from Ayala says nothing of the sort. Note:
"Mendel's theory of heredity" says nothing about mutation. And
"De Vries proposed a *new* theory of evolution". The only
connection between Mendelism and mutationism is that De Vries
subscribed to both of them.
Hm, when I read it in the past it was said that de Vries
rediscovered Mendel, and that he introduced the term 'mutations',
and that was all. But Mendel was the originator and the only
important person in the whole story back then, when I have read
about it. Now, I will definitely not waste my time to research it
further because the idea is utterly stupid, and the fact that the
ones who follow the idea search for Adam and Eve only supports my
view on this.
I get the idea you're really talking about something else. What
idea is utterly stupid, and who searches for Adam and Eve?
Everybody. Everybody searches for this moment when some >>>> mutation happened, and like, the original owner of it would be,
either Adam, or Eve. I cannot believe that you never heard those
terms, they are all around. They are connected to mutations, because
the Adam/Eve is the one who first got it.
Wait, are you talking about mitochondrial Eve and Y chromosome Adam?
Those are just fanciful names attached to real things, the most
recent ancestor of everyone's mitochondria and the most recent
ancestor of all current Y chromosomes. Nothing to do with the
biblical characters of the same names. Nor are they attached to
mutations. It's quite likely that mt-Eve's mother had an identical
mitochondrial genome, and likely several prior generations too.
Mitochondria do have a high mutation rate but the genome is also tiny.
But again, Mendel never said anything about mutations, using that
term or any other. De Vries rediscovered Mendel *and* De Vries was
a mutationist. There is no connection between those two things
other than that De Vries entertained them both.
There *is* a *system* (it is so obvious, because it works
on each and every species on this planet, each and every species
improves, even if it eventually goes extinct it *improves* before
that point) that makes things to better adapt, and the idea of
mutation cannot work, because mutations are harmful, in order to
have only useful mutations you would need to win lottery each and
every time, this, simply, doesn't work, although so many would
like it to work.
Not true. Most mutations are neutral, some are harmful, and some
are beneficial. Which ones are which depends quite a bit on the
environment. And you completely ignore natural selection, which
eliminates the harmful ones and fixes the beneficial ones.
Mutations cannot be eliminated by natural selection, there
is no time for it.
That makes no sense. Of course there's time for it.
So, you will carry all the negative mutations along with one
positive for considerable amount of time, until natural selection
somehow figures out that you have one positive as well?
Natural selection doesn't figure out anything. Why must you
anthropomorphize everything? Now, the fitness of a particular genome is composed of the sum (or more complicated function) of the fitnesses of
all the genome's various parts. So if a beneficial allele at some locus
is accompanied by deleterious ones at many other loci, that genome won't
have a very high fitness. But if that were generally true, populations
would become extinct.
Since the waste majority of them are harmful, because they are
mutations, there is no place for them in the system, they are not
systematic, as you try to imply, they are pure errors, they have to
be eliminated.
And that's gibberish.
Hm, in your world there are only positive mutations, or what?
As I see it, you get, by chance, one positive out of million negative.
I don't get how you are imagining all this? One positive, one
negative? Or what?
No. But that's a number you just made up, and let's recall that both deleterious and beneficial mutations are fairly rare, so anyone is
unlikely to have very many of either, perhaps not even one. Thus the mutations that do happen can be exposed to selection individually.
This is like, imagine if there is life on Mars. We have our
diseases, they have their. If we come to Mars their diseases will
not affect us, just like pig diseases will not affect us, because
those diseases work in pig system, and our evolve in our system. Of
course, there are variations on a theme, pigs can be transporters of
our disease, but only if we are long time in contact, and things
like that. In short, for something to affect us it has to be part of
our system.
It's not clear what you mean by "system", and of course there are
many diseases that began in other species and found their way into
humans.
This "system", though, can go long time into the past, there is a
bit of fish, and who knows what, still in us, but it has to be a
part of us already. No aliens will find home in our body, because
things aren't so simple at all. Even Lego cubes, in order to build
something, has to be made per exact measures. No place for errors,
there was no "evolution by errors". When evolution started, it was a
system. This system improved, but its basis always stays the same.
For example, no matter how smart you are, you never can follow five
points in space. You will have absolutely no problems with four
points, but five points is too much. It is too much for humans, but
this goes for amoeba also, it can defend from four attackers, not
from five. Why? Because all the nervous systems are based on four
pipelines, amoeba and human, doesn't matter. There will *never* be a
mutation that will give you five pipelines. At least, this didn't
happen so far, although it would give you the immense advantage,
like a difference between 8 and 16 bit computers. Not because system
with five pipelines wouldn't be possible, it is because this system
wouldn't be possible to implement into body which revolves around
four pipelines. So, this mutation would be, actually, deadly. Just
the same, all mutations are harmful, because this is a complex
interlaced system, no part works on its own, every part has to have
connections to other parts. You can dream about your mutation
working, but only because your dreams are childish, and not thorough
enough.
And that takes gibberish to a new level. Four pipelines??
This is why reading books doesn't work. I read articles, not
books. That way you learn much more, but for sure, if you read books
you are expert in knowing that particular book. I am not interested in
selected books, I am scooping knowledge, in various ways.
This is why we have so many experts in one particular book >> (Bible), talking stupidity all the time.
See, just try to follow the position of five objects around >> you. This is so easy. But, of course, it isn't easy for you, first you
need to read it in some book.
And, my advice, this is well known thing. The next time five
youngsters approach to you asking to buy drugs or weapons (or anything
illegal), I'll tell you a secret, these are young policemen in
disguise. Yes, there are always five of them. The reason? They know
this trick. And you don't know it, it isn't written in any book that
you've read.
You seem to have spent inordinate time failing to answer my question.
Besides, when I claim something, I claim it based on >>>>>> something, not just out of thin air. Changes do happen, while I
would really like to see the evidence of those famous useful
mutations, other than circular thinking. As I said, those people
probably envisage human "intelligence" as the evidence. But they
are completely wrong, there is *no* human "intelligence". So,
human "intelligence" is possible because of mutations, and the
evidence for mutations is human intelligence. Simple as that,
circular thinking.
Still don't know who "those people" are. The evidence of mutations
is differences in the genomes of parents and children, genetic
variation within populations, and genetic differences between
species, all of which are the sort of thing we observe happening
and whose causes we know.
The difference is the evidence of change, not the evidence
of mutations.
What, in your opinion, causes those changes, particularly the hundred
or so in which you differ from both your parents?
I don't know, I don't have an opinion. Errors aren't, for sure.
This despite the fact that we know the major mechanisms of mutation
quite well?
Well, I also searched info about those three guys. At that time >>>>>>>> only one of those had something in his biography (he had only
one thing in his biography, besides being involved in this, it >>>>>>>> was probably de Vries), and the other two had absolutely nothing >>>>>>>> in their biographies, except that they rediscovered Mendel (I am >>>>>>>> using exclusively English version of Wikipedia). So, by that I >>>>>>>> figured out that they were just filling the number, because for >>>>>>>> something to be accepted the number has to be three.
Now I am looking at this in Wikipedia, and somehow, >>>>>>>> like somebody wants deliberately to nullify what I figured out, >>>>>>>> suddenly they emphasize only two of those three, although
clearly they, themselves, mention that there were three
"re-discoverers" in a matter ow two months.
Those two are:
1) Hugo de Vries - son of a deacon in the Mennonite congregation >>>>>>>> in Haarlem
2) Carl Correns - who worked as tutor at the University of
Tubungen. I found this university always being involved in
falsifying history so that it matches Bible.
The third one is:
3) Erich von Tschermak - who was, actually, largely influenced >>>>>>>> by his brother Armin. Well, his brother was elected member of
the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, which is a scientific
academy of Vatican City, established in 28 October 1936, and
Armin became member of it right from the beginning, 28 October >>>>>>>> 1936.
So, Christian religion all over the place.
This is typical conspiracy thinking, in which any connection to
anything, no matter how tenuous, produces guilt by association.
And your reach has expanded. It used to be the Catholic church,
and now it's any Christian sect. I submit that any European or
American scientist can be connected to Christianity by a very
short chain of relationships.
Of course. Isn't it so obvious? Now, somehow, Vatican >>>>>> doesn't have conspiracy? How come, if anybody has it, it is
Vatican. I don't know in what relation to Vatican those Mennonites >>>>>> are, though (and I don't care).
This is crazy talk, pure and simple.
The second problem is the problem of nomenclature, >>>>>>>> which is so obvious. This is called Mutation Theory, but if you >>>>>>>> try to discuss in a term of a 'mutation', everybody tells you
immediately that these *aren't* mutations, but rather changes.
Your pronouns make the sentence conveniently ambiguous. What's
"this"? Not anything Mendel was involved in. What are "these"? Is >>>>>>> somebody supposed to be claiming that mutations don't happen?
Oh, of course. Whenever I say that mutations are harmful,
and that this cannot work, the one I am discussion this with (it
could have even been you, I don't remember anymore) immediately
says that this actually aren't mutations.
I have no idea what you think you're talking about here. Mutations
aren't mutations? What cannot work? Could you try very hard to be
clearer?
Gee. So, these *are* mutations? Fine. I really don't get how a
person with clear mind can envisage this to work, it's beyond me.
I know that your brain doesn't work, that you accept everything
that is written in books without thinking (obviously you didn't
read Bible yet), so for you this is normal.
Again, what are "these"? What is "this"?
"These" and "this" has nothing to do with me, they are >>>> invented by people who are discussing mutations.
Sure. but what are they? What were you trying to say in that sentence?
You can be "clear" when you are talking about those things
only if you are God, and you know absolutely everything about
everything. And people who claim that they know everything about
everything, are the ones who don't know much, the fact that God
created the Universe in seven days is "everything" they think it
needs to be known. The same way is your way, "Everything is product
of mutations.". Well, don't you say. Yes, you are very clear about
that, lol. How this incorporates into existing system? "Well, it
doesn't have to incorporate, you know." Well, don't you say.
I'm not quite sure, but I think I don't say.
"Those" supposed 'mutations'. Set your story straight, itNow, if those are changes, why they are not called changes?
What are "those"?
is your story, not mine (ah, I see, it isn't your story, you just
read it in books, but you actually don't understand it, or what?). >>>>>> So, if "those" are mutations, they, simply, cannot work. If
"those" aren't mutations (so, it is just wrong nomenclature), if
"those" are just changes, then they aren't what proponents of
"mutations" claim for them to be.
What are the supposed mutations you're talking about? Why can't
they work, and what would it mean to work?
Because you can achieve so much by playing with words (I've seen >>>>>>>> this so many times, being raised in communism). If they would be >>>>>>>> called genetic changes, this isn't a big deal, nothing strange >>>>>>>> about it, everything changes over time, even we change during
our lifetime, the change is natural, the change is gradual,
after all, Darwin's theory is about a change. But if you
introduce 'mutation', this is completely different thing.
Mutations are unnatural, mutations are one-off events, mutations >>>>>>>> are out of any system, mutations are unsystematic. So now we
have, instead of following a simple change which pertain to some >>>>>>>> particular system, the whole scientific community searches for >>>>>>>> those unnatural one-off events that produce some out of order
unsystematic magic, and the whole scientific community suddenly >>>>>>>> revolves around Adam and Eve.
I don't think you have any idea what mutations are or what
scientists think they are. Nobody thinks that mutations are
unnatural (well, except for some IDers; but not scientists).
Mutations are errors. Simple as that.
"Error" is a value-laden word, implying that someone is making a
mistake. But there isn't anybody involved. We call them errors if
they result in a different sequence than was there before, though
in fact we don't call recombination an error or a mutation, and it
results in a different sequence. Go figure.
Different sequence? What bloody sequence? "Sequences" don't
program the making of a body. I know that sequences are involved,
but if you can tell me *how* a specific sequence works, I'll buy you
another beer, :) .
Well, some sequences get translated into proteins, some produce
functional RNAs, some arer targets of transcription factors or other
regulatory molecules, and others are just junk. We know how quite a
few of them work. There's a whole body of science involving this. If
you're interested in development, I recommend a number of books by
the biologist Sean Carroll (not to be confused with the physicist of
the same name).
I'll be interested when they make me a dog with wings, made >> out of materials that they dug from the ground, and he has to have
pink fur (not that I fancy pink, :), it is just an unnatural color for
fur).
So you no longer care whether I can tell you how a specific sequence
works? I'm thinking that your promises to buy me a beer are not honestly made.
In order to have one "useful" error, you have to have millions of
wrong lottery tickets. So, this theory works against itself,
because the winner would be the one who *doesn't have* errors, and >>>>>> not the one who has it so much that he even got the winning one. I >>>>>> would always win a lottery if I buy all the lottery tickets,
otherwise no. This, simply, doesn't work.
You made up a distribution from thin air and forgot entirely about
natural selection.
But the real truth is, all this doesn't exist at all. >>>>>>>> Those genetic changes are just simple changes, there are no
unnatural events, no "mutations" (just like everybody is so fast >>>>>>>> to tell you). So, what's the fuss, then? The fuss is in the fact >>>>>>>> that scientists don't bloody understand what they are doing at >>>>>>>> all, they are pulled by their noses, this is what the fuss is.
I think you don't understand what you're doing at all, and all
the pronouns in the world can't disguise that.
And I think that you, simply, don't understand anything,
simple as that. This is why you rely so much on books.
Better books than fantasies based on ignorance, wouldn't you say?
On 8/24/23 4:35 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
On 25.8.2023. 1:14, John Harshman wrote:
It's true that the "mutations" De Vries noted were not actually
mutations in the modern sense. Oenothera just has unusual genetics.
But the idea was extended quickly to things we would call mutations.
Still nothing to do with Mendel, and nothing relevant to the discussion.
The only thing you need mutations for is to explain the
uniqueness of humans. And this is what all those people tied to church
wanted, and nothing else.
I'm pretty sure that mutations can explain a lot of things. For example, antennipedia in fruit flies. Differences in the sequence of beta
fibrinogen intron 5 between Dendrocygna arborea and Dendrocygna
autumnalis. Blood antigen alleles A, B, and O. And so on.
On 8/24/23 4:35 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
On 25.8.2023. 1:14, John Harshman wrote:
It's true that the "mutations" De Vries noted were not actually
mutations in the modern sense. Oenothera just has unusual genetics.
But the idea was extended quickly to things we would call mutations.
Still nothing to do with Mendel, and nothing relevant to the discussion.
The only thing you need mutations for is to explain theI'm pretty sure that mutations can explain a lot of things. For example, antennipedia in fruit flies. Differences in the sequence of beta
uniqueness of humans. And this is what all those people tied to church wanted, and nothing else.
fibrinogen intron 5 between Dendrocygna arborea and Dendrocygna
autumnalis. Blood antigen alleles A, B, and O. And so on.
On 8/24/23 3:20 PM, Glenn wrote:essentially did away with natural selection as a major evolutionary process."
On Thursday, August 24, 2023 at 11:41:49 AM UTC-7, Peter Nyikos wrote:
On Wednesday, August 23, 2023 at 9:45:27 PM UTC-4, Glenn wrote:
On Saturday, August 19, 2023 at 7:49:29 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote: >>>> On 8/19/23 7:28 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
On 20.8.2023. 3:06, John Harshman wrote:
On 8/19/23 5:22 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
On 20.8.2023. 1:56, John Harshman wrote:
On 8/19/23 2:17 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
20 years ago situation was like this, Genetic Mutation
Theory was all over the place.
I have no idea what you're talking about. I suspect you don't either.
Then I noticed that authors of both, the Big Bang Theory and the >>>>>>>>> Genetic Mutation Theory are Catholic priests, and I started to >>>>>>>>> write about this, I wrote about it here a few times.
You're right about the Big Bang, but Mendel had zero to do with >>>>>>>> mutations.
Of course, that's why his theory is called Genetic Mutation
Theory.
Nobody calls it that.
Ok, I figured this out. Definitely 20 years ago it is known
that Genetic Mutation Theory was Mendel's (at least, this is how this >>>>> came to me), but maybe somebody misunderstood it, because it is based on
Mendel's work.
Conceivably there is some kind of translation problem here. But no, you >>>> are wrong. Mendel's theory has nothing to do with mutation. You admit at
times that you're ignorant of evolutionary biology and genetics. In >>>> this, if in nothing else, you are correct.
Ayala:
"The rediscovery in 1900 of Mendel's theory of heredity by the Dutch botanist and geneticist Hugo de Vries and others led to an emphasis on the role of heredity in evolution. De Vries proposed a new theory of evolution known as mutationism, which
"The controversy between mutationists (also referred to at the time as Mendelians) and biometricians approached a resolution in the 1920s and 1930s through the theoretical work of geneticists."
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/agricultural-and-biological-sciences/mutationism
Here's another:It's a fascinating history that your link brings to light, but it seems that "Mendelian"
Mario appears more accurate about history than you.
is one of those misnomers that have confused people since time immemorial.
Ripley collected an impressive number of them in the very first (and by far the most interesting, despite
a number of bad mistakes) of his "Believe It or Not" books. Here are two of the ones that
stuck in my mind after all the decades since I last saw the book.
"Dresden china" (porcelain) is manufactured in Meissen.
"Panama hats" are produced in Ecuador.
Here is a pair of scientific ones that come to mind.
"Bode's law" of planetary spacing was due to Titius. [Also, Neptune disproved it by
being a lot closer to the sun than the "law" states.]
"Darwin's theory of natural selection" was independently discovered
by Wallace, and also by an obscure person well before Darwin formulated it.
There are also a lot of misnomers in chess and mathematics,
but I don't want to get into them now.
Also, there are innumerable cases of famous people being credited
with sayings that are not due to them. One that Ripley himself mentioned >> in that first book was "Let them eat cake," supposedly in reaction to
news of a bread shortage. It was falsely attributed to
Marie Antionette, but that attribution was thoroughly discredited from
several directions here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Let_them_eat_cake
"Genetic algorithm (GA) is an optimization searching algorithm based on the theory of evolution and the genetic mutation theory of Mendel (Atmar, 1994, Chaudhry et al., 2000, Fogel, 1994, Srinivas and Patnaik, 1994)
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0957417411001114Note that none of the references used in support of this sentence are
about biology or its history, just genetic algorithms and simulations. I don't know whether any of them mention Mendel, but even if so they are
not reasonable sources for information about Mendel's theories.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/agricultural-and-biological-sciences/mutationism
On 25.8.2023. 1:47, John Harshman wrote:
On 8/24/23 4:35 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
On 25.8.2023. 1:14, John Harshman wrote:
It's true that the "mutations" De Vries noted were not actually
mutations in the modern sense. Oenothera just has unusual genetics.
But the idea was extended quickly to things we would call mutations.
Still nothing to do with Mendel, and nothing relevant to the
discussion.
The only thing you need mutations for is to explain the >>> uniqueness of humans. And this is what all those people tied to
church wanted, and nothing else.
I'm pretty sure that mutations can explain a lot of things. For
example, antennipedia in fruit flies. Differences in the sequence of
beta fibrinogen intron 5 between Dendrocygna arborea and Dendrocygna
autumnalis. Blood antigen alleles A, B, and O. And so on.
The only thing that cannot be done by natural selection is human uniqueness, because it isn't natural. Of course, if you think that humans really are unique. I don't think so, but it looks like I am the
only person on the whole planet who don't think so, this is why all the
other persons on this planet are desperately searching for a way to
explain human uniqueness, it is of the most importance to them. They
write numerous books about it, and you read them all, of course.
And, BTW, if you knew about four pipelines, then you would understand why five lionesses can overcome one lion, and things like that.
This can probably, have some other implications, also.
On 25.8.2023. 1:42, John Harshman wrote:But it doesn't have to get rid of all the mutations, just the
On 8/24/23 4:32 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
On 24.8.2023. 23:05, John Harshman wrote:
On 8/24/23 1:28 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
On 24.8.2023. 19:56, John Harshman wrote:
On 8/24/23 8:59 AM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
On 24.8.2023. 15:34, John Harshman wrote:
On 8/23/23 11:07 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
On 24.8.2023. 3:45, Glenn wrote:
On Saturday, August 19, 2023 at 7:49:29 PM UTC-7, John
Harshman wrote:
On 8/19/23 7:28 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
Ok, I figured this out. Definitely 20 years ago it >>>>>>>>>>>> is known
that Genetic Mutation Theory was Mendel's (at least, this is >>>>>>>>>>>> how this
came to me), but maybe somebody misunderstood it, because it >>>>>>>>>>>> is based on
Mendel's work.
Conceivably there is some kind of translation problem here. >>>>>>>>>>> But no, you
are wrong. Mendel's theory has nothing to do with mutation. >>>>>>>>>>> You admit at
times that you're ignorant of evolutionary biology and
genetics. In
this, if in nothing else, you are correct.
Ayala:
"The rediscovery in 1900 of Mendel's theory of heredity by the >>>>>>>>>> Dutch botanist and geneticist Hugo de Vries and others led to >>>>>>>>>> an emphasis on the role of heredity in evolution. De Vries >>>>>>>>>> proposed a new theory of evolution known as mutationism, which >>>>>>>>>> essentially did away with natural selection as a major
evolutionary process."
"The controversy between mutationists (also referred to at the >>>>>>>>>> time as Mendelians) and biometricians approached a resolution >>>>>>>>>> in the 1920s and 1930s through the theoretical work of
geneticists."
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/agricultural-and-biological-sciences/mutationism
Mario appears more accurate about history than you.
Thanks very much. I know that at the time I was
seeking info about it, it was called Genetic Mutation Theory in >>>>>>>>> Wikipedia (I believe), and they wrote that all this originates >>>>>>>>> from Mendel, and later this was "re-discovered" by three
independent guys, in a matter of two months.
No, the quote from Ayala says nothing of the sort. Note:
"Mendel's theory of heredity" says nothing about mutation. And >>>>>>>> "De Vries proposed a *new* theory of evolution". The only
connection between Mendelism and mutationism is that De Vries
subscribed to both of them.
Hm, when I read it in the past it was said that de Vries >>>>>>> rediscovered Mendel, and that he introduced the term 'mutations', >>>>>>> and that was all. But Mendel was the originator and the only
important person in the whole story back then, when I have read
about it. Now, I will definitely not waste my time to research it >>>>>>> further because the idea is utterly stupid, and the fact that the >>>>>>> ones who follow the idea search for Adam and Eve only supports my >>>>>>> view on this.
I get the idea you're really talking about something else. What
idea is utterly stupid, and who searches for Adam and Eve?
Everybody. Everybody searches for this moment when some
mutation happened, and like, the original owner of it would be,
either Adam, or Eve. I cannot believe that you never heard those
terms, they are all around. They are connected to mutations,
because the Adam/Eve is the one who first got it.
Wait, are you talking about mitochondrial Eve and Y chromosome Adam?
Those are just fanciful names attached to real things, the most
recent ancestor of everyone's mitochondria and the most recent
ancestor of all current Y chromosomes. Nothing to do with the
biblical characters of the same names. Nor are they attached to
mutations. It's quite likely that mt-Eve's mother had an identical
mitochondrial genome, and likely several prior generations too.
Mitochondria do have a high mutation rate but the genome is also tiny. >>>>
But again, Mendel never said anything about mutations, using that
term or any other. De Vries rediscovered Mendel *and* De Vries was >>>>>> a mutationist. There is no connection between those two things
other than that De Vries entertained them both.
There *is* a *system* (it is so obvious, because it
works on each and every species on this planet, each and every
species improves, even if it eventually goes extinct it
*improves* before that point) that makes things to better adapt, >>>>>>> and the idea of mutation cannot work, because mutations are
harmful, in order to have only useful mutations you would need to >>>>>>> win lottery each and every time, this, simply, doesn't work,
although so many would like it to work.
Not true. Most mutations are neutral, some are harmful, and some
are beneficial. Which ones are which depends quite a bit on the
environment. And you completely ignore natural selection, which
eliminates the harmful ones and fixes the beneficial ones.
Mutations cannot be eliminated by natural selection, there
is no time for it.
That makes no sense. Of course there's time for it.
So, you will carry all the negative mutations along with one
positive for considerable amount of time, until natural selection
somehow figures out that you have one positive as well?
Natural selection doesn't figure out anything. Why must you
anthropomorphize everything? Now, the fitness of a particular genome
is composed of the sum (or more complicated function) of the fitnesses
of all the genome's various parts. So if a beneficial allele at some
locus is accompanied by deleterious ones at many other loci, that
genome won't have a very high fitness. But if that were generally
true, populations would become extinct.
This is why I am telling you that organism has to get rid of
all the mutations. The ratio of harmful mutations per those "useful"
ones should be enormous. This cannot work per your mechanism.
What's wrong with my reasoning?Since the waste majority of them are harmful, because they are
mutations, there is no place for them in the system, they are not
systematic, as you try to imply, they are pure errors, they have to
be eliminated.
And that's gibberish.
Hm, in your world there are only positive mutations, or
what? As I see it, you get, by chance, one positive out of million
negative. I don't get how you are imagining all this? One positive,
one negative? Or what?
No. But that's a number you just made up, and let's recall that both
deleterious and beneficial mutations are fairly rare, so anyone is
unlikely to have very many of either, perhaps not even one. Thus the
mutations that do happen can be exposed to selection individually.
Yeah, right.
sure.This is like, imagine if there is life on Mars. We have our
diseases, they have their. If we come to Mars their diseases will
not affect us, just like pig diseases will not affect us, because
those diseases work in pig system, and our evolve in our system. Of
course, there are variations on a theme, pigs can be transporters
of our disease, but only if we are long time in contact, and things
like that. In short, for something to affect us it has to be part
of our system.
It's not clear what you mean by "system", and of course there are
many diseases that began in other species and found their way into
humans.
This "system", though, can go long time into the past, there is a
bit of fish, and who knows what, still in us, but it has to be a
part of us already. No aliens will find home in our body, because
things aren't so simple at all. Even Lego cubes, in order to build
something, has to be made per exact measures. No place for errors,
there was no "evolution by errors". When evolution started, it was
a system. This system improved, but its basis always stays the
same. For example, no matter how smart you are, you never can
follow five points in space. You will have absolutely no problems
with four points, but five points is too much. It is too much for
humans, but this goes for amoeba also, it can defend from four
attackers, not from five. Why? Because all the nervous systems are
based on four pipelines, amoeba and human, doesn't matter. There
will *never* be a mutation that will give you five pipelines. At
least, this didn't happen so far, although it would give you the
immense advantage, like a difference between 8 and 16 bit
computers. Not because system with five pipelines wouldn't be
possible, it is because this system wouldn't be possible to
implement into body which revolves around four pipelines. So, this
mutation would be, actually, deadly. Just the same, all mutations
are harmful, because this is a complex interlaced system, no part
works on its own, every part has to have connections to other
parts. You can dream about your mutation working, but only because
your dreams are childish, and not thorough enough.
And that takes gibberish to a new level. Four pipelines??
This is why reading books doesn't work. I read articles, not
books. That way you learn much more, but for sure, if you read books
you are expert in knowing that particular book. I am not interested
in selected books, I am scooping knowledge, in various ways.
This is why we have so many experts in one particular book
(Bible), talking stupidity all the time.
See, just try to follow the position of five objects around
you. This is so easy. But, of course, it isn't easy for you, first
you need to read it in some book.
And, my advice, this is well known thing. The next time five
youngsters approach to you asking to buy drugs or weapons (or
anything illegal), I'll tell you a secret, these are young policemen
in disguise. Yes, there are always five of them. The reason? They
know this trick. And you don't know it, it isn't written in any book
that you've read.
You seem to have spent inordinate time failing to answer my question.
Besides, when I claim something, I claim it based on
something, not just out of thin air. Changes do happen, while I
would really like to see the evidence of those famous useful
mutations, other than circular thinking. As I said, those people >>>>>>> probably envisage human "intelligence" as the evidence. But they >>>>>>> are completely wrong, there is *no* human "intelligence". So,
human "intelligence" is possible because of mutations, and the
evidence for mutations is human intelligence. Simple as that,
circular thinking.
Still don't know who "those people" are. The evidence of mutations >>>>>> is differences in the genomes of parents and children, genetic
variation within populations, and genetic differences between
species, all of which are the sort of thing we observe happening
and whose causes we know.
The difference is the evidence of change, not the evidence
of mutations.
What, in your opinion, causes those changes, particularly the
hundred or so in which you differ from both your parents?
I don't know, I don't have an opinion. Errors aren't, for
Well, a few of them do. Ayala was a Catholic priest. But mostly, it's evolutionary biologists and molecular biologists who know that, and very
This despite the fact that we know the major mechanisms of mutation
quite well?
You mean, Catholic priests know them?
about it.Well, I also searched info about those three guys. At that time >>>>>>>>> only one of those had something in his biography (he had only >>>>>>>>> one thing in his biography, besides being involved in this, it >>>>>>>>> was probably de Vries), and the other two had absolutely
nothing in their biographies, except that they rediscovered
Mendel (I am using exclusively English version of Wikipedia). >>>>>>>>> So, by that I figured out that they were just filling the
number, because for something to be accepted the number has to >>>>>>>>> be three.
Now I am looking at this in Wikipedia, and somehow, >>>>>>>>> like somebody wants deliberately to nullify what I figured out, >>>>>>>>> suddenly they emphasize only two of those three, although
clearly they, themselves, mention that there were three
"re-discoverers" in a matter ow two months.
Those two are:
1) Hugo de Vries - son of a deacon in the Mennonite
congregation in Haarlem
2) Carl Correns - who worked as tutor at the University of
Tubungen. I found this university always being involved in
falsifying history so that it matches Bible.
The third one is:
3) Erich von Tschermak - who was, actually, largely influenced >>>>>>>>> by his brother Armin. Well, his brother was elected member of >>>>>>>>> the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, which is a scientific
academy of Vatican City, established in 28 October 1936, and >>>>>>>>> Armin became member of it right from the beginning, 28 October >>>>>>>>> 1936.
So, Christian religion all over the place.
This is typical conspiracy thinking, in which any connection to >>>>>>>> anything, no matter how tenuous, produces guilt by association. >>>>>>>> And your reach has expanded. It used to be the Catholic church, >>>>>>>> and now it's any Christian sect. I submit that any European or >>>>>>>> American scientist can be connected to Christianity by a very
short chain of relationships.
Of course. Isn't it so obvious? Now, somehow, Vatican
doesn't have conspiracy? How come, if anybody has it, it is
Vatican. I don't know in what relation to Vatican those
Mennonites are, though (and I don't care).
This is crazy talk, pure and simple.
Oh, of course. Whenever I say that mutations areThe second problem is the problem of nomenclature,Your pronouns make the sentence conveniently ambiguous. What's >>>>>>>> "this"? Not anything Mendel was involved in. What are "these"? >>>>>>>> Is somebody supposed to be claiming that mutations don't happen? >>>>>>>
which is so obvious. This is called Mutation Theory, but if you >>>>>>>>> try to discuss in a term of a 'mutation', everybody tells you >>>>>>>>> immediately that these *aren't* mutations, but rather changes. >>>>>>>>
harmful, and that this cannot work, the one I am discussion this >>>>>>> with (it could have even been you, I don't remember anymore)
immediately says that this actually aren't mutations.
I have no idea what you think you're talking about here. Mutations >>>>>> aren't mutations? What cannot work? Could you try very hard to be
clearer?
Gee. So, these *are* mutations? Fine. I really don't get how a
person with clear mind can envisage this to work, it's beyond me. >>>>>>> I know that your brain doesn't work, that you accept everything
that is written in books without thinking (obviously you didn't
read Bible yet), so for you this is normal.
Again, what are "these"? What is "this"?
"These" and "this" has nothing to do with me, they are
invented by people who are discussing mutations.
Sure. but what are they? What were you trying to say in that sentence? >>>>
You can be "clear" when you are talking about those things
only if you are God, and you know absolutely everything about
everything. And people who claim that they know everything about
everything, are the ones who don't know much, the fact that God
created the Universe in seven days is "everything" they think it
needs to be known. The same way is your way, "Everything is product
of mutations.". Well, don't you say. Yes, you are very clear about
that, lol. How this incorporates into existing system? "Well, it
doesn't have to incorporate, you know." Well, don't you say.
I'm not quite sure, but I think I don't say.
"Those" supposed 'mutations'. Set your story straight,Now, if those are changes, why they are not called changes?
What are "those"?
it is your story, not mine (ah, I see, it isn't your story, you
just read it in books, but you actually don't understand it, or
what?). So, if "those" are mutations, they, simply, cannot work. >>>>>>> If "those" aren't mutations (so, it is just wrong nomenclature), >>>>>>> if "those" are just changes, then they aren't what proponents of >>>>>>> "mutations" claim for them to be.
What are the supposed mutations you're talking about? Why can't
they work, and what would it mean to work?
Because you can achieve so much by playing with words (I've
seen this so many times, being raised in communism). If they >>>>>>>>> would be called genetic changes, this isn't a big deal, nothing >>>>>>>>> strange about it, everything changes over time, even we change >>>>>>>>> during our lifetime, the change is natural, the change is
gradual, after all, Darwin's theory is about a change. But if >>>>>>>>> you introduce 'mutation', this is completely different thing. >>>>>>>>> Mutations are unnatural, mutations are one-off events,
mutations are out of any system, mutations are unsystematic. So >>>>>>>>> now we have, instead of following a simple change which pertain >>>>>>>>> to some particular system, the whole scientific community
searches for those unnatural one-off events that produce some >>>>>>>>> out of order unsystematic magic, and the whole scientific
community suddenly revolves around Adam and Eve.
I don't think you have any idea what mutations are or what
scientists think they are. Nobody thinks that mutations are
unnatural (well, except for some IDers; but not scientists).
Mutations are errors. Simple as that.
"Error" is a value-laden word, implying that someone is making a
mistake. But there isn't anybody involved. We call them errors if
they result in a different sequence than was there before, though
in fact we don't call recombination an error or a mutation, and it >>>>>> results in a different sequence. Go figure.
Different sequence? What bloody sequence? "Sequences"
don't program the making of a body. I know that sequences are
involved, but if you can tell me *how* a specific sequence works,
I'll buy you another beer, :) .
Well, some sequences get translated into proteins, some produce
functional RNAs, some arer targets of transcription factors or other
regulatory molecules, and others are just junk. We know how quite a
few of them work. There's a whole body of science involving this. If
you're interested in development, I recommend a number of books by
the biologist Sean Carroll (not to be confused with the physicist of
the same name).
I'll be interested when they make me a dog with wings, made
out of materials that they dug from the ground, and he has to have
pink fur (not that I fancy pink, :), it is just an unnatural color
for fur).
So you no longer care whether I can tell you how a specific sequence
works? I'm thinking that your promises to buy me a beer are not
honestly made.
Well, after you tell me, I will tell you how Moon rocket is
made. I will not make it myself, of course, I will just tell you
In order to have one "useful" error, you have to have millions of >>>>>>> wrong lottery tickets. So, this theory works against itself,
because the winner would be the one who *doesn't have* errors,
and not the one who has it so much that he even got the winning
one. I would always win a lottery if I buy all the lottery
tickets, otherwise no. This, simply, doesn't work.
You made up a distribution from thin air and forgot entirely about >>>>>> natural selection.
But the real truth is, all this doesn't exist at all. >>>>>>>>> Those genetic changes are just simple changes, there are no
unnatural events, no "mutations" (just like everybody is so
fast to tell you). So, what's the fuss, then? The fuss is in >>>>>>>>> the fact that scientists don't bloody understand what they are >>>>>>>>> doing at all, they are pulled by their noses, this is what the >>>>>>>>> fuss is.
I think you don't understand what you're doing at all, and all >>>>>>>> the pronouns in the world can't disguise that.
And I think that you, simply, don't understand anything, >>>>>>> simple as that. This is why you rely so much on books.
Better books than fantasies based on ignorance, wouldn't you say?
On Thursday, August 24, 2023 at 4:47:25 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:You should realize that you understand almost nothing of what I say, and
On 8/24/23 4:35 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
On 25.8.2023. 1:14, John Harshman wrote:I'm pretty sure that mutations can explain a lot of things. For example,
It's true that the "mutations" De Vries noted were not actuallyThe only thing you need mutations for is to explain the
mutations in the modern sense. Oenothera just has unusual genetics.
But the idea was extended quickly to things we would call mutations.
Still nothing to do with Mendel, and nothing relevant to the discussion. >>>
uniqueness of humans. And this is what all those people tied to church
wanted, and nothing else.
antennipedia in fruit flies. Differences in the sequence of beta
fibrinogen intron 5 between Dendrocygna arborea and Dendrocygna
autumnalis. Blood antigen alleles A, B, and O. And so on.
This from one who claimed and argued that "evolution" does not
require mutations and allows for speciation, and so macroevolution.
This was in context to a discussion about Common Ancestry. The word
salad this guy spews sometimes may confuse some. Don't be misled.
On Thursday, August 24, 2023 at 4:15:02 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:essentially did away with natural selection as a major evolutionary process." >>>>>
On 8/24/23 3:20 PM, Glenn wrote:
On Thursday, August 24, 2023 at 11:41:49 AM UTC-7, Peter Nyikos wrote: >>>> On Wednesday, August 23, 2023 at 9:45:27 PM UTC-4, Glenn wrote:
On Saturday, August 19, 2023 at 7:49:29 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote: >>>>>> On 8/19/23 7:28 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
On 20.8.2023. 3:06, John Harshman wrote:
On 8/19/23 5:22 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
On 20.8.2023. 1:56, John Harshman wrote:
On 8/19/23 2:17 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
20 years ago situation was like this, Genetic Mutation
Theory was all over the place.
I have no idea what you're talking about. I suspect you don't either.
Then I noticed that authors of both, the Big Bang Theory and the >>>>>>>>>>> Genetic Mutation Theory are Catholic priests, and I started to >>>>>>>>>>> write about this, I wrote about it here a few times.
You're right about the Big Bang, but Mendel had zero to do with >>>>>>>>>> mutations.
Of course, that's why his theory is called Genetic Mutation
Theory.
Nobody calls it that.
Ok, I figured this out. Definitely 20 years ago it is known
that Genetic Mutation Theory was Mendel's (at least, this is how this >>>>>>> came to me), but maybe somebody misunderstood it, because it is based on
Mendel's work.
Conceivably there is some kind of translation problem here. But no, you >>>>>> are wrong. Mendel's theory has nothing to do with mutation. You admit at >>>>>> times that you're ignorant of evolutionary biology and genetics. In >>>>>> this, if in nothing else, you are correct.
Ayala:
"The rediscovery in 1900 of Mendel's theory of heredity by the Dutch botanist and geneticist Hugo de Vries and others led to an emphasis on the role of heredity in evolution. De Vries proposed a new theory of evolution known as mutationism, which
"The controversy between mutationists (also referred to at the time as Mendelians) and biometricians approached a resolution in the 1920s and 1930s through the theoretical work of geneticists."
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/agricultural-and-biological-sciences/mutationism
Nothing to say about this it appears.
Note that none of the references used in support of this sentence areHere's another:Mario appears more accurate about history than you.It's a fascinating history that your link brings to light, but it seems that "Mendelian"
is one of those misnomers that have confused people since time immemorial. >>>>
Ripley collected an impressive number of them in the very first (and by far the most interesting, despite
a number of bad mistakes) of his "Believe It or Not" books. Here are two of the ones that
stuck in my mind after all the decades since I last saw the book.
"Dresden china" (porcelain) is manufactured in Meissen.
"Panama hats" are produced in Ecuador.
Here is a pair of scientific ones that come to mind.
"Bode's law" of planetary spacing was due to Titius. [Also, Neptune disproved it by
being a lot closer to the sun than the "law" states.]
"Darwin's theory of natural selection" was independently discovered
by Wallace, and also by an obscure person well before Darwin formulated it.
There are also a lot of misnomers in chess and mathematics,
but I don't want to get into them now.
Also, there are innumerable cases of famous people being credited
with sayings that are not due to them. One that Ripley himself mentioned >>>> in that first book was "Let them eat cake," supposedly in reaction to
news of a bread shortage. It was falsely attributed to
Marie Antionette, but that attribution was thoroughly discredited from >>>> several directions here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Let_them_eat_cake
"Genetic algorithm (GA) is an optimization searching algorithm based on the theory of evolution and the genetic mutation theory of Mendel (Atmar, 1994, Chaudhry et al., 2000, Fogel, 1994, Srinivas and Patnaik, 1994)
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0957417411001114
about biology or its history, just genetic algorithms and simulations. I
don't know whether any of them mention Mendel, but even if so they are
not reasonable sources for information about Mendel's theories.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/agricultural-and-biological-sciences/mutationism
You are not a reasonable source for information about anything.
"Mendelian-mutationism: the forgotten evolutionary synthesis"
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24811736/
You must be aware of the fact that mutationism was sometimes referred
to as Mendelism, since you seem to think you are an authority on the
subject.
On Thursday, August 24, 2023 at 4:47:25 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:t be misled.
On 8/24/23 4:35 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
On 25.8.2023. 1:14, John Harshman wrote:I'm pretty sure that mutations can explain a lot of things. For example,
It's true that the "mutations" De Vries noted were not actuallyThe only thing you need mutations for is to explain the
mutations in the modern sense. Oenothera just has unusual genetics.
But the idea was extended quickly to things we would call mutations.
Still nothing to do with Mendel, and nothing relevant to the discussion. >>>
uniqueness of humans. And this is what all those people tied to church
wanted, and nothing else.
antennipedia in fruit flies. Differences in the sequence of beta
fibrinogen intron 5 between Dendrocygna arborea and Dendrocygna
autumnalis. Blood antigen alleles A, B, and O. And so on.
This from one who claimed and argued that "evolution" does not require mutations and allows for speciation, and so macroevolution. This was in context to a discussion about Common Ancestry. The word salad this guy spews sometimes may confuse some. Don'
On 8/24/23 5:19 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
On 25.8.2023. 1:47, John Harshman wrote:
On 8/24/23 4:35 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
On 25.8.2023. 1:14, John Harshman wrote:
It's true that the "mutations" De Vries noted were not actually
mutations in the modern sense. Oenothera just has unusual genetics.
But the idea was extended quickly to things we would call
mutations. Still nothing to do with Mendel, and nothing relevant to
the discussion.
The only thing you need mutations for is to explain the >>>> uniqueness of humans. And this is what all those people tied to
church wanted, and nothing else.
I'm pretty sure that mutations can explain a lot of things. For
example, antennipedia in fruit flies. Differences in the sequence of
beta fibrinogen intron 5 between Dendrocygna arborea and Dendrocygna
autumnalis. Blood antigen alleles A, B, and O. And so on.
The only thing that cannot be done by natural selection is >> human uniqueness, because it isn't natural. Of course, if you think
that humans really are unique. I don't think so, but it looks like I
am the only person on the whole planet who don't think so, this is why
all the other persons on this planet are desperately searching for a
way to explain human uniqueness, it is of the most importance to them.
They write numerous books about it, and you read them all, of course.
Sure, humans are unique in various ways. So is every species. Whatever
are you talking about?
On 8/24/23 5:24 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
And, BTW, if you knew about four pipelines, then you would >> understand why five lionesses can overcome one lion, and things like
that.
This can probably, have some other implications, also.
Could you explain?
On 25.8.2023. 3:54, John Harshman wrote:
On 8/24/23 5:24 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
And, BTW, if you knew about four pipelines, then you would >>> understand why five lionesses can overcome one lion, and things like
that.
This can probably, have some other implications, also.
Could you explain?
Simple, four lionesses cannot fight a lion, it takes five lionesses to fight lion. If there are five of them, lionesses will win,
if there are four of them, lion will get his way. I am not inventing
things, it was in one documentary. You cannot fight five people around
you, doesn't matter how strong or smart you are. If there are four of
them, you will get the exact sense where each of them is, and what he is doing, you will keep an "eye" on each of those four. If there are five
of them suddenly you will not be able to control any of them, unless you consciously decide to be blind about one of them.
And this goes for lions, this goes for humans, and the same goes for amoeba. No amount of "intelligence" will help you to overcome
this obstacle. You are just as "smart" as amoeba is.
On 8/24/23 5:15 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
On 25.8.2023. 1:42, John Harshman wrote:https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/agricultural-and-biological-sciences/mutationism
On 8/24/23 4:32 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
On 24.8.2023. 23:05, John Harshman wrote:
On 8/24/23 1:28 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
On 24.8.2023. 19:56, John Harshman wrote:
On 8/24/23 8:59 AM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
On 24.8.2023. 15:34, John Harshman wrote:
On 8/23/23 11:07 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
On 24.8.2023. 3:45, Glenn wrote:
On Saturday, August 19, 2023 at 7:49:29 PM UTC-7, John >>>>>>>>>>> Harshman wrote:
On 8/19/23 7:28 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
Ok, I figured this out. Definitely 20 years ago it
is known
that Genetic Mutation Theory was Mendel's (at least, this is >>>>>>>>>>>>> how this
came to me), but maybe somebody misunderstood it, because it >>>>>>>>>>>>> is based on
Mendel's work.
Conceivably there is some kind of translation problem here. >>>>>>>>>>>> But no, you
are wrong. Mendel's theory has nothing to do with mutation. >>>>>>>>>>>> You admit at
times that you're ignorant of evolutionary biology and >>>>>>>>>>>> genetics. In
this, if in nothing else, you are correct.
Ayala:
"The rediscovery in 1900 of Mendel's theory of heredity by the >>>>>>>>>>> Dutch botanist and geneticist Hugo de Vries and others led to >>>>>>>>>>> an emphasis on the role of heredity in evolution. De Vries >>>>>>>>>>> proposed a new theory of evolution known as mutationism, which >>>>>>>>>>> essentially did away with natural selection as a major
evolutionary process."
"The controversy between mutationists (also referred to at the >>>>>>>>>>> time as Mendelians) and biometricians approached a resolution >>>>>>>>>>> in the 1920s and 1930s through the theoretical work of
geneticists."
But it doesn't have to get rid of all the mutations, just the
Mario appears more accurate about history than you.
Thanks very much. I know that at the time I was >>>>>>>>>> seeking info about it, it was called Genetic Mutation Theory in >>>>>>>>>> Wikipedia (I believe), and they wrote that all this originates >>>>>>>>>> from Mendel, and later this was "re-discovered" by three
independent guys, in a matter of two months.
No, the quote from Ayala says nothing of the sort. Note:
"Mendel's theory of heredity" says nothing about mutation. And >>>>>>>>> "De Vries proposed a *new* theory of evolution". The only
connection between Mendelism and mutationism is that De Vries >>>>>>>>> subscribed to both of them.
Hm, when I read it in the past it was said that de Vries
rediscovered Mendel, and that he introduced the term 'mutations', >>>>>>>> and that was all. But Mendel was the originator and the only
important person in the whole story back then, when I have read >>>>>>>> about it. Now, I will definitely not waste my time to research it >>>>>>>> further because the idea is utterly stupid, and the fact that the >>>>>>>> ones who follow the idea search for Adam and Eve only supports my >>>>>>>> view on this.
I get the idea you're really talking about something else. What
idea is utterly stupid, and who searches for Adam and Eve?
Everybody. Everybody searches for this moment when some >>>>>> mutation happened, and like, the original owner of it would be,
either Adam, or Eve. I cannot believe that you never heard those
terms, they are all around. They are connected to mutations,
because the Adam/Eve is the one who first got it.
Wait, are you talking about mitochondrial Eve and Y chromosome Adam? >>>>> Those are just fanciful names attached to real things, the most
recent ancestor of everyone's mitochondria and the most recent
ancestor of all current Y chromosomes. Nothing to do with the
biblical characters of the same names. Nor are they attached to
mutations. It's quite likely that mt-Eve's mother had an identical
mitochondrial genome, and likely several prior generations too.
Mitochondria do have a high mutation rate but the genome is also tiny. >>>>>
But again, Mendel never said anything about mutations, using that >>>>>>> term or any other. De Vries rediscovered Mendel *and* De Vries was >>>>>>> a mutationist. There is no connection between those two things
other than that De Vries entertained them both.
There *is* a *system* (it is so obvious, because it >>>>>>>> works on each and every species on this planet, each and every >>>>>>>> species improves, even if it eventually goes extinct it
*improves* before that point) that makes things to better adapt, >>>>>>>> and the idea of mutation cannot work, because mutations are
harmful, in order to have only useful mutations you would need to >>>>>>>> win lottery each and every time, this, simply, doesn't work,
although so many would like it to work.
Not true. Most mutations are neutral, some are harmful, and some >>>>>>> are beneficial. Which ones are which depends quite a bit on the
environment. And you completely ignore natural selection, which
eliminates the harmful ones and fixes the beneficial ones.
Mutations cannot be eliminated by natural selection, there
is no time for it.
That makes no sense. Of course there's time for it.
So, you will carry all the negative mutations along with one
positive for considerable amount of time, until natural selection
somehow figures out that you have one positive as well?
Natural selection doesn't figure out anything. Why must you
anthropomorphize everything? Now, the fitness of a particular genome
is composed of the sum (or more complicated function) of the fitnesses
of all the genome's various parts. So if a beneficial allele at some
locus is accompanied by deleterious ones at many other loci, that
genome won't have a very high fitness. But if that were generally
true, populations would become extinct.
This is why I am telling you that organism has to get rid of
all the mutations. The ratio of harmful mutations per those "useful"
ones should be enormous. This cannot work per your mechanism.
deleterious ones. Most mutations are neutral, and a few are beneficial.
The few that are deleterious can be taken care of by selection.
What's wrong with my reasoning?Since the waste majority of them are harmful, because they are
mutations, there is no place for them in the system, they are not
systematic, as you try to imply, they are pure errors, they have to >>>>>> be eliminated.
And that's gibberish.
Hm, in your world there are only positive mutations, or >>>> what? As I see it, you get, by chance, one positive out of million
negative. I don't get how you are imagining all this? One positive,
one negative? Or what?
No. But that's a number you just made up, and let's recall that both
deleterious and beneficial mutations are fairly rare, so anyone is
unlikely to have very many of either, perhaps not even one. Thus the
mutations that do happen can be exposed to selection individually.
Yeah, right.
sure.This is like, imagine if there is life on Mars. We have our
diseases, they have their. If we come to Mars their diseases will
not affect us, just like pig diseases will not affect us, because
those diseases work in pig system, and our evolve in our system. Of >>>>>> course, there are variations on a theme, pigs can be transporters
of our disease, but only if we are long time in contact, and things >>>>>> like that. In short, for something to affect us it has to be part
of our system.
It's not clear what you mean by "system", and of course there are
many diseases that began in other species and found their way into
humans.
This "system", though, can go long time into the past, there is a
bit of fish, and who knows what, still in us, but it has to be a
part of us already. No aliens will find home in our body, because
things aren't so simple at all. Even Lego cubes, in order to build >>>>>> something, has to be made per exact measures. No place for errors, >>>>>> there was no "evolution by errors". When evolution started, it was >>>>>> a system. This system improved, but its basis always stays the
same. For example, no matter how smart you are, you never can
follow five points in space. You will have absolutely no problems
with four points, but five points is too much. It is too much for
humans, but this goes for amoeba also, it can defend from four
attackers, not from five. Why? Because all the nervous systems are >>>>>> based on four pipelines, amoeba and human, doesn't matter. There
will *never* be a mutation that will give you five pipelines. At
least, this didn't happen so far, although it would give you the
immense advantage, like a difference between 8 and 16 bit
computers. Not because system with five pipelines wouldn't be
possible, it is because this system wouldn't be possible to
implement into body which revolves around four pipelines. So, this >>>>>> mutation would be, actually, deadly. Just the same, all mutations
are harmful, because this is a complex interlaced system, no part
works on its own, every part has to have connections to other
parts. You can dream about your mutation working, but only because >>>>>> your dreams are childish, and not thorough enough.
And that takes gibberish to a new level. Four pipelines??
This is why reading books doesn't work. I read articles, not
books. That way you learn much more, but for sure, if you read books
you are expert in knowing that particular book. I am not interested
in selected books, I am scooping knowledge, in various ways.
This is why we have so many experts in one particular book
(Bible), talking stupidity all the time.
See, just try to follow the position of five objects around
you. This is so easy. But, of course, it isn't easy for you, first
you need to read it in some book.
And, my advice, this is well known thing. The next time five
youngsters approach to you asking to buy drugs or weapons (or
anything illegal), I'll tell you a secret, these are young policemen
in disguise. Yes, there are always five of them. The reason? They
know this trick. And you don't know it, it isn't written in any book
that you've read.
You seem to have spent inordinate time failing to answer my question.
Besides, when I claim something, I claim it based on >>>>>>>> something, not just out of thin air. Changes do happen, while I >>>>>>>> would really like to see the evidence of those famous useful
mutations, other than circular thinking. As I said, those people >>>>>>>> probably envisage human "intelligence" as the evidence. But they >>>>>>>> are completely wrong, there is *no* human "intelligence". So,
human "intelligence" is possible because of mutations, and the >>>>>>>> evidence for mutations is human intelligence. Simple as that,
circular thinking.
Still don't know who "those people" are. The evidence of mutations >>>>>>> is differences in the genomes of parents and children, genetic
variation within populations, and genetic differences between
species, all of which are the sort of thing we observe happening >>>>>>> and whose causes we know.
The difference is the evidence of change, not the evidence
of mutations.
What, in your opinion, causes those changes, particularly the
hundred or so in which you differ from both your parents?
I don't know, I don't have an opinion. Errors aren't, for
Well, a few of them do. Ayala was a Catholic priest. But mostly, it's evolutionary biologists and molecular biologists who know that, and very
This despite the fact that we know the major mechanisms of mutation
quite well?
You mean, Catholic priests know them?
few of them are Catholic priests. Your obsession with Catholics is weird.
about it.Well, I also searched info about those three guys. At that time >>>>>>>>>> only one of those had something in his biography (he had only >>>>>>>>>> one thing in his biography, besides being involved in this, it >>>>>>>>>> was probably de Vries), and the other two had absolutelyThis is typical conspiracy thinking, in which any connection to >>>>>>>>> anything, no matter how tenuous, produces guilt by association. >>>>>>>>> And your reach has expanded. It used to be the Catholic church, >>>>>>>>> and now it's any Christian sect. I submit that any European or >>>>>>>>> American scientist can be connected to Christianity by a very >>>>>>>>> short chain of relationships.
nothing in their biographies, except that they rediscovered >>>>>>>>>> Mendel (I am using exclusively English version of Wikipedia). >>>>>>>>>> So, by that I figured out that they were just filling the
number, because for something to be accepted the number has to >>>>>>>>>> be three.
Now I am looking at this in Wikipedia, and somehow, >>>>>>>>>> like somebody wants deliberately to nullify what I figured out, >>>>>>>>>> suddenly they emphasize only two of those three, although
clearly they, themselves, mention that there were three
"re-discoverers" in a matter ow two months.
Those two are:
1) Hugo de Vries - son of a deacon in the Mennonite
congregation in Haarlem
2) Carl Correns - who worked as tutor at the University of >>>>>>>>>> Tubungen. I found this university always being involved in >>>>>>>>>> falsifying history so that it matches Bible.
The third one is:
3) Erich von Tschermak - who was, actually, largely influenced >>>>>>>>>> by his brother Armin. Well, his brother was elected member of >>>>>>>>>> the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, which is a scientific
academy of Vatican City, established in 28 October 1936, and >>>>>>>>>> Armin became member of it right from the beginning, 28 October >>>>>>>>>> 1936.
So, Christian religion all over the place. >>>>>>>>>
Of course. Isn't it so obvious? Now, somehow, Vatican >>>>>>>> doesn't have conspiracy? How come, if anybody has it, it is
Vatican. I don't know in what relation to Vatican those
Mennonites are, though (and I don't care).
This is crazy talk, pure and simple.
Oh, of course. Whenever I say that mutations are >>>>>>>> harmful, and that this cannot work, the one I am discussion this >>>>>>>> with (it could have even been you, I don't remember anymore)The second problem is the problem of nomenclature, >>>>>>>>>> which is so obvious. This is called Mutation Theory, but if you >>>>>>>>>> try to discuss in a term of a 'mutation', everybody tells you >>>>>>>>>> immediately that these *aren't* mutations, but rather changes. >>>>>>>>>Your pronouns make the sentence conveniently ambiguous. What's >>>>>>>>> "this"? Not anything Mendel was involved in. What are "these"? >>>>>>>>> Is somebody supposed to be claiming that mutations don't happen? >>>>>>>>
immediately says that this actually aren't mutations.
I have no idea what you think you're talking about here. Mutations >>>>>>> aren't mutations? What cannot work? Could you try very hard to be >>>>>>> clearer?
Gee. So, these *are* mutations? Fine. I really don't get how a >>>>>>>> person with clear mind can envisage this to work, it's beyond me. >>>>>>>> I know that your brain doesn't work, that you accept everything >>>>>>>> that is written in books without thinking (obviously you didn't >>>>>>>> read Bible yet), so for you this is normal.
Again, what are "these"? What is "this"?
"These" and "this" has nothing to do with me, they are >>>>>> invented by people who are discussing mutations.
Sure. but what are they? What were you trying to say in that sentence? >>>>>
You can be "clear" when you are talking about those things
only if you are God, and you know absolutely everything about
everything. And people who claim that they know everything about
everything, are the ones who don't know much, the fact that God
created the Universe in seven days is "everything" they think it
needs to be known. The same way is your way, "Everything is product >>>>>> of mutations.". Well, don't you say. Yes, you are very clear about >>>>>> that, lol. How this incorporates into existing system? "Well, it
doesn't have to incorporate, you know." Well, don't you say.
I'm not quite sure, but I think I don't say.
"Those" supposed 'mutations'. Set your story straight,Now, if those are changes, why they are not called changes? >>>>>>>>>What are "those"?
it is your story, not mine (ah, I see, it isn't your story, you >>>>>>>> just read it in books, but you actually don't understand it, or >>>>>>>> what?). So, if "those" are mutations, they, simply, cannot work. >>>>>>>> If "those" aren't mutations (so, it is just wrong nomenclature), >>>>>>>> if "those" are just changes, then they aren't what proponents of >>>>>>>> "mutations" claim for them to be.
What are the supposed mutations you're talking about? Why can't
they work, and what would it mean to work?
Because you can achieve so much by playing with words (I've >>>>>>>>>> seen this so many times, being raised in communism). If they >>>>>>>>>> would be called genetic changes, this isn't a big deal, nothing >>>>>>>>>> strange about it, everything changes over time, even we change >>>>>>>>>> during our lifetime, the change is natural, the change is
gradual, after all, Darwin's theory is about a change. But if >>>>>>>>>> you introduce 'mutation', this is completely different thing. >>>>>>>>>> Mutations are unnatural, mutations are one-off events,
mutations are out of any system, mutations are unsystematic. So >>>>>>>>>> now we have, instead of following a simple change which pertain >>>>>>>>>> to some particular system, the whole scientific community
searches for those unnatural one-off events that produce some >>>>>>>>>> out of order unsystematic magic, and the whole scientific
community suddenly revolves around Adam and Eve.
I don't think you have any idea what mutations are or what
scientists think they are. Nobody thinks that mutations are
unnatural (well, except for some IDers; but not scientists).
Mutations are errors. Simple as that.
"Error" is a value-laden word, implying that someone is making a >>>>>>> mistake. But there isn't anybody involved. We call them errors if >>>>>>> they result in a different sequence than was there before, though >>>>>>> in fact we don't call recombination an error or a mutation, and it >>>>>>> results in a different sequence. Go figure.
Different sequence? What bloody sequence? "Sequences" >>>>>> don't program the making of a body. I know that sequences are
involved, but if you can tell me *how* a specific sequence works,
I'll buy you another beer, :) .
Well, some sequences get translated into proteins, some produce
functional RNAs, some arer targets of transcription factors or other >>>>> regulatory molecules, and others are just junk. We know how quite a
few of them work. There's a whole body of science involving this. If >>>>> you're interested in development, I recommend a number of books by
the biologist Sean Carroll (not to be confused with the physicist of >>>>> the same name).
I'll be interested when they make me a dog with wings, made
out of materials that they dug from the ground, and he has to have
pink fur (not that I fancy pink, :), it is just an unnatural color
for fur).
So you no longer care whether I can tell you how a specific sequence
works? I'm thinking that your promises to buy me a beer are not
honestly made.
Well, after you tell me, I will tell you how Moon rocket is >> made. I will not make it myself, of course, I will just tell you
What sort of response was that?
In order to have one "useful" error, you have to have millions of >>>>>>>> wrong lottery tickets. So, this theory works against itself,
because the winner would be the one who *doesn't have* errors, >>>>>>>> and not the one who has it so much that he even got the winning >>>>>>>> one. I would always win a lottery if I buy all the lottery
tickets, otherwise no. This, simply, doesn't work.
You made up a distribution from thin air and forgot entirely about >>>>>>> natural selection.
But the real truth is, all this doesn't exist at all.
Those genetic changes are just simple changes, there are no >>>>>>>>>> unnatural events, no "mutations" (just like everybody is so >>>>>>>>>> fast to tell you). So, what's the fuss, then? The fuss is in >>>>>>>>>> the fact that scientists don't bloody understand what they are >>>>>>>>>> doing at all, they are pulled by their noses, this is what the >>>>>>>>>> fuss is.
I think you don't understand what you're doing at all, and all >>>>>>>>> the pronouns in the world can't disguise that.
And I think that you, simply, don't understand anything,
simple as that. This is why you rely so much on books.
Better books than fantasies based on ignorance, wouldn't you say?
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 302 |
| Nodes: | 16 (0 / 16) |
| Uptime: | 96:49:34 |
| Calls: | 6,764 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 12,295 |
| Messages: | 5,376,370 |
| Posted today: | 1 |