https://www.jpost.com/science/article-695101
This makes sense. If it's not impossible and it's beneficial,
evolution will do it. Evolution itself evolves.
The implication is a sort of intelligence that steers mutation.
https://www.jpost.com/science/article-695101
This makes sense. If it's not impossible and it's beneficial,
evolution will do it. Evolution itself evolves.
The implication is a sort of intelligence that steers mutation.
https://www.jpost.com/science/article-695101
This makes sense. If it's not impossible and it's beneficial,
evolution will do it. Evolution itself evolves.
https://www.jpost.com/science/article-695101
This makes sense. If it's not impossible and it's beneficial,
evolution will do it. Evolution itself evolves.
The implication is a sort of intelligence that steers mutation.
https://www.jpost.com/science/article-695101
This makes sense. If it's not impossible and it's beneficial,
evolution will do it. Evolution itself evolves.
The implication is a sort of intelligence that steers mutation.
On 01/02/22 04:25, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
https://www.jpost.com/science/article-695101
This makes sense. If it's not impossible and it's beneficial,
evolution will do it. Evolution itself evolves.
The implication is a sort of intelligence that steers mutation.
In that case, judging from the results, it is a very poor
intelligence!
As others have noted, you really don't understand
evolution.
You need to understand the distinction between "sufficient"
and "necessary".
Random mutation is sufficient but not necessary. Any form
of mutation is sufficient, e.g. copying error, cosmic ray,
etc etc.
On Tue, 1 Feb 2022 08:41:38 +0000, Tom Gardner
<spam...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
On 01/02/22 04:25, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
https://www.jpost.com/science/article-695101
This makes sense. If it's not impossible and it's beneficial,
evolution will do it. Evolution itself evolves.
The implication is a sort of intelligence that steers mutation.
In that case, judging from the results, it is a very poor intelligence!
You don't like trees or bees or yourself?
As others have noted, you really don't understand evolution.
Or they don't.
You need to understand the distinction between "sufficient" and "necessary".
Random mutation is sufficient but not necessary. Any form
of mutation is sufficient, e.g. copying error, cosmic ray,
etc etc.
Given two competing species, one with sufficient genetic mechanisms and one with better mechanisms, the better one wins and the sufficient becomes extinct.
Randomness is a second-rate design technique. Intelligence is better.
The insistence that changes to the genome must be random, is weird.
Viruses deliberately redesign our genome to their benefit. Why can't we deliberately change our genome to our benefit?
https://www.jpost.com/science/article-695101
This makes sense. If it's not impossible and it's beneficial,
evolution will do it. Evolution itself evolves.
The implication is a sort of intelligence that steers mutation.
On 01/02/2022 05:25, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
https://www.jpost.com/science/article-695101
This makes sense. If it's not impossible and it's beneficial,
evolution will do it. Evolution itself evolves.
The implication is a sort of intelligence that steers mutation.
Did you actually read the article? There is no such implication
whatsoever. That is completely in your imagination (and shared in the >imagination of religious "god-guided evolution" believers and misnamed >"intelligent design" fans).
The article mainly says that they found malaria-resistant mutations were
more common in Africa than Europe. That is consistent with "plain old >evolution" - the selective pressure is higher where there is more malaria.
On Tue, 1 Feb 2022 08:41:38 +0000, Tom Gardner
<spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
On 01/02/22 04:25, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
https://www.jpost.com/science/article-695101
This makes sense. If it's not impossible and it's beneficial,
evolution will do it. Evolution itself evolves.
The implication is a sort of intelligence that steers mutation.
In that case, judging from the results, it is a very poor
intelligence!
You don't like trees or bees or yourself?
As others have noted, you really don't understand
evolution.
Or they don't.
You need to understand the distinction between "sufficient"
and "necessary".
Random mutation is sufficient but not necessary. Any form
of mutation is sufficient, e.g. copying error, cosmic ray,
etc etc.
Given two competing species, one with sufficient genetic mechanisms
and one with better mechanisms, the better one wins and the sufficient becomes extinct.
Randomness is a second-rate design technique. Intelligence is better.
The insistance that changes to the genome must be random, is weird.
Viruses deliberately redesign our genome to their benefit. Why can't
we deliberately change our genome to our benefit?
https://www.jpost.com/science/article-695101
This makes sense. If it's not impossible and it's beneficial,
evolution will do it. Evolution itself evolves.
The implication is a sort of intelligence that steers mutation.
On Tue, 1 Feb 2022 08:41:38 +0000, Tom Gardner
<spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
On 01/02/22 04:25, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
https://www.jpost.com/science/article-695101
This makes sense. If it's not impossible and it's beneficial,
evolution will do it. Evolution itself evolves.
The implication is a sort of intelligence that steers mutation.
In that case, judging from the results, it is a very poor
intelligence!
You don't like trees or bees or yourself?
As others have noted, you really don't understand
evolution.
Or they don't.
You need to understand the distinction between "sufficient"
and "necessary".
Random mutation is sufficient but not necessary. Any form
of mutation is sufficient, e.g. copying error, cosmic ray,
etc etc.
Given two competing species, one with sufficient genetic mechanisms
and one with better mechanisms, the better one wins and the sufficient becomes extinct.
Randomness is a second-rate design technique. Intelligence is better.
The insistance that changes to the genome must be random, is weird.
Viruses deliberately redesign our genome to their benefit.
Why can't
we deliberately change our genome to our benefit?
On Tue, 1 Feb 2022 11:39:24 +0100, David Brown
<david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
On 01/02/2022 05:25, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
https://www.jpost.com/science/article-695101
This makes sense. If it's not impossible and it's beneficial,
evolution will do it. Evolution itself evolves.
The implication is a sort of intelligence that steers mutation.
Did you actually read the article? There is no such implication
whatsoever. That is completely in your imagination (and shared in the
imagination of religious "god-guided evolution" believers and misnamed
"intelligent design" fans).
The article mainly says that they found malaria-resistant mutations were
more common in Africa than Europe. That is consistent with "plain old
evolution" - the selective pressure is higher where there is more malaria.
The point wasn't that there was more selection in malarial places, but
the the related mutation rates are higher.
As it says in the headline, this is directly contrary to the dogma of neo-Darwinism, specifically that mutations are only random.
On 01/02/22 04:25, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
https://www.jpost.com/science/article-695101
This makes sense. If it's not impossible and it's beneficial,
evolution will do it. Evolution itself evolves.
The implication is a sort of intelligence that steers mutation.In that case, judging from the results, it is a very poor
intelligence! As others have noted, you really don't understand
evolution.
You need to understand the distinction between "sufficient"
and "necessary".
Random mutation is sufficient but not necessary. Any form
of mutation is sufficient, e.g. copying error, cosmic ray,
etc etc.
On 01/02/2022 04:25, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
https://www.jpost.com/science/article-695101
This makes sense. If it's not impossible and it's beneficial,
evolution will do it. Evolution itself evolves.
The implication is a sort of intelligence that steers mutation.Then it might not be doing that well. The most commonly-known mutation
which affects the incidence of severe illness and death from malaria is sickle-cell disease. The distortion of the red blood cells caused by
this genetic mutation is said to offer protection against malaria, as
the parasite cannot utilise the distorted RBC in its reproductive cycle.
According to <https://www.who.int/data/gho/data/themes/malaria>, in 2017 there were 219 million cases of malaria globally, leading to 435,000
deaths. In other words, a death rate of about 0.2%. According to <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sickle_cell_disease>, in 2015 the death
rate from sickle cell disease was about 2.6% (114,800 in 4.4 million
cases). Figures vary according to the source, but overall it appears
that the death rate from sickle cell disease is about 10 times that of malaria. So although it might help to stop you dying from malaria, you
are more likely to die from other causes.
I was surprised by these figures, and would be pleased to find I've got
them wrong and sickle-cell disease really does result in a lower death
rate than malaria.
I yam what I yam - Popeye
On 01/02/2022 04:25, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
https://www.jpost.com/science/article-695101
This makes sense. If it's not impossible and it's beneficial,
evolution will do it. Evolution itself evolves.
The implication is a sort of intelligence that steers mutation.
Then it might not be doing that well. The most commonly-known mutation
which affects the incidence of severe illness and death from malaria is >sickle-cell disease. The distortion of the red blood cells caused by
this genetic mutation is said to offer protection against malaria, as
the parasite cannot utilise the distorted RBC in its reproductive cycle.
According to <https://www.who.int/data/gho/data/themes/malaria>, in 2017 >there were 219 million cases of malaria globally, leading to 435,000
deaths. In other words, a death rate of about 0.2%. According to ><https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sickle_cell_disease>, in 2015 the death
rate from sickle cell disease was about 2.6% (114,800 in 4.4 million
cases). Figures vary according to the source, but overall it appears
that the death rate from sickle cell disease is about 10 times that of >malaria. So although it might help to stop you dying from malaria, you
are more likely to die from other causes.
I was surprised by these figures, and would be pleased to find I've got
them wrong and sickle-cell disease really does result in a lower death
rate than malaria.
On Tue, 1 Feb 2022 11:22:29 +0000, Jeff Layman
According to <https://www.who.int/data/gho/data/themes/malaria>, in 2017
there were 219 million cases of malaria globally, leading to 435,000
deaths. In other words, a death rate of about 0.2%. According to
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sickle_cell_disease>, in 2015 the death
rate from sickle cell disease was about 2.6% (114,800 in 4.4 million
cases). Figures vary according to the source, but overall it appears
that the death rate from sickle cell disease is about 10 times that of
malaria. So although it might help to stop you dying from malaria, you
are more likely to die from other causes.
I was surprised by these figures, and would be pleased to find I've got
them wrong and sickle-cell disease really does result in a lower death
rate than malaria.
One copy of the sicle gene is advantageous against malaria. That means
it benefits many people without causing illness.
If that were not so, the sickle gene would be eliminated by evolution.
On 01/02/2022 16:35, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Tue, 1 Feb 2022 11:22:29 +0000, Jeff Layman
According to <https://www.who.int/data/gho/data/themes/malaria>, in 2017 >>> there were 219 million cases of malaria globally, leading to 435,000
deaths. In other words, a death rate of about 0.2%. According to
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sickle_cell_disease>, in 2015 the death
rate from sickle cell disease was about 2.6% (114,800 in 4.4 million
cases). Figures vary according to the source, but overall it appears
that the death rate from sickle cell disease is about 10 times that of
malaria. So although it might help to stop you dying from malaria, you
are more likely to die from other causes.
I was surprised by these figures, and would be pleased to find I've got
them wrong and sickle-cell disease really does result in a lower death
rate than malaria.
One copy of the sicle gene is advantageous against malaria. That means
it benefits many people without causing illness.
If that were not so, the sickle gene would be eliminated by evolution.
Yes, just as the gene mutations for short-sightedness have been
eliminated by evolution since they have no benefits but cause problems.
Oh, wait, it turns out that evolution is not quite that simple. Perhaps >there isn't a "guiding intelligence" after all?
Evolution has complex interactions. It is /not/ "survival of the
fittest". Natural selection selecting particular advantageous traits
works faster than for deselecting disadvantageous traits (this is a
result of the randomness and selection pressure).
Now, it might well be that the benefits of a single copy of the sickle
gene outweigh the disadvantages of having two copies - I don't know the >figures. But it is most certainly not guaranteed by evolution. Nor is
there the remotest guarantee that the sickle gene mutation is the "best" >solution - it could just as well be the case that a different mutation
would have given better protection against malaria with fewer
side-effects, but random chance has given people this one.
On Tue, 1 Feb 2022 16:52:11 +0100, David Brown
<david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
On 01/02/2022 16:35, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Tue, 1 Feb 2022 11:22:29 +0000, Jeff Layman
According to <https://www.who.int/data/gho/data/themes/malaria>, in 2017 >>>> there were 219 million cases of malaria globally, leading to 435,000
deaths. In other words, a death rate of about 0.2%. According to
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sickle_cell_disease>, in 2015 the death >>>> rate from sickle cell disease was about 2.6% (114,800 in 4.4 million
cases). Figures vary according to the source, but overall it appears
that the death rate from sickle cell disease is about 10 times that of >>>> malaria. So although it might help to stop you dying from malaria, you >>>> are more likely to die from other causes.
I was surprised by these figures, and would be pleased to find I've got >>>> them wrong and sickle-cell disease really does result in a lower death >>>> rate than malaria.
One copy of the sicle gene is advantageous against malaria. That means
it benefits many people without causing illness.
If that were not so, the sickle gene would be eliminated by evolution.
Yes, just as the gene mutations for short-sightedness have been
eliminated by evolution since they have no benefits but cause problems.
I'm near-sighted. It's a huge advantage for me.
Oh, wait, it turns out that evolution is not quite that simple. Perhaps
there isn't a "guiding intelligence" after all?
Evolution has complex interactions. It is /not/ "survival of the
fittest". Natural selection selecting particular advantageous traits
works faster than for deselecting disadvantageous traits (this is a
result of the randomness and selection pressure).
Now, it might well be that the benefits of a single copy of the sickle
gene outweigh the disadvantages of having two copies - I don't know the
figures. But it is most certainly not guaranteed by evolution. Nor is
there the remotest guarantee that the sickle gene mutation is the "best"
solution - it could just as well be the case that a different mutation
would have given better protection against malaria with fewer
side-effects, but random chance has given people this one.
You can argue with Wikipedia on that one. Maybe it's a coincidence
that the sickle gene is common in places with mlaria.
On 01/02/2022 17:04, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
I'm near-sighted. It's a huge advantage for me.
No, it is not. Near-sighted does not mean you are better at seeing
close-up than "perfect" sight, it means you are worse at seeing far
away. It has no upside.
On 01/02/2022 17:04, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Tue, 1 Feb 2022 16:52:11 +0100, David Brown
<david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
On 01/02/2022 16:35, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Tue, 1 Feb 2022 11:22:29 +0000, Jeff Layman
According to <https://www.who.int/data/gho/data/themes/malaria>, in 2017 >>>>> there were 219 million cases of malaria globally, leading to 435,000 >>>>> deaths. In other words, a death rate of about 0.2%. According to
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sickle_cell_disease>, in 2015 the death >>>>> rate from sickle cell disease was about 2.6% (114,800 in 4.4 million >>>>> cases). Figures vary according to the source, but overall it appears >>>>> that the death rate from sickle cell disease is about 10 times that of >>>>> malaria. So although it might help to stop you dying from malaria, you >>>>> are more likely to die from other causes.
I was surprised by these figures, and would be pleased to find I've got >>>>> them wrong and sickle-cell disease really does result in a lower death >>>>> rate than malaria.
One copy of the sicle gene is advantageous against malaria. That means >>>> it benefits many people without causing illness.
If that were not so, the sickle gene would be eliminated by evolution. >>>>
Yes, just as the gene mutations for short-sightedness have been
eliminated by evolution since they have no benefits but cause problems.
I'm near-sighted. It's a huge advantage for me.
No, it is not. Near-sighted does not mean you are better at seeing
close-up than "perfect" sight, it means you are worse at seeing far
away. It has no upside.
On 01/02/2022 17:10, David Brown wrote:
On 01/02/2022 17:04, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
<snipped>
I'm near-sighted. It's a huge advantage for me.
No, it is not. Near-sighted does not mean you are better at seeing
close-up than "perfect" sight, it means you are worse at seeing far
away. It has no upside.
It's certainly useful to be able to look at a PCB etc from 4" away
without needing artificial aids. It may not seem that way to someone
who can't, but it's something I do very frequently.
https://www.jpost.com/science/article-695101
This makes sense. If it's not impossible and it's beneficial,
evolution will do it.
Evolution itself evolves.
The implication is a sort of intelligence that steers mutation.
On Mon, 31 Jan 2022 20:25:50 -0800, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com
wrote:
https://www.jpost.com/science/article-695101
This makes sense. If it's not impossible and it's beneficial,.. . . or not.
evolution will do it.
On Tue, 1 Feb 2022 08:41:38 +0000, Tom Gardner
<spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
On 01/02/22 04:25, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
https://www.jpost.com/science/article-695101
This makes sense. If it's not impossible and it's beneficial,
evolution will do it. Evolution itself evolves.
The implication is a sort of intelligence that steers mutation.
In that case, judging from the results, it is a very poor
intelligence!
You don't like trees or bees or yourself?
As others have noted, you really don't understand
evolution.
Or they don't.
You need to understand the distinction between "sufficient"
and "necessary".
Random mutation is sufficient but not necessary. Any form
of mutation is sufficient, e.g. copying error, cosmic ray,
etc etc.
Given two competing species, one with sufficient genetic mechanisms
and one with better mechanisms, the better one wins and the sufficient >becomes extinct.
Randomness is a second-rate design technique. Intelligence is better.
The insistance that changes to the genome must be random, is weird.
Viruses deliberately redesign our genome to their benefit. Why can't
we deliberately change our genome to our benefit?
The point wasn't that there was more selection in malarial places, but
the the related mutation rates are higher.
As it says in the headline, this is directly contrary to the dogma of neo-Darwinism, specifically that mutations are only random.
First problem: this is a science paper, it doesn't relate to 'dogma' which would clearly not be part of any science. Second, 'neo-Darwinism' is
a mythical entity that evolution denialists claim infects... well, everyone except themselves.
Randomness in an ideal gas is a good assumption, but van der Waals rules
are about some nonrandom corrections. One doesn't invalidate a good assumption
when it is superseded, one just tacks on a few improvements. Neither
the original assumptions, nor any amendments, are dogma.
whitless IDIOT puked:
==================
First problem: this is a science paper, it doesn't relate to 'dogma' which would clearly not be part of any science. Second, 'neo-Darwinism' is
a mythical entity that evolution denialists claim infects... well, everyone except themselves.
Randomness in an ideal gas is a good assumption, but van der Waals rules are about some nonrandom corrections. One doesn't invalidate a good assumption
when it is superseded, one just tacks on a few improvements. Neither
the original assumptions, nor any amendments, are dogma.
** Just add a little vinegar and olive oil, plus a sprinkle of black pepper - and you will have a perfect word salad.
On 01/02/2022 17:10, David Brown wrote:
On 01/02/2022 17:04, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
<snipped>
I'm near-sighted. It's a huge advantage for me.
No, it is not. Near-sighted does not mean you are better at seeing
close-up than "perfect" sight, it means you are worse at seeing far
away. It has no upside.
It's certainly useful to be able to look at a PCB etc from 4" away
without needing artificial aids. It may not seem that way to someone
who can't, but it's something I do very frequently.
On 01/02/2022 18:20, Clive Arthur wrote:
On 01/02/2022 17:10, David Brown wrote:
On 01/02/2022 17:04, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
<snipped>
I'm near-sighted. It's a huge advantage for me.
No, it is not. Near-sighted does not mean you are better at seeing
close-up than "perfect" sight, it means you are worse at seeing far
away. It has no upside.
It's certainly useful to be able to look at a PCB etc from 4" away
without needing artificial aids. It may not seem that way to someone
who can't, but it's something I do very frequently.
Being able to see well close-up is useful. But that is not
"near-sighted" - it is simply "not far-sighted". Being near-sighted
means you can /only/ see near things - it doesn't mean you can see them better than people with perfect vision.
(The majority of people, of course, do not have perfect vision.)
First problem: this is a science paper, it doesn't relate to 'dogma' which
would clearly not be part of any science. Second, 'neo-Darwinism' is
a mythical entity that evolution denialists claim infects... well, everyone
except themselves.
Randomness in an ideal gas is a good assumption, but van der Waals rules are about some nonrandom corrections. One doesn't invalidate a good assumption
when it is superseded, one just tacks on a few improvements. Neither
the original assumptions, nor any amendments, are dogma.
** Just add a little vinegar and olive oil, plus a sprinkle of black pepper -
and you will have a perfect word salad.
You've got to add under-informed Phil to the mix to make it a word salad.
Better -informed people ....
On 01/02/22 10:28, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Tue, 1 Feb 2022 08:41:38 +0000, Tom Gardner
<spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
Why can't
we deliberately change our genome to our benefit?
We will soon be able to. Future tense.
On 01/02/2022 11:36, Tom Gardner wrote:
On 01/02/22 10:28, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Tue, 1 Feb 2022 08:41:38 +0000, Tom Gardner
<spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
Why can't
we deliberately change our genome to our benefit?
We will soon be able to. Future tense.
We already are for certain genetic disorders where the correct functioning gene
can be inserted into the relevant cells locally to correct a problem but without
altering any of the germ line cells.
https://www.nia.nih.gov/news/gene-therapy-techniques-restore-vision-damage-age-and-glaucoma-mice
Nobel Prize in 2012 went to the guy who did this work.
Cystic fibrosis is another genetic disease where an inhaler based gene editing
repair looks to be possible and effective in the near future:
https://www.cff.org/research-clinical-trials/gene-editing-cystic-fibrosis
There is a certain reluctance to gene edit embryos to create super intelligent
athletic designer babies for the hyper rich elite. SciFi dystopias are full of
such offspring causing trouble for mere humans.
Too many things can go wrong - we do it to livestock and laboratory animals though. ISTR a rogue Chinese scientist has done it to one or more human embryos
and was pilloried for it inside and outside China.
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-00001-y
He served a jail term for his unauthorised and unethical use of CRISPR in this
fashion. His announcement stunned the world in 2018.
On 02/02/22 10:26, Martin Brown wrote:
On 01/02/2022 11:36, Tom Gardner wrote:
On 01/02/22 10:28, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Tue, 1 Feb 2022 08:41:38 +0000, Tom Gardner
<spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
Why can't
we deliberately change our genome to our benefit?
We will soon be able to. Future tense.
We already are for certain genetic disorders where the correct functioning gene
can be inserted into the relevant cells locally to correct a problem but without
altering any of the germ line cells.
https://www.nia.nih.gov/news/gene-therapy-techniques-restore-vision-damage-age-and-glaucoma-mice
To me "insert into the genome" implies the germ cell lines.
On 02/02/2022 07:57, David Brown wrote:
On 01/02/2022 18:20, Clive Arthur wrote:
On 01/02/2022 17:10, David Brown wrote:
On 01/02/2022 17:04, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
<snipped>
I'm near-sighted. It's a huge advantage for me.
No, it is not. Near-sighted does not mean you are better at seeing
close-up than "perfect" sight, it means you are worse at seeing far
away. It has no upside.
It's certainly useful to be able to look at a PCB etc from 4" away
without needing artificial aids. It may not seem that way to someone
who can't, but it's something I do very frequently.
Being able to see well close-up is useful. But that is not
"near-sighted" - it is simply "not far-sighted". Being near-sighted
means you can /only/ see near things - it doesn't mean you can see them
better than people with perfect vision.
(The majority of people, of course, do not have perfect vision.)
Being quite myopic (near/short sighted) means my 'natural' relaxed focus
is about 100mm or 4" from my eyes. That means I can look at close
things for as long as I like without strain, though I do have to close
one eye.
If I use both eyes, there's considerable strain pointing them both to
the same place, and that is what someone without myopia would
experience. I don't claim to see close things 'better' in the sense of visual acuity, just very much more easily and comfortably.
whitless IDIOT puked:
==================
First problem: this is a science paper, it doesn't relate to 'dogma' which >> would clearly not be part of any science. Second, 'neo-Darwinism' is
a mythical entity that evolution denialists claim infects... well, everyone >> except themselves.
Randomness in an ideal gas is a good assumption, but van der Waals rules
are about some nonrandom corrections. One doesn't invalidate a good assumption
when it is superseded, one just tacks on a few improvements. Neither
the original assumptions, nor any amendments, are dogma.
** Just add a little vinegar and olive oil, plus a sprinkle of black pepper -
and you will have a perfect word salad.
........ Phil
On 01/02/2022 17:10, David Brown wrote:
On 01/02/2022 17:04, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
<snipped>
I'm near-sighted. It's a huge advantage for me.
No, it is not. Near-sighted does not mean you are better at seeing
close-up than "perfect" sight, it means you are worse at seeing far
away. It has no upside.
It's certainly useful to be able to look at a PCB etc from 4" away
without needing artificial aids. It may not seem that way to someone
who can't, but it's something I do very frequently.
On 02/02/22 13:49, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Wed, 2 Feb 2022 12:11:03 +0000, Tom Gardner
<spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
On 02/02/22 10:26, Martin Brown wrote:
On 01/02/2022 11:36, Tom Gardner wrote:
On 01/02/22 10:28, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Tue, 1 Feb 2022 08:41:38 +0000, Tom Gardner
<spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
Why can't
we deliberately change our genome to our benefit?
We will soon be able to. Future tense.
We already are for certain genetic disorders where the correct functioning gene
can be inserted into the relevant cells locally to correct a problem but without
altering any of the germ line cells.
https://www.nia.nih.gov/news/gene-therapy-techniques-restore-vision-damage-age-and-glaucoma-mice
To me "insert into the genome" implies the germ cell lines.
A gene has to get into a sperm or egg to be passed into a population.
A nose spray won't do that. [1]
That's another annoyance onto the random-mutation-selection concept.
Most mutations are in the wrong cells to be passed to descendents, and
most descendents will drop the ball anyhow.
It is true that most mutations aren't in the sperm/egg cells - they
are in cancerous cells.
But so what? That's irrelevant to evolution mechanisms.
On Wed, 2 Feb 2022 14:31:54 +0000, Tom Gardner
<spam...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
On 02/02/22 13:49, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Wed, 2 Feb 2022 12:11:03 +0000, Tom Gardner
<spam...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
On 02/02/22 10:26, Martin Brown wrote:
On 01/02/2022 11:36, Tom Gardner wrote:
On 01/02/22 10:28, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Tue, 1 Feb 2022 08:41:38 +0000, Tom Gardner
<spam...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
Why can't
we deliberately change our genome to our benefit?
We will soon be able to. Future tense.
We already are for certain genetic disorders where the correct functioning gene
can be inserted into the relevant cells locally to correct a problem but without
altering any of the germ line cells.
https://www.nia.nih.gov/news/gene-therapy-techniques-restore-vision-damage-age-and-glaucoma-mice
To me "insert into the genome" implies the germ cell lines.
A gene has to get into a sperm or egg to be passed into a population.
A nose spray won't do that. [1]
That's another annoyance onto the random-mutation-selection concept.
Most mutations are in the wrong cells to be passed to descendents, and
most descendents will drop the ball anyhow.
It is true that most mutations aren't in the sperm/egg cells - they
are in cancerous cells.
But so what? That's irrelevant to evolution mechanisms.
Instant hostility to new ideas must be hereditary too.
On Wed, 2 Feb 2022 12:11:03 +0000, Tom Gardner
<spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
On 02/02/22 10:26, Martin Brown wrote:
On 01/02/2022 11:36, Tom Gardner wrote:
On 01/02/22 10:28, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Tue, 1 Feb 2022 08:41:38 +0000, Tom Gardner
<spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
Why can't
we deliberately change our genome to our benefit?
We will soon be able to. Future tense.
We already are for certain genetic disorders where the correct functioning gene
can be inserted into the relevant cells locally to correct a problem but without
altering any of the germ line cells.
https://www.nia.nih.gov/news/gene-therapy-techniques-restore-vision-damage-age-and-glaucoma-mice
To me "insert into the genome" implies the germ cell lines.
A gene has to get into a sperm or egg to be passed into a population.
A nose spray won't do that. [1]
That's another annoyance onto the random-mutation-selection concept.
Most mutations are in the wrong cells to be passed to descendents, and
most descendents will drop the ball anyhow.
On Wed, 2 Feb 2022 12:11:03 +0000, Tom Gardner
<spam...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
On 02/02/22 10:26, Martin Brown wrote:
On 01/02/2022 11:36, Tom Gardner wrote:
On 01/02/22 10:28, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Tue, 1 Feb 2022 08:41:38 +0000, Tom Gardner
<spam...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
Why can't
we deliberately change our genome to our benefit?
We will soon be able to. Future tense.
We already are for certain genetic disorders where the correct functioning gene
can be inserted into the relevant cells locally to correct a problem but without
altering any of the germ line cells.
https://www.nia.nih.gov/news/gene-therapy-techniques-restore-vision-damage-age-and-glaucoma-mice
To me "insert into the genome" implies the germ cell lines.A gene has to get into a sperm or egg to be passed into a population.
A nose spray won't do that. [1]
That's another annoyance onto the random-mutation-selection concept.
Most mutations are in the wrong cells to be passed to descendants, and
most descendants will drop the ball anyhow.
[1] Barring horizontal transmission from viruses or kissing. Maybe kissing is a way of sharing genes in a tribe.
Maybe kissing is biologically important.
On 01/02/2022 18:20, Clive Arthur wrote:
On 01/02/2022 17:10, David Brown wrote:
On 01/02/2022 17:04, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
<snipped>
I'm near-sighted. It's a huge advantage for me.
No, it is not. Near-sighted does not mean you are better at seeing
close-up than "perfect" sight, it means you are worse at seeing far
away. It has no upside.
It's certainly useful to be able to look at a PCB etc from 4" away
without needing artificial aids. It may not seem that way to someone
who can't, but it's something I do very frequently.
Being able to see well close-up is useful. But that is not
"near-sighted" - it is simply "not far-sighted". Being near-sighted
means you can /only/ see near things - it doesn't mean you can see them better than people with perfect vision.
On 02/02/2022 07:57, David Brown wrote:
On 01/02/2022 18:20, Clive Arthur wrote:
On 01/02/2022 17:10, David Brown wrote:
On 01/02/2022 17:04, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
<snipped>
I'm near-sighted. It's a huge advantage for me.
No, it is not. Near-sighted does not mean you are better at seeing
close-up than "perfect" sight, it means you are worse at seeing far
away. It has no upside.
It's certainly useful to be able to look at a PCB etc from 4" away
without needing artificial aids. It may not seem that way to someone
who can't, but it's something I do very frequently.
Being able to see well close-up is useful. But that is not
"near-sighted" - it is simply "not far-sighted". Being near-sighted
means you can /only/ see near things - it doesn't mean you can see them
better than people with perfect vision.
That's what the general interpretation might be, but it's not true. You
can be short-sighted simply by the radial muscles of the eye being
unable to pull the lens into a flatter shape to accommodate for distant >objects. Now consider that on top of weaker radial muscles, the circular >muscle is contracting unusually powerfully and is compressing the lens
into an even rounder shape, thus effectively turning it into a strong >magnifying glass.
Many years ago I knew a guy who was the electronics "engineer" for a
company. He fixed faulty lab equipment, rather than designed it. He wore
the thickest glasses I have ever seen; he told me that he was on the
border of being officially blind, as he was so short-sighted. However,
when it came to finding the smallest break in a printed circuit track he
had no equal. He would hold the board less than an inch from his eye,
and move it around until he found the break. I once watched him do this,
and when he found the break he "showed" me where it was. I couldn't see
it without a magnifying glass.
On Wed, 2 Feb 2022 14:31:54 +0000, Tom Gardner
<spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
On 02/02/22 13:49, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Wed, 2 Feb 2022 12:11:03 +0000, Tom Gardner
<spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
On 02/02/22 10:26, Martin Brown wrote:
On 01/02/2022 11:36, Tom Gardner wrote:
On 01/02/22 10:28, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Tue, 1 Feb 2022 08:41:38 +0000, Tom Gardner
<spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
Why can't
we deliberately change our genome to our benefit?
We will soon be able to. Future tense.
We already are for certain genetic disorders where the correct functioning gene
can be inserted into the relevant cells locally to correct a problem but without
altering any of the germ line cells.
https://www.nia.nih.gov/news/gene-therapy-techniques-restore-vision-damage-age-and-glaucoma-mice
To me "insert into the genome" implies the germ cell lines.
A gene has to get into a sperm or egg to be passed into a population.
A nose spray won't do that. [1]
That's another annoyance onto the random-mutation-selection concept.
Most mutations are in the wrong cells to be passed to descendents, and
most descendents will drop the ball anyhow.
It is true that most mutations aren't in the sperm/egg cells - they
are in cancerous cells.
But so what? That's irrelevant to evolution mechanisms.
Instant hostility to new ideas must be hereditary too.
On Wed, 2 Feb 2022 14:31:54 +0000, Tom Gardner
<spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
On 02/02/22 13:49, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Wed, 2 Feb 2022 12:11:03 +0000, Tom Gardner
<spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
On 02/02/22 10:26, Martin Brown wrote:
On 01/02/2022 11:36, Tom Gardner wrote:
On 01/02/22 10:28, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Tue, 1 Feb 2022 08:41:38 +0000, Tom Gardner
<spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
Why can't
we deliberately change our genome to our benefit?
We will soon be able to. Future tense.
We already are for certain genetic disorders where the correct functioning gene
can be inserted into the relevant cells locally to correct a problem but without
altering any of the germ line cells.
https://www.nia.nih.gov/news/gene-therapy-techniques-restore-vision-damage-age-and-glaucoma-mice
To me "insert into the genome" implies the germ cell lines.
A gene has to get into a sperm or egg to be passed into a population.
A nose spray won't do that. [1]
That's another annoyance onto the random-mutation-selection concept.
Most mutations are in the wrong cells to be passed to descendents, and
most descendents will drop the ball anyhow.
It is true that most mutations aren't in the sperm/egg cells - they
are in cancerous cells.
But so what? That's irrelevant to evolution mechanisms.
Instant hostility to new ideas must be hereditary too.
On Wed, 2 Feb 2022 12:11:03 +0000, Tom Gardner
<spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
On 02/02/22 10:26, Martin Brown wrote:
On 01/02/2022 11:36, Tom Gardner wrote:
On 01/02/22 10:28, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Tue, 1 Feb 2022 08:41:38 +0000, Tom Gardner
<spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
Why can't
we deliberately change our genome to our benefit?
We will soon be able to. Future tense.
We already are for certain genetic disorders where the correct functioning gene
can be inserted into the relevant cells locally to correct a problem but without
altering any of the germ line cells.
https://www.nia.nih.gov/news/gene-therapy-techniques-restore-vision-damage-age-and-glaucoma-mice
To me "insert into the genome" implies the germ cell lines.
A gene has to get into a sperm or egg to be passed into a population.
A nose spray won't do that. [1]
That's another annoyance onto the random-mutation-selection concept.
Most mutations are in the wrong cells to be passed to descendents, and
most descendents will drop the ball anyhow.
[1] Barring horizontal transmission from viruses or kissing. Maybe
kissing is a way of sharing genes in a tribe. Maybe kissing is
biologically important.
On 02/02/2022 15:35, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Wed, 2 Feb 2022 14:31:54 +0000, Tom Gardner
<spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
On 02/02/22 13:49, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Wed, 2 Feb 2022 12:11:03 +0000, Tom Gardner
<spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
On 02/02/22 10:26, Martin Brown wrote:
On 01/02/2022 11:36, Tom Gardner wrote:
On 01/02/22 10:28, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Tue, 1 Feb 2022 08:41:38 +0000, Tom Gardner
<spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
Why can't
we deliberately change our genome to our benefit?
We will soon be able to. Future tense.
We already are for certain genetic disorders where the correct functioning gene
can be inserted into the relevant cells locally to correct a problem but without
altering any of the germ line cells.
https://www.nia.nih.gov/news/gene-therapy-techniques-restore-vision-damage-age-and-glaucoma-mice
To me "insert into the genome" implies the germ cell lines.
A gene has to get into a sperm or egg to be passed into a population.
A nose spray won't do that. [1]
That's another annoyance onto the random-mutation-selection concept.
Most mutations are in the wrong cells to be passed to descendents, and >>>> most descendents will drop the ball anyhow.
It is true that most mutations aren't in the sperm/egg cells - they
are in cancerous cells.
But so what? That's irrelevant to evolution mechanisms.
Instant hostility to new ideas must be hereditary too.
Is a habit of opening your mouth and letting any old nonsense come out
also hereditary?
Suggesting irrelevant but obvious things is not "new ideas".
On 02/02/22 14:35, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Wed, 2 Feb 2022 14:31:54 +0000, Tom Gardner
<spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
On 02/02/22 13:49, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Wed, 2 Feb 2022 12:11:03 +0000, Tom Gardner
<spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
On 02/02/22 10:26, Martin Brown wrote:
On 01/02/2022 11:36, Tom Gardner wrote:
On 01/02/22 10:28, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Tue, 1 Feb 2022 08:41:38 +0000, Tom Gardner
<spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
Why can't
we deliberately change our genome to our benefit?
We will soon be able to. Future tense.
We already are for certain genetic disorders where the correct functioning gene
can be inserted into the relevant cells locally to correct a problem but without
altering any of the germ line cells.
https://www.nia.nih.gov/news/gene-therapy-techniques-restore-vision-damage-age-and-glaucoma-mice
To me "insert into the genome" implies the germ cell lines.
A gene has to get into a sperm or egg to be passed into a population.
A nose spray won't do that. [1]
That's another annoyance onto the random-mutation-selection concept.
Most mutations are in the wrong cells to be passed to descendents, and >>>> most descendents will drop the ball anyhow.
It is true that most mutations aren't in the sperm/egg cells - they
are in cancerous cells.
But so what? That's irrelevant to evolution mechanisms.
Instant hostility to new ideas must be hereditary too.
New ideas are ten-a-penny, and that's being generous.
Any idiot can generate ideas, and many do[1].
Good, reasoned, justified ideas are worth much more,
because they are rare and the process takes time.
On 02/02/2022 14:49, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Wed, 2 Feb 2022 12:11:03 +0000, Tom Gardner
<spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
On 02/02/22 10:26, Martin Brown wrote:
On 01/02/2022 11:36, Tom Gardner wrote:
On 01/02/22 10:28, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Tue, 1 Feb 2022 08:41:38 +0000, Tom Gardner
<spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
Why can't
we deliberately change our genome to our benefit?
We will soon be able to. Future tense.
We already are for certain genetic disorders where the correct functioning gene
can be inserted into the relevant cells locally to correct a problem but without
altering any of the germ line cells.
https://www.nia.nih.gov/news/gene-therapy-techniques-restore-vision-damage-age-and-glaucoma-mice
To me "insert into the genome" implies the germ cell lines.
A gene has to get into a sperm or egg to be passed into a population.
A nose spray won't do that. [1]
That's another annoyance onto the random-mutation-selection concept.
Most mutations are in the wrong cells to be passed to descendents, and
most descendents will drop the ball anyhow.
That might annoy /you/, but it is not something that affects the
validity of the theory of evolution. It just means that random mutation
of genes within a cell is a slow modifier in the evolution of
multi-cellular organisms.
A far bigger effect is sexual mixup of genes, which is also a >"random-mutation-selection" concept but on a different scale.
[1] Barring horizontal transmission from viruses or kissing. Maybe
kissing is a way of sharing genes in a tribe. Maybe kissing is
biologically important.
Viruses are an important vector for evolution. They are a common source
of horizontal gene transfer in microbes. Mutation or gene transfer via >viruses does not happen often in higher organisms
to hit egg or sperm cells - and the great majority of mutations are
either lethal or have little significant effect). But they are vital
for getting completely new features into the population. The placenta
in mammals, for example, has been traced to virus gene transfer.
As for kissing - how exactly do you think that would transfer genes?
you don't want that random brain-fart to be dismissed, you'll have to
justify why you think there is significant genetic material in spit,
On Wed, 2 Feb 2022 15:35:05 +0000, Tom Gardner
<spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
On 02/02/22 14:35, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Wed, 2 Feb 2022 14:31:54 +0000, Tom Gardner
<spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
On 02/02/22 13:49, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Wed, 2 Feb 2022 12:11:03 +0000, Tom Gardner
<spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
On 02/02/22 10:26, Martin Brown wrote:
On 01/02/2022 11:36, Tom Gardner wrote:
On 01/02/22 10:28, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Tue, 1 Feb 2022 08:41:38 +0000, Tom Gardner
<spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
Why can't
we deliberately change our genome to our benefit?
We will soon be able to. Future tense.
We already are for certain genetic disorders where the correct functioning gene
can be inserted into the relevant cells locally to correct a problem but without
altering any of the germ line cells.
https://www.nia.nih.gov/news/gene-therapy-techniques-restore-vision-damage-age-and-glaucoma-mice
To me "insert into the genome" implies the germ cell lines.
A gene has to get into a sperm or egg to be passed into a population. >>>>> A nose spray won't do that. [1]
That's another annoyance onto the random-mutation-selection concept. >>>>> Most mutations are in the wrong cells to be passed to descendents, and >>>>> most descendents will drop the ball anyhow.
It is true that most mutations aren't in the sperm/egg cells - they
are in cancerous cells.
But so what? That's irrelevant to evolution mechanisms.
Instant hostility to new ideas must be hereditary too.
New ideas are ten-a-penny, and that's being generous.
Any idiot can generate ideas, and many do[1].
Certainly. We've had brainstorming sessions when some intern said
something dumb that triggered a chain of thought that turned out to be
big. The key is to think and play and not slap.
Good, reasoned, justified ideas are worth much more,
because they are rare and the process takes time.
Crazy ideas may be in the path to that, if you don't kill them on
sight.
https://www.jpost.com/science/article-695101
This makes sense. If it's not impossible and it's beneficial,
evolution will do it. Evolution itself evolves.
The implication is a sort of intelligence that steers mutation.
--
I yam what I yam - Popeye
On 02/02/2022 10:24, Clive Arthur wrote:
On 02/02/2022 07:57, David Brown wrote:
On 01/02/2022 18:20, Clive Arthur wrote:
On 01/02/2022 17:10, David Brown wrote:
On 01/02/2022 17:04, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
<snipped>
I'm near-sighted. It's a huge advantage for me.
No, it is not. Near-sighted does not mean you are better at seeing
close-up than "perfect" sight, it means you are worse at seeing far
away. It has no upside.
It's certainly useful to be able to look at a PCB etc from 4" away
without needing artificial aids. It may not seem that way to someone
who can't, but it's something I do very frequently.
Being able to see well close-up is useful. But that is not
"near-sighted" - it is simply "not far-sighted". Being near-sighted
means you can /only/ see near things - it doesn't mean you can see them
better than people with perfect vision.
(The majority of people, of course, do not have perfect vision.)
Being quite myopic (near/short sighted) means my 'natural' relaxed focus
is about 100mm or 4" from my eyes. That means I can look at close
things for as long as I like without strain, though I do have to close
one eye.
If I use both eyes, there's considerable strain pointing them both to
the same place, and that is what someone without myopia would
experience. I don't claim to see close things 'better' in the sense of visual acuity, just very much more easily and comfortably.
That's not unreasonable. There's a big difference between claiming or believing that a near-sighted person can see /better/ - more accurately, finer detail, better focus - and saying you can look closer for longer
with less strain.
In modern society, being near-sighted or far-sighted is not much of a problem. It doesn't really make a huge difference if you need to wear
glasses (or contact lenses) to read, watch TV, or whatever. But being near-sighted is not an overall advantage, even for an electronics
engineer - you rarely have to spend a long enough time staring at small details for strain to be a problem. On the other hand, without glasses
you'd quickly have a problem with driving (or if you are as near-sighted
as I am, walking about the office would be dangerous without glasses or lenses!). If anyone says they are glad they are short-sighted and not
normal sighted, you would not believe them.
While human evolution is continuous and thus has gradually adapted since
we started living in settled societies, it usually makes sense to
consider hunter-gatherer lifestyles on the plains of Africa when talking about evolutionary advantages. It only takes a quick look at a berry or mushroom to determine if it is safe to eat - but you need to stare at
the horizon for hours looking for prey and predators. Near-sightedness
is clearly a major disadvantage - not a balance or something with pros
and cons, such as the sickle-cell gene. It is a genetic mistake, and
one of countless examples of how we know there is no "intelligence"
behind our "design". (Myopia is not a single genetic fault, and there
are environmental influences too, but the genetic components are vital.)
If evolution worked "intelligently", and moved steadily towards evolving useful traits and removing bad traits, as some people here seem to
believe, we would have no myopia.
On 02/02/2022 17:51, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Wed, 2 Feb 2022 16:29:53 +0100, David Brown
<david...@hesbynett.no> wrote:
On 02/02/2022 14:49, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Wed, 2 Feb 2022 12:11:03 +0000, Tom Gardner
<spam...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
On 02/02/22 10:26, Martin Brown wrote:
On 01/02/2022 11:36, Tom Gardner wrote:
On 01/02/22 10:28, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Tue, 1 Feb 2022 08:41:38 +0000, Tom Gardner
<spam...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
Why can't
we deliberately change our genome to our benefit?
We will soon be able to. Future tense.
We already are for certain genetic disorders where the correct functioning gene
can be inserted into the relevant cells locally to correct a problem but without
altering any of the germ line cells.
https://www.nia.nih.gov/news/gene-therapy-techniques-restore-vision-damage-age-and-glaucoma-mice
To me "insert into the genome" implies the germ cell lines.
A gene has to get into a sperm or egg to be passed into a population.
A nose spray won't do that. [1]
That's another annoyance onto the random-mutation-selection concept.
Most mutations are in the wrong cells to be passed to descendents, and >>> most descendents will drop the ball anyhow.
That might annoy /you/, but it is not something that affects the
validity of the theory of evolution. It just means that random mutation
of genes within a cell is a slow modifier in the evolution of
multi-cellular organisms.
A far bigger effect is sexual mixup of genes, which is also a
"random-mutation-selection" concept but on a different scale.
[1] Barring horizontal transmission from viruses or kissing. Maybe
kissing is a way of sharing genes in a tribe. Maybe kissing is
biologically important.
Viruses are an important vector for evolution. They are a common source
of horizontal gene transfer in microbes. Mutation or gene transfer via
viruses does not happen often in higher organisms
Are you sure of that? Horizomtal transfer is a huge boost to
evolution, and everything has to evolve. Dispersion of improvements by family descent is very inefficient.
No, everything does not have to evolve - there are lots of organisms
that have changed very little for perhaps hundreds of millions of years. Horizontal transfers /can/ introduce new genes, but the /vast/ majority
of horizontal transfers are detrimental to the organism if they do
anything noticeable at all.
You may have heard of the "immune system". One of its jobs is to
minimise virus infections - identifying and destroying virus particles,
and destroying any cells that get infected. The better an organism's
immune system (and even bacteria have immune systems to counter
viruses), the lower the opportunity for virus infections of any sort,
never mind ones that transfer genes.
To get a horizontal transfer via a virus, you need multiple things to
happen. First, the virus must infect one host's cell but make a
monumental screw-up during the infection, so that a bit of the host's
DNA gets caught up along with the virus DNA when the cell replicates the virus. That happens, but it's extremely rare - and usually such
mistakes means no successful virus production. Then this modified virus
needs to get into another host, and have another monumental screw-up on
the part of the virus /and/ on the part of the host cell, where the DNA fragment gets mixed with the host's DNA. And then the host cell must eliminate the virus (so that it doesn't die by virus reproduction), and
the DNA change must be non-fatal to the cell. If this happens in the
target host's germ cells then the mutation will pass on to the next generation (probably killing them long before they can produce
descendants of their own). Otherwise you've made either a one-off cell
change that ends with the cell's death, or a tumour.
And even if horizontal transfers /were/ as potentially useful for
evolution in the long term as you imagine, that does not mean it
happens. You have this bizarre belief that just because something is
useful or efficient (in your eyes at least), evolution will cause it to evolve.
Evolution does not have aims, guides, or targets. It is not intelligent
or guided. It does not optimise, or reach ideal solutions. It does not
make huge leaps to new methods just because you think these might be a
good idea. It does not always eliminate bad traits and enhance good
ones. It does not necessarily lead to the best choices or the "fittest" results.
(as you say, they have
to hit egg or sperm cells - and the great majority of mutations are
either lethal or have little significant effect). But they are vital
for getting completely new features into the population. The placenta
in mammals, for example, has been traced to virus gene transfer.
As for kissing - how exactly do you think that would transfer genes?
For one, by transferring viruses. Maybe even cells.
Do you not realise how ignorant that sounds?
Let's take an analogy that might make it simpler for you. A cell is
like an electronics board, and its genetic code is like the schematic
and pcb design for the board. Do you think you can change the designs
of the boards in some machine just by putting a different board beside
them? That's your "cells transferred by kissing" idea.
Perhaps you should bang the different boards together and see what
happens - that's the horizontal transfer. One time out of a billion you
might make a short-circuit, or break a track, that gives one of the
boards new characteristics that you hadn't seen before.
Compare that to taking two extremely similar designs (99% or more
match), and swapping a few corresponding sections of the schematic to
see if there is an improvement. If you've swapped something critical,
it will probably not work at all. If you've swapped some values of
filter components, maybe you'll get a slightly better filter. That is
the analogue of sexual reproduction.
Which method do /you/ think is going to be more successful?
If
you don't want that random brain-fart to be dismissed, you'll have to
justify why you think there is significant genetic material in spit,
Dismissed? Ideas should be played with. But I don't mind if you instinctively attack ideas... less competition.
I offered you a chance to justify your idea before I dismissed it. It
turns out you had nothing. Good ideas are useful - but your view that
all ideas are somehow worthy for consideration is absurd. (I didn't
dismiss it out of hand - I thought about it, then dismissed it.)
People are put in prison based on the genes in a bit of spit.
Yes - so what? Do you think the DNA in someone else's spit magically transforms you? Seriously? Do you also think that if you eat chicken,
you might sprout feathers? (Are you going to dismiss that idea out of
hand?) If a radioactive spider bites you and injects some of its DNA in
its saliva, is that going to turn you into a superhero? (Surely you
will play around with that idea too, to give you an edge on your competition.)
Males kiss, as kissing the hand or ring of a king or the pope. Some cultures kiss a lot more than we do.
And some do so less. None of that matters.
If kissing spreads disease, it would be deselected. But it's not. Same
with shaking hands... spreads germs!
Kissing /does/ spread disease - as does shaking hands, and any kind of contact. But the benefits usually outweigh the risks.
On Wed, 2 Feb 2022 16:29:53 +0100, David Brown
<david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
On 02/02/2022 14:49, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Wed, 2 Feb 2022 12:11:03 +0000, Tom Gardner
<spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
On 02/02/22 10:26, Martin Brown wrote:
On 01/02/2022 11:36, Tom Gardner wrote:
On 01/02/22 10:28, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Tue, 1 Feb 2022 08:41:38 +0000, Tom Gardner
<spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
Why can't
we deliberately change our genome to our benefit?
We will soon be able to. Future tense.
We already are for certain genetic disorders where the correct functioning gene
can be inserted into the relevant cells locally to correct a problem but without
altering any of the germ line cells.
https://www.nia.nih.gov/news/gene-therapy-techniques-restore-vision-damage-age-and-glaucoma-mice
To me "insert into the genome" implies the germ cell lines.
A gene has to get into a sperm or egg to be passed into a population.
A nose spray won't do that. [1]
That's another annoyance onto the random-mutation-selection concept.
Most mutations are in the wrong cells to be passed to descendents, and
most descendents will drop the ball anyhow.
That might annoy /you/, but it is not something that affects the
validity of the theory of evolution. It just means that random mutation
of genes within a cell is a slow modifier in the evolution of
multi-cellular organisms.
A far bigger effect is sexual mixup of genes, which is also a
"random-mutation-selection" concept but on a different scale.
[1] Barring horizontal transmission from viruses or kissing. Maybe
kissing is a way of sharing genes in a tribe. Maybe kissing is
biologically important.
Viruses are an important vector for evolution. They are a common source
of horizontal gene transfer in microbes. Mutation or gene transfer via
viruses does not happen often in higher organisms
Are you sure of that? Horizomtal transfer is a huge boost to
evolution, and everything has to evolve. Dispersion of improvements by
family descent is very inefficient.
(as you say, they have
to hit egg or sperm cells - and the great majority of mutations are
either lethal or have little significant effect). But they are vital
for getting completely new features into the population. The placenta
in mammals, for example, has been traced to virus gene transfer.
As for kissing - how exactly do you think that would transfer genes?
For one, by transferring viruses. Maybe even cells.
If
you don't want that random brain-fart to be dismissed, you'll have to
justify why you think there is significant genetic material in spit,
Dismissed? Ideas should be played with. But I don't mind if you
instinctively attack ideas... less competition.
People are put in prison based on the genes in a bit of spit.
Males kiss, as kissing the hand or ring of a king or the pope. Some
cultures kiss a lot more than we do.
If kissing spreads disease, it would be deselected. But it's not. Same
with shaking hands... spreads germs!
On Wed, 2 Feb 2022 16:29:53 +0100, David Brown
<david...@hesbynett.no> wrote:
As for kissing - how exactly do you think that would transfer genes?For one, by transferring viruses. Maybe even cells.
On 02/02/22 16:42, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Wed, 2 Feb 2022 15:35:05 +0000, Tom Gardner
<spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
On 02/02/22 14:35, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Wed, 2 Feb 2022 14:31:54 +0000, Tom Gardner
<spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
On 02/02/22 13:49, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Wed, 2 Feb 2022 12:11:03 +0000, Tom Gardner
<spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
On 02/02/22 10:26, Martin Brown wrote:
On 01/02/2022 11:36, Tom Gardner wrote:
On 01/02/22 10:28, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 1 Feb 2022 08:41:38 +0000, Tom Gardner
<spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
Why can't
we deliberately change our genome to our benefit?
We will soon be able to. Future tense.
We already are for certain genetic disorders where the correct >>>>>>>> functioning gene
can be inserted into the relevant cells locally to correct a
problem but without
altering any of the germ line cells.
https://www.nia.nih.gov/news/gene-therapy-techniques-restore-vision-damage-age-and-glaucoma-mice
To me "insert into the genome" implies the germ cell lines.
A gene has to get into a sperm or egg to be passed into a population. >>>>>> A nose spray won't do that. [1]
That's another annoyance onto the random-mutation-selection concept. >>>>>> Most mutations are in the wrong cells to be passed to descendents, >>>>>> and
most descendents will drop the ball anyhow.
It is true that most mutations aren't in the sperm/egg cells - they
are in cancerous cells.
But so what? That's irrelevant to evolution mechanisms.
Instant hostility to new ideas must be hereditary too.
New ideas are ten-a-penny, and that's being generous.
Any idiot can generate ideas, and many do[1].
Certainly. We've had brainstorming sessions when some intern said
something dumb that triggered a chain of thought that turned out to be
big. The key is to think and play and not slap.
So have I, many times - in a brainstorming session.
In a brainstorming session everybody knows that different
rules are operating. This isn't a brainstorming session,
and the normal rules of discussion and conversation apply.
Good, reasoned, justified ideas are worth much more,
because they are rare and the process takes time.
Crazy ideas may be in the path to that, if you don't kill them on
sight.
They should be killed before they escape from a brainstorming
session.
On 02/02/2022 17:55, Tom Gardner wrote:
On 02/02/22 16:42, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Wed, 2 Feb 2022 15:35:05 +0000, Tom Gardner
<spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
On 02/02/22 14:35, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Wed, 2 Feb 2022 14:31:54 +0000, Tom Gardner
<spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
On 02/02/22 13:49, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Wed, 2 Feb 2022 12:11:03 +0000, Tom Gardner
<spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
On 02/02/22 10:26, Martin Brown wrote:
On 01/02/2022 11:36, Tom Gardner wrote:
On 01/02/22 10:28, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 1 Feb 2022 08:41:38 +0000, Tom Gardner
<spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
Why can't
we deliberately change our genome to our benefit?
We will soon be able to. Future tense.
We already are for certain genetic disorders where the correct >>>>>>>>> functioning gene
can be inserted into the relevant cells locally to correct a >>>>>>>>> problem but without
altering any of the germ line cells.
https://www.nia.nih.gov/news/gene-therapy-techniques-restore-vision-damage-age-and-glaucoma-mice
To me "insert into the genome" implies the germ cell lines.
A gene has to get into a sperm or egg to be passed into a population. >>>>>>> A nose spray won't do that. [1]
That's another annoyance onto the random-mutation-selection concept. >>>>>>> Most mutations are in the wrong cells to be passed to descendents, >>>>>>> and
most descendents will drop the ball anyhow.
It is true that most mutations aren't in the sperm/egg cells - they >>>>>> are in cancerous cells.
But so what? That's irrelevant to evolution mechanisms.
Instant hostility to new ideas must be hereditary too.
New ideas are ten-a-penny, and that's being generous.
Any idiot can generate ideas, and many do[1].
Certainly. We've had brainstorming sessions when some intern said
something dumb that triggered a chain of thought that turned out to be
big. The key is to think and play and not slap.
So have I, many times - in a brainstorming session.
In a brainstorming session everybody knows that different
rules are operating. This isn't a brainstorming session,
and the normal rules of discussion and conversation apply.
Good, reasoned, justified ideas are worth much more,
because they are rare and the process takes time.
Crazy ideas may be in the path to that, if you don't kill them on
sight.
They should be killed before they escape from a brainstorming
session.
The craziest ones should, of course, be killed before escaping from the
mouth - even in brainstorming.
It's fine to say - in brainstorming -
that people should not be embarrassed about giving crazy ideas, nor
should they be put down for suggesting them. But there is no need to
waste everyone's time with the silliest of ideas born from pure
ignorance of the topic in question.
(Trump could have benefited from learning this - along with the
distinction between a press conference and a wild brainstorming meeting.)
Larkin likes to pretend he has no limits to the ideas he will consider,
but everyone does.
He will, of course, dismiss my ideas here out of hand - simply because
they don't match /his/ ideas.
I once provoked an interesting thought in a brainstorm about
networking by asking "how would you do that with yoghurt?"
On Wed, 2 Feb 2022 16:16:51 +0100, David Brown <david...@hesbynett.no> wrote:
On 02/02/2022 15:35, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Wed, 2 Feb 2022 14:31:54 +0000, Tom Gardner <spam...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
On 02/02/22 13:49, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Wed, 2 Feb 2022 12:11:03 +0000, Tom Gardner <spam...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
On 02/02/22 10:26, Martin Brown wrote:
On 01/02/2022 11:36, Tom Gardner wrote:
On 01/02/22 10:28, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Tue, 1 Feb 2022 08:41:38 +0000, Tom Gardner <spam...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
Instant hostility to new ideas must be hereditary too.
Is a habit of opening your mouth and letting any old nonsense come out also hereditary?
It's an acquired skill.
Suggesting irrelevant but obvious things is not "new ideas".
One never knows where divergent thinking may lead.
Sometimes it's profitable. Most always it's fun... especially when it annoys wedge-heads.
On 02/02/22 19:50, David Brown wrote:
On 02/02/2022 17:55, Tom Gardner wrote:
On 02/02/22 16:42, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Wed, 2 Feb 2022 15:35:05 +0000, Tom Gardner
<spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
On 02/02/22 14:35, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Wed, 2 Feb 2022 14:31:54 +0000, Tom Gardner
<spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
On 02/02/22 13:49, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Wed, 2 Feb 2022 12:11:03 +0000, Tom Gardner
<spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
On 02/02/22 10:26, Martin Brown wrote:
On 01/02/2022 11:36, Tom Gardner wrote:
On 01/02/22 10:28, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 1 Feb 2022 08:41:38 +0000, Tom Gardner
<spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
Why can't
we deliberately change our genome to our benefit?
We will soon be able to. Future tense.
We already are for certain genetic disorders where the correct >>>>>>>>>> functioning gene
can be inserted into the relevant cells locally to correct a >>>>>>>>>> problem but without
altering any of the germ line cells.
https://www.nia.nih.gov/news/gene-therapy-techniques-restore-vision-damage-age-and-glaucoma-mice
To me "insert into the genome" implies the germ cell lines.
A gene has to get into a sperm or egg to be passed into a
population.
A nose spray won't do that. [1]
That's another annoyance onto the random-mutation-selection
concept.
Most mutations are in the wrong cells to be passed to descendents, >>>>>>>> and
most descendents will drop the ball anyhow.
It is true that most mutations aren't in the sperm/egg cells - they >>>>>>> are in cancerous cells.
But so what? That's irrelevant to evolution mechanisms.
Instant hostility to new ideas must be hereditary too.
New ideas are ten-a-penny, and that's being generous.
Any idiot can generate ideas, and many do[1].
Certainly. We've had brainstorming sessions when some intern said
something dumb that triggered a chain of thought that turned out to be >>>> big. The key is to think and play and not slap.
So have I, many times - in a brainstorming session.
In a brainstorming session everybody knows that different
rules are operating. This isn't a brainstorming session,
and the normal rules of discussion and conversation apply.
Good, reasoned, justified ideas are worth much more,
because they are rare and the process takes time.
Crazy ideas may be in the path to that, if you don't kill them on
sight.
They should be killed before they escape from a brainstorming
session.
The craziest ones should, of course, be killed before escaping from the
mouth - even in brainstorming.
I once provoked an interesting thought in a brainstorm about
networking by asking "how would you do that with yoghurt?"
It's fine to say - in brainstorming -
that people should not be embarrassed about giving crazy ideas, nor
should they be put down for suggesting them. But there is no need to
waste everyone's time with the silliest of ideas born from pure
ignorance of the topic in question.
Larkin appears not to understand that the second phase of
brainstorming is to prune the disassociated neural firings
into a much smaller set that is worth considering.
Compare and contrast that with evolution :)
(Trump could have benefited from learning this - along with the
distinction between a press conference and a wild brainstorming meeting.)
Oh, that bleach incident was both cringeworthy and revealing!
Larkin likes to pretend he has no limits to the ideas he will consider,
but everyone does.
He will, of course, dismiss my ideas here out of hand - simply because
they don't match /his/ ideas.
Not just your ideas!
On 02/02/2022 21:41, Tom Gardner wrote:
On 02/02/22 19:50, David Brown wrote:
On 02/02/2022 17:55, Tom Gardner wrote:
On 02/02/22 16:42, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Wed, 2 Feb 2022 15:35:05 +0000, Tom Gardner
<spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
On 02/02/22 14:35, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Wed, 2 Feb 2022 14:31:54 +0000, Tom Gardner
<spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
On 02/02/22 13:49, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Wed, 2 Feb 2022 12:11:03 +0000, Tom Gardner
<spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
On 02/02/22 10:26, Martin Brown wrote:A gene has to get into a sperm or egg to be passed into a
On 01/02/2022 11:36, Tom Gardner wrote:
On 01/02/22 10:28, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 1 Feb 2022 08:41:38 +0000, Tom Gardner
<spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
Why can't
we deliberately change our genome to our benefit?
We will soon be able to. Future tense.
We already are for certain genetic disorders where the correct >>>>>>>>>>> functioning gene
can be inserted into the relevant cells locally to correct a >>>>>>>>>>> problem but without
altering any of the germ line cells.
https://www.nia.nih.gov/news/gene-therapy-techniques-restore-vision-damage-age-and-glaucoma-mice
To me "insert into the genome" implies the germ cell lines. >>>>>>>>>
population.
A nose spray won't do that. [1]
That's another annoyance onto the random-mutation-selection
concept.
Most mutations are in the wrong cells to be passed to descendents, >>>>>>>>> and
most descendents will drop the ball anyhow.
It is true that most mutations aren't in the sperm/egg cells - they >>>>>>>> are in cancerous cells.
But so what? That's irrelevant to evolution mechanisms.
Instant hostility to new ideas must be hereditary too.
New ideas are ten-a-penny, and that's being generous.
Any idiot can generate ideas, and many do[1].
Certainly. We've had brainstorming sessions when some intern said
something dumb that triggered a chain of thought that turned out to be >>>>> big. The key is to think and play and not slap.
So have I, many times - in a brainstorming session.
In a brainstorming session everybody knows that different
rules are operating. This isn't a brainstorming session,
and the normal rules of discussion and conversation apply.
Good, reasoned, justified ideas are worth much more,
because they are rare and the process takes time.
Crazy ideas may be in the path to that, if you don't kill them on
sight.
They should be killed before they escape from a brainstorming
session.
The craziest ones should, of course, be killed before escaping from the
mouth - even in brainstorming.
I once provoked an interesting thought in a brainstorm about
networking by asking "how would you do that with yoghurt?"
That's a silly question, not a crazy idea - and very occasionally such
silly comments can lead to profitable discussions. Mostly they are a
waste of time. A "crazy idea" is when you start expounding on a
obviously impossible or ridiculous notion - "We'll use bio-active
yoghurt and encode encryption algorithms in the DNA of the
lactobacteria. I've heard that a DNA string contains as much
information as a book, so we'll have plenty of bandwidth."
In a commercial setting, time is money. There comes a point where it
would make more sense for the company to use the money to buy lottery
tickets than to spend time seriously considering pointless ideas.
On 2/2/2022 1:41 PM, Tom Gardner wrote:
I once provoked an interesting thought in a brainstorm about
networking by asking "how would you do that with yoghurt?"
A big part of brainstorming is to defy the "group-think"
that so permeates organizations. To challenge what they
thin of as "obvious" and demand explanations for why things
"must" be a certain way (what makes that a *requirement*
other than "that's how we've always done it" or "that seems
the obvious way forward")
This is particularly true of organizations that don't have
much inherent variety in their product offerings and much
market pressure to explore new options.
On 02/02/22 16:42, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Wed, 2 Feb 2022 15:35:05 +0000, Tom Gardner
<spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
On 02/02/22 14:35, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Wed, 2 Feb 2022 14:31:54 +0000, Tom Gardner
<spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
On 02/02/22 13:49, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Wed, 2 Feb 2022 12:11:03 +0000, Tom Gardner
<spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
On 02/02/22 10:26, Martin Brown wrote:
On 01/02/2022 11:36, Tom Gardner wrote:
On 01/02/22 10:28, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 1 Feb 2022 08:41:38 +0000, Tom Gardner
<spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
Why can't
we deliberately change our genome to our benefit?
We will soon be able to. Future tense.
We already are for certain genetic disorders where the correct functioning gene
can be inserted into the relevant cells locally to correct a problem but without
altering any of the germ line cells.
https://www.nia.nih.gov/news/gene-therapy-techniques-restore-vision-damage-age-and-glaucoma-mice
To me "insert into the genome" implies the germ cell lines.
A gene has to get into a sperm or egg to be passed into a population. >>>>>> A nose spray won't do that. [1]
That's another annoyance onto the random-mutation-selection concept. >>>>>> Most mutations are in the wrong cells to be passed to descendents, and >>>>>> most descendents will drop the ball anyhow.
It is true that most mutations aren't in the sperm/egg cells - they
are in cancerous cells.
But so what? That's irrelevant to evolution mechanisms.
Instant hostility to new ideas must be hereditary too.
New ideas are ten-a-penny, and that's being generous.
Any idiot can generate ideas, and many do[1].
Certainly. We've had brainstorming sessions when some intern said
something dumb that triggered a chain of thought that turned out to be
big. The key is to think and play and not slap.
So have I, many times - in a brainstorming session.
In a brainstorming session everybody knows that different
rules are operating. This isn't a brainstorming session,
and the normal rules of discussion and conversation apply.
Good, reasoned, justified ideas are worth much more,
because they are rare and the process takes time.
Crazy ideas may be in the path to that, if you don't kill them on
sight.
They should be killed before they escape from a brainstorming
session.
On 02/02/2022 17:55, Tom Gardner wrote:
On 02/02/22 16:42, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Wed, 2 Feb 2022 15:35:05 +0000, Tom Gardner
<spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
On 02/02/22 14:35, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Wed, 2 Feb 2022 14:31:54 +0000, Tom Gardner
<spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
On 02/02/22 13:49, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Wed, 2 Feb 2022 12:11:03 +0000, Tom Gardner
<spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
On 02/02/22 10:26, Martin Brown wrote:
On 01/02/2022 11:36, Tom Gardner wrote:
On 01/02/22 10:28, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 1 Feb 2022 08:41:38 +0000, Tom Gardner
<spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
Why can't
we deliberately change our genome to our benefit?
We will soon be able to. Future tense.
We already are for certain genetic disorders where the correct >>>>>>>>> functioning gene
can be inserted into the relevant cells locally to correct a >>>>>>>>> problem but without
altering any of the germ line cells.
https://www.nia.nih.gov/news/gene-therapy-techniques-restore-vision-damage-age-and-glaucoma-mice
To me "insert into the genome" implies the germ cell lines.
A gene has to get into a sperm or egg to be passed into a population. >>>>>>> A nose spray won't do that. [1]
That's another annoyance onto the random-mutation-selection concept. >>>>>>> Most mutations are in the wrong cells to be passed to descendents, >>>>>>> and
most descendents will drop the ball anyhow.
It is true that most mutations aren't in the sperm/egg cells - they >>>>>> are in cancerous cells.
But so what? That's irrelevant to evolution mechanisms.
Instant hostility to new ideas must be hereditary too.
New ideas are ten-a-penny, and that's being generous.
Any idiot can generate ideas, and many do[1].
Certainly. We've had brainstorming sessions when some intern said
something dumb that triggered a chain of thought that turned out to be
big. The key is to think and play and not slap.
So have I, many times - in a brainstorming session.
In a brainstorming session everybody knows that different
rules are operating. This isn't a brainstorming session,
and the normal rules of discussion and conversation apply.
Good, reasoned, justified ideas are worth much more,
because they are rare and the process takes time.
Crazy ideas may be in the path to that, if you don't kill them on
sight.
They should be killed before they escape from a brainstorming
session.
The craziest ones should, of course, be killed before escaping from the
mouth - even in brainstorming. It's fine to say - in brainstorming -
that people should not be embarrassed about giving crazy ideas, nor
should they be put down for suggesting them. But there is no need to
waste everyone's time with the silliest of ideas born from pure
ignorance of the topic in question.
(Trump could have benefited from learning this - along with the
distinction between a press conference and a wild brainstorming meeting.)
Larkin likes to pretend he has no limits to the ideas he will consider,
but everyone does.
He will, of course, dismiss my ideas here out of hand - simply because
they don't match /his/ ideas.
On 02/02/22 19:50, David Brown wrote:
On 02/02/2022 17:55, Tom Gardner wrote:
On 02/02/22 16:42, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Wed, 2 Feb 2022 15:35:05 +0000, Tom Gardner
<spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
On 02/02/22 14:35, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Wed, 2 Feb 2022 14:31:54 +0000, Tom Gardner
<spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
On 02/02/22 13:49, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Wed, 2 Feb 2022 12:11:03 +0000, Tom Gardner
<spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
On 02/02/22 10:26, Martin Brown wrote:
On 01/02/2022 11:36, Tom Gardner wrote:
On 01/02/22 10:28, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 1 Feb 2022 08:41:38 +0000, Tom Gardner
<spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
Why can't
we deliberately change our genome to our benefit?
We will soon be able to. Future tense.
We already are for certain genetic disorders where the correct >>>>>>>>>> functioning gene
can be inserted into the relevant cells locally to correct a >>>>>>>>>> problem but without
altering any of the germ line cells.
https://www.nia.nih.gov/news/gene-therapy-techniques-restore-vision-damage-age-and-glaucoma-mice
To me "insert into the genome" implies the germ cell lines.
A gene has to get into a sperm or egg to be passed into a population. >>>>>>>> A nose spray won't do that. [1]
That's another annoyance onto the random-mutation-selection concept. >>>>>>>> Most mutations are in the wrong cells to be passed to descendents, >>>>>>>> and
most descendents will drop the ball anyhow.
It is true that most mutations aren't in the sperm/egg cells - they >>>>>>> are in cancerous cells.
But so what? That's irrelevant to evolution mechanisms.
Instant hostility to new ideas must be hereditary too.
New ideas are ten-a-penny, and that's being generous.
Any idiot can generate ideas, and many do[1].
Certainly. We've had brainstorming sessions when some intern said
something dumb that triggered a chain of thought that turned out to be >>>> big. The key is to think and play and not slap.
So have I, many times - in a brainstorming session.
In a brainstorming session everybody knows that different
rules are operating. This isn't a brainstorming session,
and the normal rules of discussion and conversation apply.
Good, reasoned, justified ideas are worth much more,
because they are rare and the process takes time.
Crazy ideas may be in the path to that, if you don't kill them on
sight.
They should be killed before they escape from a brainstorming
session.
The craziest ones should, of course, be killed before escaping from the
mouth - even in brainstorming.
I once provoked an interesting thought in a brainstorm about
networking by asking "how would you do that with yoghurt?"
It's fine to say - in brainstorming -
that people should not be embarrassed about giving crazy ideas, nor
should they be put down for suggesting them. But there is no need to
waste everyone's time with the silliest of ideas born from pure
ignorance of the topic in question.
Larkin appears not to understand that the second phase of
brainstorming is to prune the disassociated neural firings
into a much smaller set that is worth considering.
On 2/2/2022 1:41 PM, Tom Gardner wrote:
I once provoked an interesting thought in a brainstorm about
networking by asking "how would you do that with yoghurt?"
A big part of brainstorming is to defy the "group-think"
that so permeates organizations. To challenge what they
thin of as "obvious" and demand explanations for why things
"must" be a certain way (what makes that a *requirement*
other than "that's how we've always done it" or "that seems
the obvious way forward")
This is particularly true of organizations that don't have
much inherent variety in their product offerings and much
market pressure to explore new options.
On 02/02/2022 22:42, Don Y wrote:
On 2/2/2022 1:41 PM, Tom Gardner wrote:
I once provoked an interesting thought in a brainstorm about
networking by asking "how would you do that with yoghurt?"
A big part of brainstorming is to defy the "group-think"
that so permeates organizations. To challenge what they
thin of as "obvious" and demand explanations for why things
"must" be a certain way (what makes that a *requirement*
other than "that's how we've always done it" or "that seems
the obvious way forward")
Sure. And that's very important.
But it is also important to be realistic. You can picture this as a
sort of Poisson curve. Most improvements on a product (or whatever) do
come from small changes and steps. Big changes and improvements come
from more far-out ideas and innovations, but they are correspondingly
rarer and less likely to succeed. When you go too far out on the tail,
the likelihood of ending up with a positive payback becomes negligible.
Thus the sensible economic strategy for a company will usually mean that
most of their effort goes to the low-risk but low-payoff changes - >conservative viewpoint. They also need to put /some/ effort into the
bigger gambles of ideas and development where the likelihood of success
is much lower, but the pay-off is higher. But you don't waste time and
money in the ridiculous ideas unless you have money to burn - it is only
when you are the size of IBM that you can afford to get patents on >faster-than-light travel.
Sometimes companies get the balance wrong, and are /too/ conservative.
But large, established companies can't take too many risks either - they
have a responsibility to their employees, customers, suppliers and >shareholders who all benefit more from slow and steady rather than big >all-or-nothing risks. It is the small startups that can take those risks.
This is particularly true of organizations that don't have
much inherent variety in their product offerings and much
market pressure to explore new options.
Yes.
On Wed, 2 Feb 2022 16:55:32 +0000, Tom Gardner <spam...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
On 02/02/22 16:42, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Wed, 2 Feb 2022 15:35:05 +0000, Tom Gardner <spam...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
On 02/02/22 14:35, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Wed, 2 Feb 2022 14:31:54 +0000, Tom Gardner <spam...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
On 02/02/22 13:49, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Wed, 2 Feb 2022 12:11:03 +0000, Tom Gardner <spam...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
On 02/02/22 10:26, Martin Brown wrote:
On 01/02/2022 11:36, Tom Gardner wrote:
On 01/02/22 10:28, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 1 Feb 2022 08:41:38 +0000, Tom Gardner <spam...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
It is true that most mutations aren't in the sperm/egg cells - they are in cancerous cells.
But so what? That's irrelevant to evolution mechanisms.
Instant hostility to new ideas must be hereditary too.
New ideas are ten-a-penny, and that's being generous.
Any idiot can generate ideas, and many do[1].
Certainly. We've had brainstorming sessions when some intern said
something dumb that triggered a chain of thought that turned out to be
big. The key is to think and play and not slap.
So have I, many times - in a brainstorming session.
In a brainstorming session everybody knows that different
rules are operating. This isn't a brainstorming session,
and the normal rules of discussion and conversation apply.
Why can't people suggest new ideas in an online discussion group?
And do you make the rules?
Good, reasoned, justified ideas are worth much more, because they are rare and the process takes time.
Crazy ideas may be in the path to that, if you don't kill them on sight.
They should be killed before they escape from a brainstorming session.
Do you switch new-idea hostility on and off? Take amnesia pills when
the formal thinking session is over?
Do you only allow yourself to have ideas during officially declared times? I guess that's better than never having any ideas, but seems restrictive.
Brainstorming isn't so much an event as it's an organizational attitude.
On 02/02/2022 21:41, Tom Gardner wrote:
On 02/02/22 19:50, David Brown wrote:
On 02/02/2022 17:55, Tom Gardner wrote:
On 02/02/22 16:42, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Wed, 2 Feb 2022 15:35:05 +0000, Tom Gardner
<spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
On 02/02/22 14:35, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Wed, 2 Feb 2022 14:31:54 +0000, Tom Gardner
<spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
On 02/02/22 13:49, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Wed, 2 Feb 2022 12:11:03 +0000, Tom Gardner
<spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
On 02/02/22 10:26, Martin Brown wrote:A gene has to get into a sperm or egg to be passed into a
On 01/02/2022 11:36, Tom Gardner wrote:
On 01/02/22 10:28, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 1 Feb 2022 08:41:38 +0000, Tom Gardner
<spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
Why can't
we deliberately change our genome to our benefit?
We will soon be able to. Future tense.
We already are for certain genetic disorders where the correct >>>>>>>>>>> functioning gene
can be inserted into the relevant cells locally to correct a >>>>>>>>>>> problem but without
altering any of the germ line cells.
https://www.nia.nih.gov/news/gene-therapy-techniques-restore-vision-damage-age-and-glaucoma-mice
To me "insert into the genome" implies the germ cell lines. >>>>>>>>>
population.
A nose spray won't do that. [1]
That's another annoyance onto the random-mutation-selection
concept.
Most mutations are in the wrong cells to be passed to descendents, >>>>>>>>> and
most descendents will drop the ball anyhow.
It is true that most mutations aren't in the sperm/egg cells - they >>>>>>>> are in cancerous cells.
But so what? That's irrelevant to evolution mechanisms.
Instant hostility to new ideas must be hereditary too.
New ideas are ten-a-penny, and that's being generous.
Any idiot can generate ideas, and many do[1].
Certainly. We've had brainstorming sessions when some intern said
something dumb that triggered a chain of thought that turned out to be >>>>> big. The key is to think and play and not slap.
So have I, many times - in a brainstorming session.
In a brainstorming session everybody knows that different
rules are operating. This isn't a brainstorming session,
and the normal rules of discussion and conversation apply.
Good, reasoned, justified ideas are worth much more,
because they are rare and the process takes time.
Crazy ideas may be in the path to that, if you don't kill them on
sight.
They should be killed before they escape from a brainstorming
session.
The craziest ones should, of course, be killed before escaping from the
mouth - even in brainstorming.
I once provoked an interesting thought in a brainstorm about
networking by asking "how would you do that with yoghurt?"
That's a silly question, not a crazy idea - and very occasionally such
silly comments can lead to profitable discussions. Mostly they are a
waste of time. A "crazy idea" is when you start expounding on a
obviously impossible or ridiculous notion - "We'll use bio-active
yoghurt and encode encryption algorithms in the DNA of the
lactobacteria. I've heard that a DNA string contains as much
information as a book, so we'll have plenty of bandwidth."
In a commercial setting, time is money.
would make more sense for the company to use the money to buy lottery
tickets than to spend time seriously considering pointless ideas.
Exactly where that point is, and how to classify questions, ideas or >statements - that's a different matter, and there is no simple answer.
On Wed, 2 Feb 2022 20:41:09 +0000, Tom Gardner
<spam...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
On 02/02/22 19:50, David Brown wrote:
On 02/02/2022 17:55, Tom Gardner wrote:
On 02/02/22 16:42, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Wed, 2 Feb 2022 15:35:05 +0000, Tom Gardner <spam...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
On 02/02/22 14:35, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Wed, 2 Feb 2022 14:31:54 +0000, Tom Gardner <spam...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
On 02/02/22 13:49, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Wed, 2 Feb 2022 12:11:03 +0000, Tom Gardner <spam...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
On 02/02/22 10:26, Martin Brown wrote:
On 01/02/2022 11:36, Tom Gardner wrote:
On 01/02/22 10:28, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 1 Feb 2022 08:41:38 +0000, Tom Gardner <spam...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
<snip>
Larkin appears not to understand that the second phase ofDon't be silly. We manufacture and sell megabucks of stuff that
brainstorming is to prune the disassociated neural firings
into a much smaller set that is worth considering.
originated in brainstorming sessions. If you actually design
electronics, you buy the chips that resulted from one.
After you find ideas, they need to be implemented with severe engineering discipline. But they need to be found first. Not many people can do both.
On Wed, 2 Feb 2022 20:50:20 +0100, David Brown <david...@hesbynett.no> wrote:
On 02/02/2022 17:55, Tom Gardner wrote:
On 02/02/22 16:42, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Wed, 2 Feb 2022 15:35:05 +0000, Tom Gardner <spam...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
On 02/02/22 14:35, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Wed, 2 Feb 2022 14:31:54 +0000, Tom Gardner <spam...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
On 02/02/22 13:49, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Wed, 2 Feb 2022 12:11:03 +0000, Tom Gardner <spam...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
On 02/02/22 10:26, Martin Brown wrote:
On 01/02/2022 11:36, Tom Gardner wrote:
On 01/02/22 10:28, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 1 Feb 2022 08:41:38 +0000, Tom Gardner <spam...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
Larkin likes to pretend he has no limits to the ideas he will consider, but everyone does.
He will, of course, dismiss my ideas here out of hand - simply because they don't match /his/ ideas.
That rant is itself a wonderful example of hostility to other peoples' ideas.
Too recursive.
On Thu, 3 Feb 2022 09:08:50 +0100, David Brown <david...@hesbynett.no> wrote:
On 02/02/2022 21:41, Tom Gardner wrote:
On 02/02/22 19:50, David Brown wrote:
On 02/02/2022 17:55, Tom Gardner wrote:
On 02/02/22 16:42, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Wed, 2 Feb 2022 15:35:05 +0000, Tom Gardner <spam...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
On 02/02/22 14:35, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Wed, 2 Feb 2022 14:31:54 +0000, Tom Gardner <spam...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
On 02/02/22 13:49, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Wed, 2 Feb 2022 12:11:03 +0000, Tom Gardner <spam...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
On 02/02/22 10:26, Martin Brown wrote:
On 01/02/2022 11:36, Tom Gardner wrote:
On 01/02/22 10:28, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 1 Feb 2022 08:41:38 +0000, Tom Gardner <spam...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
In a commercial setting, time is money.
How about a few billion dollars per hour? I've seen it happen.
There comes a point where it would make more sense for the company to use the money to buy lottery tickets than to spend time seriously considering pointless ideas.
Exactly where that point is, and how to classify questions, ideas or statements - that's a different matter, and there is no simple answer.
Once you start classifying ideas, you've wrecked the concept.
That is outright hostility to brainstorming.
On Friday, February 4, 2022 at 12:46:43 AM UTC+11, John Larkin wrote:
On Wed, 2 Feb 2022 20:50:20 +0100, David Brown <david...@hesbynett.no> wrote: wrote:
<snip>
Larkin likes to pretend he has no limits to the ideas he will consider, but everyone does.
He will, of course, dismiss my ideas here out of hand - simply because they don't match /his/ ideas.
That rant is itself a wonderful example of hostility to other peoples' ideas.
Wrong. The hostility expressed is to your behavior. You do have a habit of posting silly ideas, but that isn't the problem - it is your enthusiasm for claiming that you have a right to be a silly as you like, and that people shouldn't criticise you forposting ignorant nonsense
On 02/02/2022 17:51, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Wed, 2 Feb 2022 16:29:53 +0100, David Brown
<david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
On 02/02/2022 14:49, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Wed, 2 Feb 2022 12:11:03 +0000, Tom Gardner
<spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
On 02/02/22 10:26, Martin Brown wrote:
On 01/02/2022 11:36, Tom Gardner wrote:
On 01/02/22 10:28, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Tue, 1 Feb 2022 08:41:38 +0000, Tom Gardner
<spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
Why can't
we deliberately change our genome to our benefit?
We will soon be able to. Future tense.
We already are for certain genetic disorders where the correct functioning gene
can be inserted into the relevant cells locally to correct a problem but without
altering any of the germ line cells.
https://www.nia.nih.gov/news/gene-therapy-techniques-restore-vision-damage-age-and-glaucoma-mice
To me "insert into the genome" implies the germ cell lines.
A gene has to get into a sperm or egg to be passed into a population.
A nose spray won't do that. [1]
That's another annoyance onto the random-mutation-selection concept.
Most mutations are in the wrong cells to be passed to descendents, and >>>> most descendents will drop the ball anyhow.
That might annoy /you/, but it is not something that affects the
validity of the theory of evolution. It just means that random mutation >>> of genes within a cell is a slow modifier in the evolution of
multi-cellular organisms.
A far bigger effect is sexual mixup of genes, which is also a
"random-mutation-selection" concept but on a different scale.
[1] Barring horizontal transmission from viruses or kissing. Maybe
kissing is a way of sharing genes in a tribe. Maybe kissing is
biologically important.
Viruses are an important vector for evolution. They are a common source >>> of horizontal gene transfer in microbes. Mutation or gene transfer via
viruses does not happen often in higher organisms
Are you sure of that? Horizontal transfer is a huge boost to
evolution, and everything has to evolve. Dispersion of improvements by
family descent is very inefficient.
No, everything does not have to evolve - there are lots of organisms
that have changed very little for perhaps hundreds of millions of years.
Horizontal transfers /can/ introduce new genes, but the /vast/ majority
of horizontal transfers are detrimental to the organism if they do
anything noticeable at all.
You may have heard of the "immune system". One of its jobs is to
minimise virus infections - identifying and destroying virus particles,
and destroying any cells that get infected. The better an organism's
immune system (and even bacteria have immune systems to counter
viruses), the lower the opportunity for virus infections of any sort,
never mind ones that transfer genes.
To get a horizontal transfer via a virus, you need multiple things to
happen. First, the virus must infect one host's cell but make a
monumental screw-up during the infection, so that a bit of the host's
DNA gets caught up along with the virus DNA when the cell replicates the >virus. That happens, but it's extremely rare - and usually such
mistakes means no successful virus production. Then this modified virus >needs to get into another host, and have another monumental screw-up on
the part of the virus /and/ on the part of the host cell, where the DNA >fragment gets mixed with the host's DNA. And then the host cell must >eliminate the virus (so that it doesn't die by virus reproduction), and
the DNA change must be non-fatal to the cell. If this happens in the
target host's germ cells then the mutation will pass on to the next >generation (probably killing them long before they can produce
descendants of their own). Otherwise you've made either a one-off cell >change that ends with the cell's death, or a tumour.
And even if horizontal transfers /were/ as potentially useful for
evolution in the long term as you imagine, that does not mean it
happens. You have this bizarre belief that just because something is
useful or efficient (in your eyes at least), evolution will cause it to >evolve.
Evolution does not have aims, guides, or targets. It is not intelligent
or guided. It does not optimise, or reach ideal solutions. It does not
make huge leaps to new methods just because you think these might be a
good idea. It does not always eliminate bad traits and enhance good
ones. It does not necessarily lead to the best choices or the "fittest" >results.
(as you say, they have
to hit egg or sperm cells - and the great majority of mutations are
either lethal or have little significant effect). But they are vital
for getting completely new features into the population. The placenta
in mammals, for example, has been traced to virus gene transfer.
As for kissing - how exactly do you think that would transfer genes?
For one, by transferring viruses. Maybe even cells.
Do you not realise how ignorant that sounds?
Let's take an analogy that might make it simpler for you. A cell is
like an electronics board, and its genetic code is like the schematic
and pcb design for the board. Do you think you can change the designs
of the boards in some machine just by putting a different board beside
them? That's your "cells transferred by kissing" idea.
Perhaps you should bang the different boards together and see what
happens - that's the horizontal transfer. One time out of a billion you >might make a short-circuit, or break a track, that gives one of the
boards new characteristics that you hadn't seen before.
Compare that to taking two extremely similar designs (99% or more
match), and swapping a few corresponding sections of the schematic to
see if there is an improvement. If you've swapped something critical,
it will probably not work at all. If you've swapped some values of
filter components, maybe you'll get a slightly better filter. That is
the analogue of sexual reproduction.
Which method do /you/ think is going to be more successful?
If you don't want that random brain-fart to be dismissed, you'll have to >>> justify why you think there is significant genetic material in spit,
Dismissed? Ideas should be played with. But I don't mind if you
instinctively attack ideas... less competition.
I offered you a chance to justify your idea before I dismissed it. It
turns out you had nothing. Good ideas are useful - but your view that
all ideas are somehow worthy for consideration is absurd. (I didn't
dismiss it out of hand - I thought about it, then dismissed it.)
People are put in prison based on the genes in a bit of spit.
Yes - so what? Do you think the DNA in someone else's spit magically >transforms you? Seriously? Do you also think that if you eat chicken,
you might sprout feathers? (Are you going to dismiss that idea out of
hand?) If a radioactive spider bites you and injects some of its DNA in
its saliva, is that going to turn you into a superhero? (Surely you
will play around with that idea too, to give you an edge on your >competition.)
Males kiss, as kissing the hand or ring of a king or the pope. Some
cultures kiss a lot more than we do.
And some do so less. None of that matters.
If kissing spreads disease, it would be deselected. But it's not. Same
with shaking hands... spreads germs!
Kissing /does/ spread disease - as does shaking hands, and any kind of >contact. But the benefits usually outweigh the risks.
On 03/02/2022 15:16, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Friday, February 4, 2022 at 12:46:43 AM UTC+11, John Larkin wrote:
On Wed, 2 Feb 2022 20:50:20 +0100, David Brown <david...@hesbynett.no> wrote: wrote:
<snip>
Larkin likes to pretend he has no limits to the ideas he will consider, but everyone does.
He will, of course, dismiss my ideas here out of hand - simply because they don't match /his/ ideas.
That rant is itself a wonderful example of hostility to other peoples' ideas.
Exactly as I predicted. John Larkin expects everyone to consider his
daftest and most ignorant outpourings (they usually don't have enough
thought behind them to be called "ideas") as worthy of serious
discussion. He thinks they should be treated as being on the same
standing as long-established scientific theory and consensus in the
field until it can be proven - to his satisfaction (which never happens)
- that he was wrong.
On the other hand, he is openly hostile to anyone else's comments,for posting ignorant nonsense
ideas, or explanations of real-life science and facts. The hostility is >often wrapped in his martyr syndrome - we are all being nasty to him by
not bowing down to his self-proclaimed genius.
Wrong. The hostility expressed is to your behavior. You do have a habit of posting silly ideas, but that isn't the problem - it is your enthusiasm for claiming that you have a right to be a silly as you like, and that people shouldn't criticise you
That's it.
John - and anyone else - is free to post as silly comments as they like.
And sometimes we end up with entertaining threads, starting with a
silly post.
But people who are less ignorant and more capable of rational thought
are equally free to call them out for being silly, and sometimes to
explain the reality of how the world actually works.
Larkin would do better if he read these explanations, learned from them,
and used them as positive feedback to post less silly and more
interesting ideas in the future. Instead, he prefers to attack
pointlessly with the same tired old routine - claiming we are dismissing >ideas out of hand, therefore we can't brainstorm, therefore we are bad >engineers and he is a genius.
So how about you just accept that the huge majority of random crazy
ideas are utterly worthless, and /can/ be quickly dismissed? Keep
posting them if you like, but stop getting your knickers in a twist when >people tell you they are daft.
(And Bill, please stop obsessing about patent counts. They are a
totally useless measurement or indication of inventiveness, design
ability or anything else. They are primarily a business technique for >beating down the competition as an alternative to building better
products, and such a tiny percentage of granted patents represent truly >innovate inventions that there is no point in bringing them up.)
On 03/02/2022 15:16, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Friday, February 4, 2022 at 12:46:43 AM UTC+11, John Larkin wrote:
On Wed, 2 Feb 2022 20:50:20 +0100, David Brown <david...@hesbynett.no> wrote: wrote:
(And Bill, please stop obsessing about patent counts. They are a
totally useless measurement or indication of inventiveness, design
ability or anything else. They are primarily a business technique for beating down the competition as an alternative to building better
products, and such a tiny percentage of granted patents represent truly innovate inventions that there is no point in bringing them up.)
On Thu, 3 Feb 2022 16:33:25 +0100, David Brown
<david...@hesbynett.no> wrote:
On 03/02/2022 15:16, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Friday, February 4, 2022 at 12:46:43 AM UTC+11, John Larkin wrote:
On Wed, 2 Feb 2022 20:50:20 +0100, David Brown <david...@hesbynett.no> wrote: wrote:
<snip>
Larkin likes to pretend he has no limits to the ideas he will consider, but everyone does.
He will, of course, dismiss my ideas here out of hand - simply because they don't match /his/ ideas.
That rant is itself a wonderful example of hostility to other peoples' ideas.
Exactly as I predicted. John Larkin expects everyone to consider his >daftest and most ignorant outpourings (they usually don't have enough >thought behind them to be called "ideas") as worthy of serious
discussion. He thinks they should be treated as being on the same
standing as long-established scientific theory and consensus in the
field until it can be proven - to his satisfaction (which never happens)
- that he was wrong.
That's absurd.
I admit to generating a lot of goofy ideas. And to designing "lunatic fringe electronics."
Works for me.
It is interesting how many people want to talk about me and not talk
about electronics.
"long-established scientific theory" doesn't design anything.
for posting ignorant nonsense.On the other hand, he is openly hostile to anyone else's comments,
ideas, or explanations of real-life science and facts. The hostility is >often wrapped in his martyr syndrome - we are all being nasty to him by >not bowing down to his self-proclaimed genius.
Wrong. The hostility expressed is to your behavior. You do have a habit of posting silly ideas, but that isn't the problem - it is your enthusiasm for claiming that you have a right to be a silly as you like, and that people shouldn't criticise you
If they were real electronic designers, they would join the game and
play with ideas and not stomp on them. Few people have the guts to do
that in public.
That's it.
John - and anyone else - is free to post as silly comments as they like.
And sometimes we end up with entertaining threads, starting with a
silly post.
But people who are less ignorant and more capable of rational thought
are equally free to call them out for being silly, and sometimes to >explain the reality of how the world actually works.
Larkin would do better if he read these explanations, learned from them, >and used them as positive feedback to post less silly and more
interesting ideas in the future. Instead, he prefers to attack
pointlessly with the same tired old routine - claiming we are dismissing >ideas out of hand, therefore we can't brainstorm, therefore we are bad >engineers and he is a genius.
That's about right.
(And Bill, please stop obsessing about patent counts. They are a
totally useless measurement or indication of inventiveness, design
ability or anything else.
They are primarily a business technique for beating down the competition as an alternative to building better products, and such a tiny percentage of granted patents represent truly innovate inventions that there is no point in bringing them up.)
That's all he's got, some old patents and some old papers. Sad.
On Friday, February 4, 2022 at 2:33:38 AM UTC+11, David Brown wrote:
On 03/02/2022 15:16, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Friday, February 4, 2022 at 12:46:43 AM UTC+11, John Larkin
wrote:
On Wed, 2 Feb 2022 20:50:20 +0100, David Brown
<david...@hesbynett.no> wrote: wrote:
<snip>
(And Bill, please stop obsessing about patent counts. They are a
totally useless measurement or indication of inventiveness, design
ability or anything else. They are primarily a business technique
for beating down the competition as an alternative to building
better products, and such a tiny percentage of granted patents
represent truly innovate inventions that there is no point in
bringing them up.)
Actually, they aren't totally useless. The patenting system is much
abused, but the tiny percentage of granted patents that cover and
protect truly innovative inventions protect most of the useful
innovations that have got us where we are today.
On Wed, 2 Feb 2022 20:21:18 +0100, David Brown
<david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
On 02/02/2022 17:51, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Wed, 2 Feb 2022 16:29:53 +0100, David Brown
<david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
On 02/02/2022 14:49, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Wed, 2 Feb 2022 12:11:03 +0000, Tom Gardner
<spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
Viruses are an important vector for evolution. They are a common source >>>> of horizontal gene transfer in microbes. Mutation or gene transfer via >>>> viruses does not happen often in higher organisms
Are you sure of that? Horizontal transfer is a huge boost to
evolution, and everything has to evolve. Dispersion of improvements by
family descent is very inefficient.
Retroviruses do in fact insert their genes into the somatic genomes of
their hosts. Some of it makes it into the germline genome over time.
We know this because there are lots of (usually nonfunctional) viral
genomes in the genome of all animals large enough to see. HIV is the
current poster child in humans, SIV in simians.
Some bacterial can also fiddle with host DNA.
.<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolbachia>
No, everything does not have to evolve - there are lots of organisms
that have changed very little for perhaps hundreds of millions of years.
Horizontal transfers /can/ introduce new genes, but the /vast/ majority
of horizontal transfers are detrimental to the organism if they do
anything noticeable at all.
True, but relevance unclear. And in Biology, there is always an
asterisk or two.
You may have heard of the "immune system". One of its jobs is to
minimise virus infections - identifying and destroying virus particles,
and destroying any cells that get infected. The better an organism's
immune system (and even bacteria have immune systems to counter
viruses), the lower the opportunity for virus infections of any sort,
never mind ones that transfer genes.
Patronizing. Not effective.
To get a horizontal transfer via a virus, you need multiple things to
happen. First, the virus must infect one host's cell but make a
monumental screw-up during the infection, so that a bit of the host's
DNA gets caught up along with the virus DNA when the cell replicates the
virus. That happens, but it's extremely rare - and usually such
mistakes means no successful virus production. Then this modified virus
needs to get into another host, and have another monumental screw-up on
the part of the virus /and/ on the part of the host cell, where the DNA
fragment gets mixed with the host's DNA. And then the host cell must
eliminate the virus (so that it doesn't die by virus reproduction), and
the DNA change must be non-fatal to the cell. If this happens in the
target host's germ cells then the mutation will pass on to the next
generation (probably killing them long before they can produce
descendants of their own). Otherwise you've made either a one-off cell
change that ends with the cell's death, or a tumour.
Horizontal transfer from viruses to big animals like humans does in
fact happen, as discussed above.
And even if horizontal transfers /were/ as potentially useful for
evolution in the long term as you imagine, that does not mean it
happens. You have this bizarre belief that just because something is
useful or efficient (in your eyes at least), evolution will cause it to
evolve.
Even though evolution is blind, it does seem to solve whatever problem
is presented, because that's where the most stress is.
Evolution does not have aims, guides, or targets. It is not intelligent
or guided. It does not optimise, or reach ideal solutions. It does not
make huge leaps to new methods just because you think these might be a
good idea. It does not always eliminate bad traits and enhance good
ones. It does not necessarily lead to the best choices or the "fittest"
results.
Actually, evolution does in fact optimize. Where needed. See above.
(as you say, they have
to hit egg or sperm cells - and the great majority of mutations are
either lethal or have little significant effect). But they are vital
for getting completely new features into the population. The placenta >>>> in mammals, for example, has been traced to virus gene transfer.
As for kissing - how exactly do you think that would transfer genes?
For one, by transferring viruses. Maybe even cells.
Do you not realise how ignorant that sounds?
Ad hominem. Not effective.
Let's take an analogy that might make it simpler for you. A cell is
like an electronics board, and its genetic code is like the schematic
and pcb design for the board. Do you think you can change the designs
of the boards in some machine just by putting a different board beside
them? That's your "cells transferred by kissing" idea.
Perhaps you should bang the different boards together and see what
happens - that's the horizontal transfer. One time out of a billion you
might make a short-circuit, or break a track, that gives one of the
boards new characteristics that you hadn't seen before.
Compare that to taking two extremely similar designs (99% or more
match), and swapping a few corresponding sections of the schematic to
see if there is an improvement. If you've swapped something critical,
it will probably not work at all. If you've swapped some values of
filter components, maybe you'll get a slightly better filter. That is
the analogue of sexual reproduction.
Which method do /you/ think is going to be more successful?
This is a straw man argument, and deeply flawed to boot. DNA and RNA
are recipe strings, and not schematics, so the analogy fails.
One can use Genetic Programming to evolve circuit designs. Was
interesting, but did not turn out to be all that useful in practice.
.<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_programming>
Evolutionary Design of Digital Circuits Using Genetic Programming
.<https://arxiv.org/abs/1304.2467>
If you don't want that random brain-fart to be dismissed, you'll have to >>>> justify why you think there is significant genetic material in spit,
Dismissed? Ideas should be played with. But I don't mind if you
instinctively attack ideas... less competition.
I offered you a chance to justify your idea before I dismissed it. It
turns out you had nothing. Good ideas are useful - but your view that
all ideas are somehow worthy for consideration is absurd. (I didn't
dismiss it out of hand - I thought about it, then dismissed it.)
People are put in prison based on the genes in a bit of spit.
Yes - so what? Do you think the DNA in someone else's spit magically
transforms you? Seriously? Do you also think that if you eat chicken,
you might sprout feathers? (Are you going to dismiss that idea out of
hand?) If a radioactive spider bites you and injects some of its DNA in
its saliva, is that going to turn you into a superhero? (Surely you
will play around with that idea too, to give you an edge on your
competition.)
Males kiss, as kissing the hand or ring of a king or the pope. Some
cultures kiss a lot more than we do.
And some do so less. None of that matters.
If kissing spreads disease, it would be deselected. But it's not. Same
with shaking hands... spreads germs!
Kissing /does/ spread disease - as does shaking hands, and any kind of
contact. But the benefits usually outweigh the risks.
Well, to be precise, what is deselected are people who cannot handle
the close contact needed to be a species of social animal. Immune
systems also evolve to suit.
You are talking past one another. Your objectives are different, so
both can be correct, or not, independently of one another.
Joe Gwinn
On 04/02/2022 02:04, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Friday, February 4, 2022 at 2:33:38 AM UTC+11, David Brown wrote:
(And Bill, please stop obsessing about patent counts. They are a
totally useless measurement or indication of inventiveness, design
ability or anything else. They are primarily a business technique
for beating down the competition as an alternative to building
better products, and such a tiny percentage of granted patents
represent truly innovate inventions that there is no point in
bringing them up.)
Actually, they aren't totally useless. The patenting system is much
abused, but the tiny percentage of granted patents that cover and
protect truly innovative inventions protect most of the useful
innovations that have got us where we are today.
I didn't say patents are always useless. I said that counting numbers
of patents is a totally useless measure of inventiveness or anything
else. When someone comes up with a great new idea, they do not
necessarily patent it. When a patent is filed, it is not necessarily
for a great new idea. There is very little correlation between patents
filed and innovation - therefore patent counts are useless as a measure.
On 04/02/2022 02:04, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Friday, February 4, 2022 at 2:33:38 AM UTC+11, David Brown wrote:
On 03/02/2022 15:16, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Friday, February 4, 2022 at 12:46:43 AM UTC+11, John Larkin
wrote:
On Wed, 2 Feb 2022 20:50:20 +0100, David Brown
<david...@hesbynett.no> wrote: wrote:
<snip>
(And Bill, please stop obsessing about patent counts. They are a
totally useless measurement or indication of inventiveness, design
ability or anything else. They are primarily a business technique
for beating down the competition as an alternative to building
better products, and such a tiny percentage of granted patents
represent truly innovate inventions that there is no point in
bringing them up.)
Actually, they aren't totally useless. The patenting system is much
abused, but the tiny percentage of granted patents that cover and
protect truly innovative inventions protect most of the useful
innovations that have got us where we are today.
I didn't say patents are always useless. I said that counting numbers
of patents is a totally useless measure of inventiveness or anything
else. When someone comes up with a great new idea, they do not
necessarily patent it. When a patent is filed, it is not necessarily
for a great new idea. There is very little correlation between patents
filed and innovation - therefore patent counts are useless as a measure.
Making lots of money is an equally poor measure of engineering or
designer skills. (It can be an indicator of other skills or
characteristics, but often its an indicator of being lucky, knowing the
right people, being born in the right place to the right family, or
being ruthless enough to grab more than your fair share.)
Stop name-dropping - claiming credit by association is as unbecoming as >Larkin's self-satisfaction and claims to genius.
In a setting like a this newsgroup, we have no way to reasonably judge
anyone else's abilities, other than for specific topics under
discussion.
On 04/02/2022 02:04, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Friday, February 4, 2022 at 2:33:38 AM UTC+11, David Brown wrote:
On 03/02/2022 15:16, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Friday, February 4, 2022 at 12:46:43 AM UTC+11, John Larkin
wrote:
On Wed, 2 Feb 2022 20:50:20 +0100, David Brown
<david...@hesbynett.no> wrote: wrote:
<snip>
(And Bill, please stop obsessing about patent counts. They are a
totally useless measurement or indication of inventiveness, design
ability or anything else. They are primarily a business technique
for beating down the competition as an alternative to building
better products, and such a tiny percentage of granted patents
represent truly innovate inventions that there is no point in
bringing them up.)
Actually, they aren't totally useless. The patenting system is much abused, but the tiny percentage of granted patents that cover and
protect truly innovative inventions protect most of the useful
innovations that have got us where we are today.
I didn't say patents are always useless. I said that counting numbers
of patents is a totally useless measure of inventiveness or anything
else.
When someone comes up with a great new idea, they do not
necessarily patent it.
When a patent is filed, it is not necessarily for a great new idea.
There is very little correlation between patents filed and innovation - therefore patent counts are useless as a measure.
Making lots of money is an equally poor measure of engineering or designer skills. (It can be an indicator of other skills or characteristics, but often its an indicator of being lucky, knowing the right people, being born in the right place to theright family, or being ruthless enough to grab more than your fair share.)
Stop name-dropping - claiming credit by association is as unbecoming as Larkin's self-satisfaction and claims to genius.
In a setting like a this newsgroup, we have no way to reasonably judge anyone else's abilities, other than for specific topics under discussion.
Pissing contents about who can boast the loudest, make the most money or name the most patent holders, are pretty pathetic on all sides.
On Fri, 4 Feb 2022 08:57:38 +0100, David Brown <david...@hesbynett.no> wrote:
On 04/02/2022 02:04, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Friday, February 4, 2022 at 2:33:38 AM UTC+11, David Brown wrote:
On 03/02/2022 15:16, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Friday, February 4, 2022 at 12:46:43 AM UTC+11, John Larkin wrote: >>>>> On Wed, 2 Feb 2022 20:50:20 +0100, David Brown <david...@hesbynett.no> wrote: wrote:
Selling electronics is objective proof that people want to buy it in preference to something else. And it pays for rent and toys.
The US patent office is now a revenue machine, so they don't examine
patents much. People have generated hoax patents.
Stop name-dropping - claiming credit by association is as unbecoming as Larkin's self-satisfaction and claims to genius.
I think designing electronics is fun. Is that Self-satisfaction?
When did I call myself a genius? I'm not.
Really, this ain't Facebook. Design something; you'll feel better. We can help.
In a setting like a this newsgroup, we have no way to reasonably judge anyone else's abilities, other than for specific topics under discussion.
Like electronic design.
On 04/02/2022 07:57, David Brown wrote:
I didn't say patents are always useless. I said that counting numbers
of patents is a totally useless measure of inventiveness or anything
else. When someone comes up with a great new idea, they do not
necessarily patent it. When a patent is filed, it is not necessarily
for a great new idea. There is very little correlation between patents
filed and innovation - therefore patent counts are useless as a measure.
I have seven granted patents. A while ago I worked for a small company which was bought by a large US corporation which I shall refer to only by its initials, GE. While they sucked all the joy out of it and while taking time to
plan my exit, I mentioned to my PHB some fairly minor improvement to a product
under development.
He'd been on a training course - next thing I knew I was in his office and he was typing furiously. GE had a web-based patent application system (IIRC the 'Inventor Center') where you filled out details and some far-off patent department evaluated things and did the legwork if they thought it a viable idea.
This first one was credited jointly to me and the PHB, but having seen how easy
it was, the next ones I did myself. In total seven were granted, six of which
were US and one Chinese. (To be fair, I can't be 100% sure about the Chinese certificate, it could just as easily be a treatise on haddock literacy in the fifteenth century, though it does have my name and diagram on it.)
I did it because it was easy, I got £1k for each one, and sometimes a trip to
London to have lunch with a GE patent agent. One invention was quite clever I
thought, and is still in use albeit in very small quantities. A second was very probably novel, though of less practical use. Most were pretty meh and one in particular was a complete piss-take, but they all got granted. In the very unlikely event that any of them makes a significant amount of money I'd get some sort of cut.
But these were nearly all US patents and I believe that applications were also
made to other agencies, none of which succeeded. My conclusion? The US patent
system is (or possibly has become) a joke, the UK patent system at least seems
to have some standards.
But seven patents does look good on a CV, if only I needed a job.
On 03/02/2022 23:39, Joe Gwinn wrote:
On Wed, 2 Feb 2022 20:21:18 +0100, David Brown
<david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
On 02/02/2022 17:51, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Wed, 2 Feb 2022 16:29:53 +0100, David Brown
<david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
On 02/02/2022 14:49, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Wed, 2 Feb 2022 12:11:03 +0000, Tom Gardner
<spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
Viruses are an important vector for evolution. They are a common source >>>>> of horizontal gene transfer in microbes. Mutation or gene transfer via >>>>> viruses does not happen often in higher organisms
Are you sure of that? Horizontal transfer is a huge boost to
evolution, and everything has to evolve. Dispersion of improvements by >>>> family descent is very inefficient.
Retroviruses do in fact insert their genes into the somatic genomes of
their hosts. Some of it makes it into the germline genome over time.
Yes, indeed - but it is rare that they end up actually passing on >successfully to future generations, and rarer still that this leads to
useful new characteristics. It's a slow game!
We know this because there are lots of (usually nonfunctional) viral
genomes in the genome of all animals large enough to see. HIV is the
current poster child in humans, SIV in simians.
Some bacterial can also fiddle with host DNA.
.<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolbachia>
I hadn't heard of that one - thanks for the link. This is similar to
how organelles like mitochondria might have evolved from inter-cellular >bacteria.
No, everything does not have to evolve - there are lots of organisms
that have changed very little for perhaps hundreds of millions of years. >>> Horizontal transfers /can/ introduce new genes, but the /vast/ majority
of horizontal transfers are detrimental to the organism if they do
anything noticeable at all.
True, but relevance unclear. And in Biology, there is always an
asterisk or two.
You may have heard of the "immune system". One of its jobs is to
minimise virus infections - identifying and destroying virus particles,
and destroying any cells that get infected. The better an organism's
immune system (and even bacteria have immune systems to counter
viruses), the lower the opportunity for virus infections of any sort,
never mind ones that transfer genes.
Patronizing. Not effective.
To get a horizontal transfer via a virus, you need multiple things to
happen. First, the virus must infect one host's cell but make a
monumental screw-up during the infection, so that a bit of the host's
DNA gets caught up along with the virus DNA when the cell replicates the >>> virus. That happens, but it's extremely rare - and usually such
mistakes means no successful virus production. Then this modified virus >>> needs to get into another host, and have another monumental screw-up on
the part of the virus /and/ on the part of the host cell, where the DNA
fragment gets mixed with the host's DNA. And then the host cell must
eliminate the virus (so that it doesn't die by virus reproduction), and
the DNA change must be non-fatal to the cell. If this happens in the
target host's germ cells then the mutation will pass on to the next
generation (probably killing them long before they can produce
descendants of their own). Otherwise you've made either a one-off cell
change that ends with the cell's death, or a tumour.
Horizontal transfer from viruses to big animals like humans does in
fact happen, as discussed above.
As I said. It happens, but very rarely.
And even if horizontal transfers /were/ as potentially useful for
evolution in the long term as you imagine, that does not mean it
happens. You have this bizarre belief that just because something is
useful or efficient (in your eyes at least), evolution will cause it to
evolve.
Even though evolution is blind, it does seem to solve whatever problem
is presented, because that's where the most stress is.
I'd say that's a somewhat nave and unhelpful viewpoint. I'm sure you
have heard the term "survivors' bias" ? That's what happens in
evolution. Evolution does not "solve" problems. It causes gradual
changes (with /very/ occasional jumps), with a selection towards species
with more long-term success. We can look species alive now and claim
"they solved the problem", but really they are just the ones that are
lucky enough to have survived.
We can take a very over-simplified (it's missing any form of inheritance
to change long-term biases) analogy, and suppose you have a large
handful of dice and want to see which ones are good at solving the
problem of getting high scores. Roll them all, then throw out all those
that failed to get a five or a six. Take these and roll them again, and >throw out the ones to fours that "died". You are left with dice that
solved the problem and scored at least 5 consistently. In fact, the
majority of them will have had at least one 6. And note that none of
the dice was "intelligent", or knew the target characteristic or the >"problem" they were trying to "solve".
I know /you/ understand this, but Larkin does not appear to. He thinks >evolution has targets and aims, and that it picks the best way to "move >forward". If you have other ways to help him understand, then that
would be great.
Evolution does not have aims, guides, or targets. It is not intelligent >>> or guided. It does not optimise, or reach ideal solutions. It does not >>> make huge leaps to new methods just because you think these might be a
good idea. It does not always eliminate bad traits and enhance good
ones. It does not necessarily lead to the best choices or the "fittest" >>> results.
Actually, evolution does in fact optimize. Where needed. See above.
(as you say, they have
to hit egg or sperm cells - and the great majority of mutations are
either lethal or have little significant effect). But they are vital >>>>> for getting completely new features into the population. The placenta >>>>> in mammals, for example, has been traced to virus gene transfer.
As for kissing - how exactly do you think that would transfer genes?
For one, by transferring viruses. Maybe even cells.
Do you not realise how ignorant that sounds?
Ad hominem. Not effective.
Let's take an analogy that might make it simpler for you. A cell is
like an electronics board, and its genetic code is like the schematic
and pcb design for the board. Do you think you can change the designs
of the boards in some machine just by putting a different board beside
them? That's your "cells transferred by kissing" idea.
Perhaps you should bang the different boards together and see what
happens - that's the horizontal transfer. One time out of a billion you >>> might make a short-circuit, or break a track, that gives one of the
boards new characteristics that you hadn't seen before.
Compare that to taking two extremely similar designs (99% or more
match), and swapping a few corresponding sections of the schematic to
see if there is an improvement. If you've swapped something critical,
it will probably not work at all. If you've swapped some values of
filter components, maybe you'll get a slightly better filter. That is
the analogue of sexual reproduction.
Which method do /you/ think is going to be more successful?
This is a straw man argument, and deeply flawed to boot. DNA and RNA
are recipe strings, and not schematics, so the analogy fails.
It is an /analogy/. It is not a /model/.
One can use Genetic Programming to evolve circuit designs. Was
interesting, but did not turn out to be all that useful in practice.
.<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_programming>
Evolutionary Design of Digital Circuits Using Genetic Programming
.<https://arxiv.org/abs/1304.2467>
If you don't want that random brain-fart to be dismissed, you'll have to >>>>> justify why you think there is significant genetic material in spit,
Dismissed? Ideas should be played with. But I don't mind if you
instinctively attack ideas... less competition.
I offered you a chance to justify your idea before I dismissed it. It
turns out you had nothing. Good ideas are useful - but your view that
all ideas are somehow worthy for consideration is absurd. (I didn't
dismiss it out of hand - I thought about it, then dismissed it.)
People are put in prison based on the genes in a bit of spit.
Yes - so what? Do you think the DNA in someone else's spit magically
transforms you? Seriously? Do you also think that if you eat chicken,
you might sprout feathers? (Are you going to dismiss that idea out of
hand?) If a radioactive spider bites you and injects some of its DNA in >>> its saliva, is that going to turn you into a superhero? (Surely you
will play around with that idea too, to give you an edge on your
competition.)
Males kiss, as kissing the hand or ring of a king or the pope. Some
cultures kiss a lot more than we do.
And some do so less. None of that matters.
If kissing spreads disease, it would be deselected. But it's not. Same >>>> with shaking hands... spreads germs!
Kissing /does/ spread disease - as does shaking hands, and any kind of
contact. But the benefits usually outweigh the risks.
Well, to be precise, what is deselected are people who cannot handle
the close contact needed to be a species of social animal. Immune
systems also evolve to suit.
You are talking past one another. Your objectives are different, so
both can be correct, or not, independently of one another.
Joe Gwinn
People who claim to be able to innovate, but don't seem to perform, do need to be held to account. People who clearly can - like Phil Hobbs - don't bother making a fuss about the fact.
On Fri, 4 Feb 2022 09:25:41 +0100, David Brown
I know /you/ understand this, but Larkin does not appear to. He thinks
evolution has targets and aims, and that it picks the best way to "move
forward". If you have other ways to help him understand, then that
would be great.
There is an unspoken assumption here, that to understand is to
believe, and to believe is to understand. This assumption is not
correct; believing and understanding are independent of one another.
The classic poster children for this are the now-discarded theories of science. The were once both understood and believed. Then, the
replacement theory came along, and the displaced theory was still
understood, but no longer believed. Except by a few die-hards.
And lots of theories were believed before they were understood, and no
longer believed once they were understood.
You are talking past one another.
I think I would settle for helping Larkin understand the current modern theories of evolution, and enough of the biology involved for him to see
that some of his ideas do not remotely fit the evidence or have any
feasible way of working.
On Saturday, February 5, 2022 at 5:54:42 AM UTC-8, David Brown wrote:
I think I would settle for helping Larkin understand the current modern
theories of evolution, and enough of the biology involved for him to see
that some of his ideas do not remotely fit the evidence or have any
feasible way of working.
Alas, the creationists have (literally) a textbook on awkward questions to pose; until you answer all their objections (what about the missing link?) there will be no end to their chatter.
Evolution Cruncher: 928 pages of silly stuff.
On 03/02/2022 23:39, Joe Gwinn wrote:
On Wed, 2 Feb 2022 20:21:18 +0100, David Brown
<david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
On 02/02/2022 17:51, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Wed, 2 Feb 2022 16:29:53 +0100, David Brown
<david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
On 02/02/2022 14:49, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Wed, 2 Feb 2022 12:11:03 +0000, Tom Gardner
<spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
Viruses are an important vector for evolution. They are a common source >>>>> of horizontal gene transfer in microbes. Mutation or gene transfer via >>>>> viruses does not happen often in higher organisms
Are you sure of that? Horizontal transfer is a huge boost to
evolution, and everything has to evolve. Dispersion of improvements by >>>> family descent is very inefficient.
Retroviruses do in fact insert their genes into the somatic genomes of
their hosts. Some of it makes it into the germline genome over time.
Yes, indeed - but it is rare that they end up actually passing on >successfully to future generations, and rarer still that this leads to
useful new characteristics. It's a slow game!
We know this because there are lots of (usually nonfunctional) viral
genomes in the genome of all animals large enough to see. HIV is the
current poster child in humans, SIV in simians.
Some bacterial can also fiddle with host DNA.
.<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolbachia>
I hadn't heard of that one - thanks for the link. This is similar to
how organelles like mitochondria might have evolved from inter-cellular >bacteria.
No, everything does not have to evolve - there are lots of organisms
that have changed very little for perhaps hundreds of millions of years. >>> Horizontal transfers /can/ introduce new genes, but the /vast/ majority
of horizontal transfers are detrimental to the organism if they do
anything noticeable at all.
True, but relevance unclear. And in Biology, there is always an
asterisk or two.
You may have heard of the "immune system". One of its jobs is to
minimise virus infections - identifying and destroying virus particles,
and destroying any cells that get infected. The better an organism's
immune system (and even bacteria have immune systems to counter
viruses), the lower the opportunity for virus infections of any sort,
never mind ones that transfer genes.
Patronizing. Not effective.
To get a horizontal transfer via a virus, you need multiple things to
happen. First, the virus must infect one host's cell but make a
monumental screw-up during the infection, so that a bit of the host's
DNA gets caught up along with the virus DNA when the cell replicates the >>> virus. That happens, but it's extremely rare - and usually such
mistakes means no successful virus production. Then this modified virus >>> needs to get into another host, and have another monumental screw-up on
the part of the virus /and/ on the part of the host cell, where the DNA
fragment gets mixed with the host's DNA. And then the host cell must
eliminate the virus (so that it doesn't die by virus reproduction), and
the DNA change must be non-fatal to the cell. If this happens in the
target host's germ cells then the mutation will pass on to the next
generation (probably killing them long before they can produce
descendants of their own). Otherwise you've made either a one-off cell
change that ends with the cell's death, or a tumour.
Horizontal transfer from viruses to big animals like humans does in
fact happen, as discussed above.
As I said. It happens, but very rarely.
And even if horizontal transfers /were/ as potentially useful for
evolution in the long term as you imagine, that does not mean it
happens. You have this bizarre belief that just because something is
useful or efficient (in your eyes at least), evolution will cause it to
evolve.
Even though evolution is blind, it does seem to solve whatever problem
is presented, because that's where the most stress is.
I'd say that's a somewhat nave and unhelpful viewpoint. I'm sure you
have heard the term "survivors' bias" ? That's what happens in
evolution. Evolution does not "solve" problems. It causes gradual
changes (with /very/ occasional jumps), with a selection towards species
with more long-term success. We can look species alive now and claim
"they solved the problem", but really they are just the ones that are
lucky enough to have survived.
We can take a very over-simplified (it's missing any form of inheritance
to change long-term biases) analogy, and suppose you have a large
handful of dice and want to see which ones are good at solving the
problem of getting high scores. Roll them all, then throw out all those
that failed to get a five or a six. Take these and roll them again, and >throw out the ones to fours that "died". You are left with dice that
solved the problem and scored at least 5 consistently. In fact, the
majority of them will have had at least one 6. And note that none of
the dice was "intelligent", or knew the target characteristic or the >"problem" they were trying to "solve".
I know /you/ understand this, but Larkin does not appear to. He thinks >evolution has targets and aims, and that it picks the best way to "move >forward". If you have other ways to help him understand, then that
would be great.
On 04/02/2022 18:20, Joe Gwinn wrote:
On Fri, 4 Feb 2022 09:25:41 +0100, David Brown
I know /you/ understand this, but Larkin does not appear to. He thinks
evolution has targets and aims, and that it picks the best way to "move
forward". If you have other ways to help him understand, then that
would be great.
There is an unspoken assumption here, that to understand is to
believe, and to believe is to understand. This assumption is not
correct; believing and understanding are independent of one another.
The classic poster children for this are the now-discarded theories of
science. The were once both understood and believed. Then, the
replacement theory came along, and the displaced theory was still
understood, but no longer believed. Except by a few die-hards.
And lots of theories were believed before they were understood, and no
longer believed once they were understood.
That is an interesting and useful distinction.
However, you should also include an understanding of the limits of a >scientific theory, and an understanding of the limits of the scientific >process (i.e., everything is "to the limits of our current knowledge,
based on the evidence we currently have" and subject to being proven
wrong or inaccurate by new evidence in the future). You must also
include an understanding of your own personal limits to understanding -
while appreciating that others understand it.
Then there is no need for "believe" to be involved.
Thus I understand the Newtonian model of gravity. I understand its
limits - it gives an excellent approximation for a lot of use-cases, but >fails to match experimental evidence and observation in others. I don't >understand general relativity - I have not studied it enough, though I
do understand some parts of it. However, I understand that it is the
current best model we have for gravity, I understand that it too has its >limitations and open questions, and that theoretical physicists are >investigating alternatives or modifications. (Science progresses.)
I don't see where "belief" fits in there. I don't "believe" in
relativity - I /understand/ that it is the current best theory of
gravity. When someone figures out a theory that fits the evidence
better, I'll try to understand that (or more likely, settle for
understanding that others understand it).
Belief can be left for the parts for which we - as a community - have no >understanding. Will the next big theory of gravity be based on string >theory, modified Newtonian gravity, dark energy, or something else? I
can belief modified Newtonian gravity makes more sense and is the likely >candidate, but it is inevitably speculation. Once there is scientific >understanding, there are quantitative measurements and predictions, and >belief is not necessary.
Identifying what someone else believes or understands is always
speculative, especially in a medium like Usenet where posts don't give
the full picture.
I think I would settle for helping Larkin understand the current modern >theories of evolution, and enough of the biology involved for him to see
that some of his ideas do not remotely fit the evidence or have any
feasible way of working.
You are talking past one another.
You are probably right.
On Sat, 5 Feb 2022 14:54:31 +0100, David Brown <david...@hesbynett.no> wrote:
On 04/02/2022 18:20, Joe Gwinn wrote:
On Fri, 4 Feb 2022 09:25:41 +0100, David Brown
One traditional approach is simply to ask, and then listen.
I think I would settle for helping Larkin understand the current modern >theories of evolution, and enough of the biology involved for him to see >that some of his ideas do not remotely fit the evidence or have any >feasible way of working.
Do we know that Larkin does not know this (regardless of belief or its lack)?
On Sat, 5 Feb 2022 14:54:31 +0100, David Brown
<david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
On 04/02/2022 18:20, Joe Gwinn wrote:
On Fri, 4 Feb 2022 09:25:41 +0100, David Brown
I know /you/ understand this, but Larkin does not appear to. He thinks >>>> evolution has targets and aims, and that it picks the best way to "move >>>> forward". If you have other ways to help him understand, then that
would be great.
There is an unspoken assumption here, that to understand is to
believe, and to believe is to understand. This assumption is not
correct; believing and understanding are independent of one another.
The classic poster children for this are the now-discarded theories of
science. The were once both understood and believed. Then, the
replacement theory came along, and the displaced theory was still
understood, but no longer believed. Except by a few die-hards.
And lots of theories were believed before they were understood, and no
longer believed once they were understood.
That is an interesting and useful distinction.
Thanks.
However, you should also include an understanding of the limits of a >>scientific theory, and an understanding of the limits of the scientific >>process (i.e., everything is "to the limits of our current knowledge,
based on the evidence we currently have" and subject to being proven
wrong or inaccurate by new evidence in the future). You must also
include an understanding of your own personal limits to understanding - >>while appreciating that others understand it.
While generally true, this sounds awfully clumsy to be saying that
after each and every sentence. And the audience will soon wander off.
Then there is no need for "believe" to be involved.
Really? We don't generally assert something as true unless we believe
that thing to be true. Or more to the point, in Law if we assert as
true material (=important) things that we know to be untrue, we are
guilty of a felony.
Thus I understand the Newtonian model of gravity. I understand its
limits - it gives an excellent approximation for a lot of use-cases, but >>fails to match experimental evidence and observation in others. I don't >>understand general relativity - I have not studied it enough, though I
do understand some parts of it. However, I understand that it is the >>current best model we have for gravity, I understand that it too has its >>limitations and open questions, and that theoretical physicists are >>investigating alternatives or modifications. (Science progresses.)
I don't see where "belief" fits in there. I don't "believe" in
relativity - I /understand/ that it is the current best theory of
gravity. When someone figures out a theory that fits the evidence
better, I'll try to understand that (or more likely, settle for >>understanding that others understand it).
Belief can be left for the parts for which we - as a community - have no >>understanding. Will the next big theory of gravity be based on string >>theory, modified Newtonian gravity, dark energy, or something else? I
can belief modified Newtonian gravity makes more sense and is the likely >>candidate, but it is inevitably speculation. Once there is scientific >>understanding, there are quantitative measurements and predictions, and >>belief is not necessary.
That's a lot of hairsplitting to avoid a standard, well-understood
word.
Ultimately one judges which theories one feels are most likely
correct. One can describe this as belief in those theories, or choose
an equivalent term.
Identifying what someone else believes or understands is always >>speculative, especially in a medium like Usenet where posts don't give
the full picture.
One traditional approach is simply to ask, and then listen.
I think I would settle for helping Larkin understand the current modern >>theories of evolution, and enough of the biology involved for him to see >>that some of his ideas do not remotely fit the evidence or have any >>feasible way of working.
Do we know that Larkin does not know this (regardless of belief or its
lack)?
You are talking past one another.
You are probably right.
I believe so. QED.
Joe Gwinn
On Sat, 5 Feb 2022 14:54:31 +0100, David Brown
<david...@hesbynett.no> wrote:
On 04/02/2022 18:20, Joe Gwinn wrote:
On Fri, 4 Feb 2022 09:25:41 +0100, David Brown
I know /you/ understand this, but Larkin does not appear to. He thinks >>> evolution has targets and aims, and that it picks the best way to "move >>> forward". If you have other ways to help him understand, then that
would be great.
There is an unspoken assumption here, that to understand is to
believe, and to believe is to understand. This assumption is not
correct; believing and understanding are independent of one another.
The classic poster children for this are the now-discarded theories of
science. The were once both understood and believed. Then, the
replacement theory came along, and the displaced theory was still
understood, but no longer believed. Except by a few die-hards.
And lots of theories were believed before they were understood, and no
longer believed once they were understood.
That is an interesting and useful distinction.Thanks.
However, you should also include an understanding of the limits of a >scientific theory, and an understanding of the limits of the scientific >process (i.e., everything is "to the limits of our current knowledge,
based on the evidence we currently have" and subject to being proven
wrong or inaccurate by new evidence in the future).
Then there is no need for "believe" to be involved.
Really? We don't generally assert something as true unless we believe
that thing to be true.
. Once there is scientificThat's a lot of hairsplitting to avoid a standard, well-understood
understanding, there are quantitative measurements and predictions, and >belief is not necessary.
word.
On Sat, 05 Feb 2022 19:59:47 -0500, Joe Gwinn <joeg...@comcast.net> wrote: >On Sat, 5 Feb 2022 14:54:31 +0100, David Brown <david...@hesbynett.no> wrote:
On 04/02/2022 18:20, Joe Gwinn wrote:
On Fri, 4 Feb 2022 09:25:41 +0100, David Brown
Some people are in the possibilities business. Some are in the impossibilities business.
Until we understand everything, things are still possible.
On Saturday, February 5, 2022 at 5:00:05 PM UTC-8, Joe Gwinn wrote:
On Sat, 5 Feb 2022 14:54:31 +0100, David Brown
However, you should also include an understanding of the limits of a >scientific theory, and an understanding of the limits of the scientific >process (i.e., everything is "to the limits of our current knowledge, >based on the evidence we currently have" and subject to being proven >wrong or inaccurate by new evidence in the future).
Then there is no need for "believe" to be involved.
Really? We don't generally assert something as true unless we believeNot well-understood at all, but a loaded word which will trigger
that thing to be true.
. Once there is scientificThat's a lot of hairsplitting to avoid a standard, well-understood
understanding, there are quantitative measurements and predictions, and >belief is not necessary.
word.
outrage and/or religious terms like 'dogma'. The word has
ambiguities built in, and there's no way to defuse it.
It's loaded, like a loaded cigar: it explodes.
On Saturday, February 5, 2022 at 10:17:14 PM UTC-5, whit3rd wrote:
On Saturday, February 5, 2022 at 5:00:05 PM UTC-8, Joe Gwinn wrote:
On Sat, 5 Feb 2022 14:54:31 +0100, David Brown
However, you should also include an understanding of the limits of a >scientific theory, and an understanding of the limits of the scientific >process (i.e., everything is "to the limits of our current knowledge, >based on the evidence we currently have" and subject to being proven >wrong or inaccurate by new evidence in the future).
Then there is no need for "believe" to be involved.
Really? We don't generally assert something as true unless we believe that thing to be true.Not well-understood at all, but a loaded word which will trigger
. Once there is scientificThat's a lot of hairsplitting to avoid a standard, well-understood
understanding, there are quantitative measurements and predictions, and >belief is not necessary.
word.
outrage and/or religious terms like 'dogma'. The word has
ambiguities built in, and there's no way to defuse it.
It's loaded, like a loaded cigar: it explodes.
The fallacy in this logic is the assumption that for any given matter, science has enough information to actually "understand" the matter or to make accurate predictions.
I have come to realize for some time that there actually is virtually nothing that is hard, solid logical science, but rather that there is always some amount of "belief" or emotion involved. Scientists tie their emotions to logic, so when they thinkthey are evaluating logically, they are actually evaluating by emotion that is tied to logic.
So, when the logic is not quite rock solid and there is any degree of interpretation, the illogical aspect of emotion can leak in and corrupt the science.
Even Einstein said he didn't believe quantum mechanics because, "God doesn't play dice with the universe". That was pure emotion and no logic at all.
Of course this can be used inappropriately to refute every part of science by those who have ulterior motives. That has nothing to do with science other than the fact that it is a weakness of science, that it can be attacked as untrue because it is notperfect.
When it comes to judging perfection, who will cast the first stone?
On Saturday, February 5, 2022 at 10:17:14 PM UTC-5, whit3rd wrote:
On Saturday, February 5, 2022 at 5:00:05 PM UTC-8, Joe Gwinn
wrote:
On Sat, 5 Feb 2022 14:54:31 +0100, David Brown
However, you should also include an understanding of the limits
of a scientific theory, and an understanding of the limits of
the scientific process (i.e., everything is "to the limits of
our current knowledge, based on the evidence we currently have"
and subject to being proven wrong or inaccurate by new evidence
in the future). Then there is no need for "believe" to be
involved.
Really? We don't generally assert something as true unless we
believe that thing to be true.
Not well-understood at all, but a loaded word which will trigger. Once there is scientific understanding, there areThat's a lot of hairsplitting to avoid a standard,
quantitative measurements and predictions, and belief is not
necessary.
well-understood word.
outrage and/or religious terms like 'dogma'. The word has
ambiguities built in, and there's no way to defuse it.
It's loaded, like a loaded cigar: it explodes.
The fallacy in this logic is the assumption that for any given
matter, science has enough information to actually "understand" the
matter or to make accurate predictions.
I have come to realize for some time that there actually is virtually
nothing that is hard, solid logical science, but rather that there is
always some amount of "belief" or emotion involved. Scientists tie
their emotions to logic, so when they think they are evaluating
logically, they are actually evaluating by emotion that is tied to
logic. So, when the logic is not quite rock solid and there is any
degree of interpretation, the illogical aspect of emotion can leak in
and corrupt the science.
Even Einstein said he didn't believe quantum mechanics because, "God
doesn't play dice with the universe". That was pure emotion and no
logic at all.
Of course this can be used inappropriately to refute every part of
science by those who have ulterior motives. That has nothing to do
with science other than the fact that it is a weakness of science,
that it can be attacked as untrue because it is not perfect.
When it comes to judging perfection, who will cast the first stone?
On Sat, 5 Feb 2022 14:54:31 +0100, David Brown
<david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
On 04/02/2022 18:20, Joe Gwinn wrote:
You are talking past one another.
You are probably right.
I believe so. QED.
Until we understand everything, things are still possible.
On 06/02/2022 02:50, John Larkin wrote:
Until we understand everything, things are still possible.
/Some/ things are possible. Other things are impossible. That is true >regardless of how much or how little you or anyone else understands.
It is good to keep an open mind - but not /so/ open that your brains
dribble out.
On Sun, 6 Feb 2022 15:45:24 +0100, David Brown
<david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
On 06/02/2022 02:50, John Larkin wrote:
Until we understand everything, things are still possible.
/Some/ things are possible. Other things are impossible. That is true
regardless of how much or how little you or anyone else understands.
It is good to keep an open mind - but not /so/ open that your brains
dribble out.
Neo-Darwinism is at its core agressively anti-theological, so it
fights any hints of complexity beyond random selection and mutation,
lest it drift even slightly in the direction of cause in nature.
This interests me because it is yet another example of tribal beliefs blocking thinking and discovery.
Jumping genes, junk DNA, epigenetics, horizontal gene transfer, are
all post-Darwin effects; some took 50 years to be accepted. There are
surely more.
On 06/02/2022 17:15, John Larkin wrote:
On Sun, 6 Feb 2022 15:45:24 +0100, David Brown
<david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
On 06/02/2022 02:50, John Larkin wrote:
Until we understand everything, things are still possible.
/Some/ things are possible. Other things are impossible. That is true
regardless of how much or how little you or anyone else understands.
It is good to keep an open mind - but not /so/ open that your brains
dribble out.
Neo-Darwinism is at its core agressively anti-theological, so it
fights any hints of complexity beyond random selection and mutation,
lest it drift even slightly in the direction of cause in nature.
"Neo-Darwinism" is a term used by people who don't understand the
scientific view of evolution, and prefer something invoking an
"intelligent designer" (i.e., one or more gods).
Science does not "fight" anything, except perhaps ignorance. If someone
were to provide evidence that there was a direction, planning, or >intelligence of some sort behind evolution as seen on earth, then
scientists would accept that as proof that the current theories are
wrong (or at least incomplete and inaccurate), and be forced to come up
with something new that fits all the old evidence and the new evidence.
Scientists love doing that. Good scientists like to be proven wrong,
because they understand that's how science progresses. /All/ scientists >enjoy being able to prove other scientists and existing theories wrong.
Lots of people have tried to find evidence of direction or goals in >evolution. That includes laymen, scientists, theologians, and many
others. None have found anything.
And no, neither science in general nor evolutionary biology in
particular have any "anti-theological" agenda. Science simply doesn't
care. There is no proof for a god of any sort, no need to introduce one
in any theory, and no reason to think about one. They are not >"anti-theological" any more than they are "anti-pink-unicorns". Some >individual scientists may be anti-religion, or outspoken pro-atheist,
just as some are highly religious. But that's a personal thing, not a >science thing. (Anyone who argues that science disproves the existence
of god or gods is as wrong as those who argue that science /proves/
their existence.)
This interests me because it is yet another example of tribal beliefs
blocking thinking and discovery.
Take a look in the mirror, and try to see who /really/ has tribal
beliefs that misunderstand science.
Jumping genes, junk DNA, epigenetics, horizontal gene transfer, are
all post-Darwin effects; some took 50 years to be accepted. There are
surely more.
Sure. No one is claiming that we have a /full/ understanding of
biology, either present biology or its history through the ages.
Scientists love doing that. Good scientists like to be proven wrong,
because they understand that's how science progresses. /All/ scientists enjoy being able to prove other scientists and existing theories wrong.
On Sun, 6 Feb 2022 15:45:24 +0100, David Brown
<david...@hesbynett.no> wrote:
On 06/02/2022 02:50, John Larkin wrote:
Until we understand everything, things are still possible.
/Some/ things are possible. Other things are impossible. That is true >regardless of how much or how little you or anyone else understands.
It is good to keep an open mind - but not /so/ open that your brains >dribble out.Neo-Darwinism is at its core agressively anti-theological,
On Sun, 6 Feb 2022 18:44:14 +0100, David Brown
<david...@hesbynett.no> wrote:
On 06/02/2022 17:15, John Larkin wrote:
On Sun, 6 Feb 2022 15:45:24 +0100, David Brown
<david...@hesbynett.no> wrote:
On 06/02/2022 02:50, John Larkin wrote:
Until we understand everything, things are still possible.
/Some/ things are possible. Other things are impossible. That is true >>> regardless of how much or how little you or anyone else understands.
It is good to keep an open mind - but not /so/ open that your brains
dribble out.
Neo-Darwinism is at its core agressively anti-theological, so it
fights any hints of complexity beyond random selection and mutation,
lest it drift even slightly in the direction of cause in nature.
"Neo-Darwinism" is a term used by people who don't understand the >scientific view of evolution, and prefer something invoking an >"intelligent designer" (i.e., one or more gods).
Science does not "fight" anything, except perhaps ignorance. If someone >were to provide evidence that there was a direction, planning, or >intelligence of some sort behind evolution as seen on earth, then >scientists would accept that as proof that the current theories are
wrong (or at least incomplete and inaccurate), and be forced to come up >with something new that fits all the old evidence and the new evidence.
Scientists love doing that. Good scientists like to be proven wrong, >because they understand that's how science progresses. /All/ scientists >enjoy being able to prove other scientists and existing theories wrong. Absolutely not. Science is mostly social, and establishments resistnew ideas.
Try "Finding The Mother Tree."
Lots of people have tried to find evidence of direction or goals in >evolution. That includes laymen, scientists, theologians, and many
others. None have found anything.
And no, neither science in general nor evolutionary biology in
particular have any "anti-theological" agenda. Science simply doesn't >care. There is no proof for a god of any sort, no need to introduce one
in any theory, and no reason to think about one. They are not >"anti-theological" any more than they are "anti-pink-unicorns". Some >individual scientists may be anti-religion, or outspoken pro-atheist,
just as some are highly religious. But that's a personal thing, not a >science thing. (Anyone who argues that science disproves the existence
of god or gods is as wrong as those who argue that science /proves/
their existence.)
This interests me because it is yet another example of tribal beliefs
blocking thinking and discovery.
Take a look in the mirror, and try to see who /really/ has tribalI appear alone in a mirror. I belong to no tribe.
beliefs that misunderstand science.
That's one reason why I design things.
Jumping genes, junk DNA, epigenetics, horizontal gene transfer, are
all post-Darwin effects; some took 50 years to be accepted. There are
surely more.
Sure. No one is claiming that we have a /full/ understanding ofThan leave room for new ideas.
biology, either present biology or its history through the ages.
On Sun, 6 Feb 2022 18:44:14 +0100, David Brown
<david...@hesbynett.no> wrote:
On 06/02/2022 17:15, John Larkin wrote:
Neo-Darwinism is at its core agressively anti-theological, so it
fights any hints of complexity beyond random selection and mutation,
lest it drift even slightly in the direction of cause in nature.
"Neo-Darwinism" is a term used by people who don't understand the >scientific view of evolution, and prefer something invoking an
"intelligent designer" (i.e., one or more gods).
Science does not "fight" anything, except perhaps ignorance.
...Good scientists like to be proven wrong,
because they understand that's how science progresses. /All/ scientists >enjoy being able to prove other scientists and existing theories wrong.
Absolutely not. Science is mostly social, and establishments resist
new ideas.
On Sun, 6 Feb 2022 15:45:24 +0100, David Brown
<david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
On 06/02/2022 02:50, John Larkin wrote:
Until we understand everything, things are still possible.
/Some/ things are possible. Other things are impossible. That is true
regardless of how much or how little you or anyone else understands.
It is good to keep an open mind - but not /so/ open that your brains
dribble out.
Neo-Darwinism is at its core agressively anti-theological,
I wonder whether John's response, if any, will be akin to
"all crows are black birds, so all black birds are crows".
On Sun, 6 Feb 2022 18:44:14 +0100, David Brown <david...@hesbynett.no> wrote:
On 06/02/2022 17:15, John Larkin wrote:
On Sun, 6 Feb 2022 15:45:24 +0100, David Brown
<david...@hesbynett.no> wrote:
On 06/02/2022 02:50, John Larkin wrote:
Until we understand everything, things are still possible.
/Some/ things are possible. Other things are impossible. That is true >>> regardless of how much or how little you or anyone else understands.
It is good to keep an open mind - but not /so/ open that your brains
dribble out.
Neo-Darwinism is at its core aggressively anti-theological, so it
fights any hints of complexity beyond random selection and mutation,
lest it drift even slightly in the direction of cause in nature.
"Neo-Darwinism" is a term used by people who don't understand the >scientific view of evolution, and prefer something invoking an >"intelligent designer" (i.e., one or more gods).
Science does not "fight" anything, except perhaps ignorance. If someone >were to provide evidence that there was a direction, planning, or >intelligence of some sort behind evolution as seen on earth, then >scientists would accept that as proof that the current theories are
wrong (or at least incomplete and inaccurate), and be forced to come up >with something new that fits all the old evidence and the new evidence.
Scientists love doing that. Good scientists like to be proven wrong, >because they understand that's how science progresses. /All/ scientists >enjoy being able to prove other scientists and existing theories wrong.
Absolutely not. Science is mostly social, and establishments resist
new ideas.
Try "Finding The Mother Tree."
one. They are not "anti-theological" any more than they are "anti-pink-unicorns". Some individual scientists may be anti-religion, or outspoken pro-atheist, just as some are highly religious. But that's a personal thing, not a science thing. (Anyone whoLots of people have tried to find evidence of direction or goals in evolution. That includes laymen, scientists, theologians, and many
others. None have found anything.
And no, neither science in general nor evolutionary biology in particular have any "anti-theological" agenda. Science simply doesn't care. There is no proof for a god of any sort, no need to introduce one in any theory, and no reason to think about
This interests me because it is yet another example of tribal beliefs blocking thinking and discovery.
Take a look in the mirror, and try to see who /really/ has tribal beliefs that misunderstand science.
I appear alone in a mirror. I belong to no tribe.
That's one reason why I design things.
Jumping genes, junk DNA, epigenetics, horizontal gene transfer, are all post-Darwin effects; some took 50 years to be accepted. There are surely more.
Sure. No one is claiming that we have a /full/ understanding of biology, either present biology or its history through the ages.
Than leave room for new ideas.
On Monday, February 7, 2022 at 4:52:47 AM UTC+11, John Larkin wrote:
Than leave room for new ideas.
But lay off posting bad ideas that have long since been exploded. That would meaning learning a bit more about the subject, so you could recognise bad old ideas and not waste our time telling us about them
On 06/02/2022 01:59, Joe Gwinn wrote:
On Sat, 5 Feb 2022 14:54:31 +0100, David Brown
<david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
On 04/02/2022 18:20, Joe Gwinn wrote:
You are talking past one another.
You are probably right.
I believe so. QED.
You are an unusually patient, calm and diplomatic poster. What are you
doing in this group? :-)
The test of understanding is the ability fairly state the argument of
an opponent, as judged by that opponent.
On 08/02/22 01:40, Joe Gwinn wrote:
The test of understanding is the ability fairly state the
argument of an opponent, as judged by that opponent.
That is a very valuable skill in all sorts of areas, including
negotiating sales and conflict resolution - and warfare.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 230 |
| Nodes: | 16 (3 / 13) |
| Uptime: | 54:15:30 |
| Calls: | 4,916 |
| Calls today: | 13 |
| Files: | 11,508 |
| Messages: | 3,972,285 |
| Posted today: | 1 |
