Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: JoeBloe on 24 Oct 2006 22:37 On 24 Oct 2006 06:32:01 -0700, "Radial" <radisha00(a)hotmail.com> Gave us: >I got a response. Firstly, I had to id names of people I knew who were >in the security services. They wanted to check my connections, my >validity and legitimacy. Nationality was not important though country >of operation and area of expertise clearly was. There is someone at >the other end who is playing a joke but also being serious. The joke is on you. You ARE the joke. What a joke, you are.
From: lucasea on 24 Oct 2006 23:07 "John Larkin" <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message news:3g2tj2lhua1fap95hmds1gr987qu2vo90f(a)4ax.com... > > My only real suggestion here has been that evolution should be able to > optimize evolution itself: evolution evolves. And the implications of > that are manifold, and lead to some ideas that produce some > interestingly hostile reactions. Interesting thought. My first response is to ask what you propose as the mechanism for that. Evolution is so passive, that it's hard to imagine any form of active control. There are two possible points of control that I see--the mutation rate, and the survivability advantage due to any particular mutation. As I understand it, mutations are based on 3 general chemistries: 1) photochemistry of nucleobases, 2) O2 (and other free-radical) chemistry of nucleobases, and 3) simple mis-transcription. I do not know in what proportions these mix. It's not clear how the first two can be manipulated without a sweeping change, for example to other nucleobases besides ACGT. All three are subject to repair mechanisms in the body of the lifeform, and this might be one point of active control over the rate of evolution. Finally, it's not clear how evolution would exert any control over the survivability advantage of a particular mutation, since the mutations are supposed to be, by definition, random. However, it is possible that evolution has already selected for some sort of optimum rate of evolution. Considering there are probably billions of mutations for every one mutation that is "productive", and considering that a mutation probably has a far, far greater chance of causing damage than good, there will be a limit to how fast productive mutations can crop up, without having so many catastrophic mutations that the species simply cannot survive. If an organism mutates at too rapid a rate, it simply won't even survive one generation because it will likely encounter so many destructive mutations. This may be how we have evolved a DNA repair mechanism, and the evolved need to have some rate of uncorrected mutations may have set limits on the effectiveness of that repair mechanism. This then sets an upper limit on the rate of "productive evolution". In order to assess this against the actual rate of evolution, it would take some serious attempts at estimating the productive mutation-to-total mutation ratio, as well as the destructive mutation-to-total mutation ratio. Both of these would probably also have to take account of the *degree* of constructiveness or destructiveness of a particular mutation--so that a mutation that instantly kills the organism is counted as being far more influential than one that slightly decreases the chances that an offspring several generations hence will reach child-rearing age. Considering, however, that I believe current thought is that evolution happens by punctuated equilibrium, it would be difficult to assess the long-term average rate of productive mutations to assess any such attempt to quantitate the "maximum plausible rate of evolution." Anyway, it is an interesting thought, and one that I have not heard biologists address. Eric Lucas
From: Jonathan Kirwan on 25 Oct 2006 00:08 On Tue, 24 Oct 2006 19:23:00 -0700, John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >On Tue, 24 Oct 2006 17:47:01 +0100, "T Wake" ><usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > >>For every hundred thousand crackpot ideas there is one brilliant one. How >>should people react to new ideas? > >By *thinking* about them! When given some reason to. Jon
From: John Larkin on 25 Oct 2006 00:13 On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 03:07:31 GMT, <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > >"John Larkin" <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message >news:3g2tj2lhua1fap95hmds1gr987qu2vo90f(a)4ax.com... >> >> My only real suggestion here has been that evolution should be able to >> optimize evolution itself: evolution evolves. And the implications of >> that are manifold, and lead to some ideas that produce some >> interestingly hostile reactions. > >Interesting thought. My first response is to ask what you propose as the >mechanism for that. Mutation and natural selection, of course. If that was enough to give us kidneys and eyeballs and brains, it's surely enough to fine-tune the hardware of evolution itself. >Evolution is so passive, that it's hard to imagine any >form of active control. Circular argument. Try imagining. >There are two possible points of control that I >see--the mutation rate, and the survivability advantage due to any >particular mutation. As I understand it, mutations are based on 3 general >chemistries: 1) photochemistry of nucleobases, 2) O2 (and other >free-radical) chemistry of nucleobases, and 3) simple mis-transcription. I >do not know in what proportions these mix. It's not clear how the first two >can be manipulated without a sweeping change, for example to other >nucleobases besides ACGT. All three are subject to repair mechanisms in the >body of the lifeform, and this might be one point of active control over the >rate of evolution. Yes, that's basic. The natural mutation rate is too high, and most mutations are too destructive, so repair mechanisms evolve to optimize the mutation rate. Evolution begins to manage itself. The optimum "crude" mutation rate, the rate of gross random damage to DNA by means of radiation and such, may well be zero. There are better ways to shuffle cards than by blasting the deck with a shotgun. >Finally, it's not clear how evolution would exert any >control over the survivability advantage of a particular mutation, since the >mutations are supposed to be, by definition, random. That definition is dogma. DNA may have better ideas. Species that evolve better will, err, evolve better, won't they? You can't argue with that sort of reasoning. >However, it is possible that evolution has already selected for some sort of >optimum rate of evolution. Considering there are probably billions of >mutations for every one mutation that is "productive", and considering that >a mutation probably has a far, far greater chance of causing damage than >good, there will be a limit to how fast productive mutations can crop up, >without having so many catastrophic mutations that the species simply cannot >survive. If an organism mutates at too rapid a rate, it simply won't even >survive one generation because it will likely encounter so many destructive >mutations. This may be how we have evolved a DNA repair mechanism, and the >evolved need to have some rate of uncorrected mutations may have set limits >on the effectiveness of that repair mechanism. This then sets an upper >limit on the rate of "productive evolution". It may also be that evolution should lowpass filter the selection environment. A few cold winters, or a few millenia of ice age, should not make us adapt too well to cold if the adaptation will kill us when it gets warm. > In order to assess this >against the actual rate of evolution, it would take some serious attempts at >estimating the productive mutation-to-total mutation ratio, as well as the >destructive mutation-to-total mutation ratio. Both of these would probably >also have to take account of the *degree* of constructiveness or >destructiveness of a particular mutation--so that a mutation that instantly >kills the organism is counted as being far more influential than one that >slightly decreases the chances that an offspring several generations hence >will reach child-rearing age. Considering, however, that I believe current >thought is that evolution happens by punctuated equilibrium, it would be >difficult to assess the long-term average rate of productive mutations to >assess any such attempt to quantitate the "maximum plausible rate of >evolution." I think there is some evidence, at least in bacteria, that the mutation rate increases in times of stress. That would be another self-optimization: take risks when necessary. There are potentially many more. If you believe in evolution, it seems to me that you must believe that evolution works to optimize the mechanisms of evolution itself, rather than sticking to the passive random mutation/selection model. It further seems to me that that course is imperative as long as it's not physically impossible, and so long as it has adaptive advantages. I believe in evolution. > >Anyway, it is an interesting thought, and one that I have not heard >biologists address. > Thank you for thinking with me. This is the first time anyone here has tried. John
From: Haude Daniel on 25 Oct 2006 03:13
In article <49esj2l46b3mbf9ufjg7d6d886j4ag2lh6(a)4ax.com>, John Larkin wrote: > I keep telling the kids that they're not lazy enough. They get a > problem, conceive a solution, and plow in with enormous energy to > implement it. I look at a problem, consider various solutions, and > keep rejecting the ones that look like too much work, until I come > across some core simplicity that makes it easy. Or I change the rules, > ditto. Same here. I sometimes procrastinate for days while working on a difficult design. The ideas are all there, they just need to ferment a while (that's what I call it. My colleagues, especially the Japanese guy who is constantly on the brink of dying from overwork, think I'm a bit funny but they all have high regard for my designs). Recently I did a new mechanical design, lots of well-fermented ideas and all, and the parts just came back from the machine shop. A real engineeering gem, if I may say so, and works like a charm. However, while waiting for the shop to finish I suddenly hatched a completely new design that definetely solves the problem that the current model is only hoped to solve *) in a completely different, more elegant way. Fewer parts and easier to manufacture to boot. Colleagues ask me why I didn't design it that way in the first place. Answer, I couldn't possibly have done it without first doing the other thing. I just wasn't there yet. BTW, I'm neither a mechanical nor an electrical engineer. I'm a physicist with an engineering streak which, by now, exceeds my interest in scientific work. But since I only work among scientists and not engineers, my stuff may seem to be a bit more ingenious than it actually is. It's definetely better than what's on the (very small and limited) market, which is of course also mostly designed by physicists and not engineers. But who cares. I certainly don't. Among the blind, the one-eyed is king. --Daniel *) We'll see when the thing is down the cryostat in UHV. |