New Book of Rules
in [Design]
|
From: bill.sloman on 22 Aug 2006 19:15 Don Bowey wrote: > On 8/22/06 10:56 AM, in article > 1156269402.840288.265310(a)i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com, > "bill.sloman(a)ieee.org" <bill.sloman(a)ieee.org> wrote: > > > > > Don Bowey wrote: > >> On 8/21/06 4:47 PM, in article > >> 1156204048.216414.89540(a)m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com, "bill.sloman(a)ieee.org" > >> <bill.sloman(a)ieee.org> wrote: > >> > >>> > >>> Don Bowey wrote: > >>>> On 8/21/06 6:26 AM, in article > >>>> 1156166772.487083.135740(a)i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com, > >>>> "bill.sloman(a)ieee.org" > >>>> <bill.sloman(a)ieee.org> wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> John Woodgate wrote: > >>>>>> In message <1156123089.816396.92340(a)75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, dated > >>>>>> Sun, 20 Aug 2006, bill.sloman(a)ieee.org writes <snip> > > Nice to see how you have gratefully taken advantage of what you > > perceive as a shift in topic to excuse yourself from responding. The > > "no thanks" is disingenuous. > > My perception also tells me you are a troll. This whole thread is a fabric of trolling and troll-baiting. > If I do not care to take part in a shifted topic that is my option > and I don't care about your thought on > it except to say that you presume too much. You don't care for my thoughts on it, and you can't think up a snappy anwer, so you retreat in pompous huff. > > SETI is neither science fiction nor fantasy - you may not like it, but > > it is respectable science. > > So what!? It has nothing to do with the topic. In your opinion. > Go talk with yourself about it, or start a new thread. Considering how ridiculously long and widely diversified this thread is, that really is disingenuous. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
From: Rich Grise on 22 Aug 2006 20:36 On Tue, 22 Aug 2006 07:51:40 -0700, John Larkin wrote: > On Tue, 22 Aug 2006 07:45:07 +0100, John Woodgate >>Aug 2006, John Larkin <jjSNIPlarkin(a)highTHISlandtechnology.com> writes >> >>>The poor quality and huge computational requirements sort of make my >>>case. >> >>All that they show is that we are not very good at it --- YET. >> >>>And random mutation and selection are really only useful for making >>>incremental changes - microevolution - not for designing radically new >>>architectures - macroevolution. >> >>'Macroevolution' is a straw man. Evolution progresses by SMALL steps >>over a LONG time. The rate does vary widely, but the speed (obviously, >>if you think about it) has to be measured in GENERATIONS of the organism >>involved, not in physical time. > > > You can't possibly know that, and there's no real evidence for it. The > fossil record is astonishingly sparse of missing links. Maybe that's > why they're called "missing." > > Your statement is Neo-Darwinian dogma without a scientific basis. Some > "scientific" truisms (male/female intellectual differences, the > concept of race, heritability of experience) are not allowed to be > considered. Some day we'll know. > It seems there's way too many ideas that are not allowed to be considered these days. :-/ Thanks, Rich
From: John Larkin on 22 Aug 2006 21:49 On Tue, 22 Aug 2006 16:37:13 +0100, John Woodgate <jmw(a)jmwa.demon.co.uk> wrote: >In message <c36me2904lsoj3m69790mn8j5kvn559sp6(a)4ax.com>, dated Tue, 22 >Aug 2006, John Larkin <jjSNIPlarkin(a)highTHISlandtechnology.com> writes > >>You can't possibly know that, and there's no real evidence for it. > >The point is that there is not only no evidence for macroevolution, >there is no way that it can occur, as you said! Are you now claiming >that it does occur? Well, there's no fossil evidence for most families and genera. There's no half-whale fossil, no half-fish fossil. If there is no macroevolution, and everything evolves slowly in tiny increments, there should be many more intermediate forms. Some things must ocurr suddenly, with many changes happening almost simultaneously, to make a bird out of a reptile. None of the major changes provided selective advantage alone; quite the contrary. > >> The fossil record is astonishingly sparse of missing links. Maybe >>that's why they're called "missing." > >That's just trite. There are millions of links; whenever an intermediate >form is discovered, the media call it a 'missing link'. It's to a >scientific term. >> >>Your statement is Neo-Darwinian dogma without a scientific basis. > >Can you prove that ? It's not my duty to prove Darwinian evolution false; It's science's duty to prove it true. So far, nobody has. It's still a fuzzy but heavily defended theory. > >>Some "scientific" truisms (male/female intellectual differences, the >>concept of race, > >What are you doing now? Setting up more straw men? I don't deny either >of those things and nor do the majority of scientists. Value judgements >based on them are bad, but they are nothing to do with science. No straw man, just an observation that science often has dogmatic fads, and they are sometimes proved wrong. > >>heritability of experience) are not allowed to be considered. Some day >>we'll know. > >Heritability of experience is ill-defined. Exposure to physical or >chemical agents may be heritable through epigenetic channels. But there >is no way that intellectual experience can be heritable. There is some evidence that immune-system attacks can produce heritable immune responses. It certainly makes sense that they should. But how can you claim that "there is no way that intellectual experience can be heritable"? Since there's no hard evidence that's it's impossible, why do you say it's impossible? Sounds like dogma again. How does a turtle egg know which island its parents came from? Is the navigational map purely the result of mutation and selection? Wouldn't there be a huge selective advantage to discovering a new, better island and depositing *that* map into the eggs? Why wouldn't something like mathematical training be passed on to future generations if it were useful? My general position is that DNA is algorithmically complex enough to employ virtually any mechanisms that aren't in violation of first principles. Why wouldn't it? People tend to not discover (or design!) things that they believe to be impossible. John
From: Homer J Simpson on 23 Aug 2006 00:08 "John Larkin" <jjSNIPlarkin(a)highTHISlandtechnology.com> wrote in message news:7obne2tja057p34sdf6u7v8fhee28bpveo(a)4ax.com... > Well, there's no fossil evidence for most families and genera. There's > no half-whale fossil, no half-fish fossil. If there is no > macroevolution, and everything evolves slowly in tiny increments, > there should be many more intermediate forms. Some things must ocurr > suddenly, with many changes happening almost simultaneously, to make a > bird out of a reptile. None of the major changes provided selective > advantage alone; quite the contrary. And yet evolution is way easier to understand than gravity.
From: John Woodgate on 23 Aug 2006 02:15
In message <7obne2tja057p34sdf6u7v8fhee28bpveo(a)4ax.com>, dated Tue, 22 Aug 2006, John Larkin <jjSNIPlarkin(a)highTHISlandtechnology.com> writes >Well, there's no fossil evidence for most families and genera. Family and genus names are not generated for putative creatures, only for fossils. >There's no half-whale fossil, no half-fish fossil. Giving you the benefit of non-defined terms, I have to tell you that there is a long succession of fossils of intermediate forms for both. >If there is no macroevolution, and everything evolves slowly in tiny >increments, there should be many more intermediate forms. Some things >must ocurr suddenly, with many changes happening almost simultaneously, >to make a bird out of a reptile. Intermediate forms are being discovered all the time in China (and a few elsewhere). You seem to be looking at the position of the fossil record about 50 years ago. > None of the major changes provided selective advantage alone; quite >the contrary. Feathers kept small dinosaurs warm. Just an example. > > [snip] >>> >>>Your statement is Neo-Darwinian dogma without a scientific basis. >> >>Can you prove that ? > >It's not my duty to prove Darwinian evolution false; It's science's >duty to prove it true. So far, nobody has. It's still a fuzzy but >heavily defended theory. I meant, as you very well know, 'Can you prove my statement is dogma without s scientific basis?' > [snip] > >No straw man, just an observation that science often has dogmatic fads, >and they are sometimes proved wrong. Agreed, but not everything in science falls into that category. > [snip] >> >>Heritability of experience is ill-defined. Exposure to physical or >>chemical agents may be heritable through epigenetic channels. But there >>is no way that intellectual experience can be heritable. > >There is some evidence that immune-system attacks can produce heritable >immune responses. It certainly makes sense that they should. Epigenetic channels. > >But how can you claim that "there is no way that intellectual >experience can be heritable"? Since there's no hard evidence that's >it's impossible, why do you say it's impossible? Sounds like dogma >again. Further down you mention 'violation of first principles'. Intellectual experience is non-material; it does not affect matter. >How does a turtle egg know which island its parents came from? It doesn't, especially about its father. A turtle may, in some species, know which island IT came from. Salmon know where they were hatched, too. They appear to use a very sensitive sense of smell, because they can be confused by adding other smells. Baby turtles are know to use the moon as a directional guide. This is very definitely an aid to survival, and selection pressure is thus very strong. >Is the navigational map purely the result of mutation and selection? Yes. >Wouldn't there be a huge selective advantage to discovering a new, >better island and depositing *that* map into the eggs? Since it doesn't happen that way, there is no answer. > >Why wouldn't something like mathematical training be passed on to >future generations if it were useful? 'Why' in that sense is outside science. > >My general position is that DNA is algorithmically complex enough to >employ virtually any mechanisms that aren't in violation of first >principles. DNA is a code; it doesn't 'employ mechanisms'. >Why wouldn't it? 'Why' in that sense is outside science. >People tend to not discover (or design!) things that they believe to be >impossible. Oh, they do discover things that they believe to be impossible. The progress of science is littered with spectacular examples: - the chemical compositions of stars, through spectroscopy; - radioactivity; - sub-atomic particles; - gravitational deflection of light. More recently, an LED has been made from silicon, which was certainly thought to be impossible. -- OOO - Own Opinions Only. Try www.jmwa.demon.co.uk and www.isce.org.uk 2006 is YMMVI- Your mileage may vary immensely. John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK |