New Book of Rules
in [Design]
|
From: joseph2k on 25 Aug 2006 07:33 John Larkin wrote: > 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. > If you look at the relatively dramatic changes in the species mix for a relatively short period (about 1 million years) after the K-T boundary in the fossil records the evidence in favor of evolution is quite compelling. > >> >>> 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. > Science is not about "proving them selves right" like religionists do, but about building testable explanations for what we can observe and test in some defined, repeatable method. >> >>>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 And religionists tend not to discover the concept of testable knowledge. Every religious work i have read to date includes some "Holy, do not test." escapes in its writings. -- JosephKK Gegen dummheit kampfen die Gotter Selbst, vergebens. --Schiller
From: Rich the Philosophizer on 25 Aug 2006 21:04 On Fri, 25 Aug 2006 06:43:04 +0100, John Woodgate wrote: > Aug 2006, John Larkin <jjSNIPlarkin(a)highTHISlandtechnology.com> writes > >>If DNA is not alive, and everything is just polymers and static >>blueprints, what is alive? > > Complete creatures. Half a mouse isn't alive, but it contains an awful > lot of DNA. > > What you are doing is to assume a special definition of 'alive' that > makes your statement true. Debate is impossible. > > Also, where did you get 'static' from? I didn't say that DNA is static. > If it were, most, perhaps all, cancers would not exist. There's an explanation that covers all of this and more, but it's WAY, WAY, WAY outside the box. The Big Bang, for example, was a confluence of Desire and Intelligence, in an attempt to create Love. But, there was fragmentation, and some denial spirits got entrained, which nobody knew would happen at the time, and a huge gap was created, and it's been nothing but pain and suffering ever since, as solid matter endeavours to reconnect with its source. Good Luck! Rich -- For more information, please feel free to visit http://www.godchannel.com
From: Rich the Philosophizer on 25 Aug 2006 21:15 On Fri, 25 Aug 2006 04:50:13 +0100, Reg Edwards wrote: > Just a thought. > > There is no essential difference between living and dead matter. No, of course not! Except, of course, for that annoying little detail - one's alive, and the other's not. ------------<quote>------------ "The Mother's essence is of movement, life, nurturance and love. The asuras essence is of death, destruction and hate. If we were to continue to include the asuras here with us, they would eventually succeed in Ahriman's plan of universal destruction. Eventually everything of life, beauty, grace and love would be destroyed. "A good example of this is the present situation with life and death. With death included in Creation, we have a condition where life must come out of and return back to 'not life'. Death or 'not life' may have many lives interrupting it, but life need be touched by death only once, and it's over. ------------</quote>------------ -- http://www.godchannel.com/death.html Thanks, Rich -- For more information, please feel free to visit http://www.godchannel.com
From: John Larkin on 26 Aug 2006 19:34 On 24 Aug 2006 17:03:30 +0200, David Brown <david(a)westcontrol.removethisbit.com> wrote: >John Larkin wrote: >> On Wed, 23 Aug 2006 21:33:30 +0100, John Woodgate >> <jmw(a)jmwa.demon.co.uk> wrote: >> >>> In message <h8dpe2lejviejg95mg6e09n9pvu588f04r(a)4ax.com>, dated Wed, 23 >>> Aug 2006, John Larkin <jjSNIPlarkin(a)highTHISlandtechnology.com> writes >>>> On Wed, 23 Aug 2006 07:15:39 +0100, John Woodgate >>>> <jmw(a)jmwa.demon.co.uk> wrote: >>>> >>>>>> 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'. >>>> DNA and its allied enzymes, RNA, proteins, and other gadgets is a >>>> dynamic system, not a static code. Its operational complexity is but >>>> dimly understood, barely hinted at. >>> Yes, it's system, not a conscious entity. >> >> You can't know that, either. >> >> >>>> DNA employs extensive repair, replication, synthesis, and probably >>>> other unknown mechanisms. It's a machine, or possibly more. >>> It doesn't 'employ' anything. You are implying that it has powers of >>> thought and reasoning. >> >> It certainly has incredibly sophisticated algorithms. How can you know >> so much about what DNA isn't? >> >>>> I wonder why so many people insist that DNA is a static blueprint >>>> that's only modified by random mutation. I suspect it's because, if one >>>> conjectures anything else, one is acused of being a closet Believer or >>>> something heinous like that. >>> DNA is a code. >> >> >> DNA is clearly alive. >> >> John >> > >DNA is simply a long polymer molecule made up of molecules adenine, >thymine, cytosine and guanine. It is no more "alive" or "intelligent" >than a list of the letters A, T, C and G written on a piece of paper. The same argument suggests that you aren't alive or intelligent. You're just made of elements. >It has no "algorithms", You must be joking. DNA is the most complex state machine on the planet. > it does not "reason" or "plan" anything. And you have no basis for that statement but prejudice. > It >does not in itself evolve, any more than other biologically important >molecules like amino acids evolve. Was every chrosome created in its exact present form? Were the copy, control, and replication enzymes always there? Are you a Creationist? > It is simply a way to store codes. >The biological mechanisms in a cell can do marvellous things with these >codes, including building proteins described by the codes, and >reproducing the entire cell, and making new copies of the DNA (including >a chance of mutation that is neither too high nor too low - a result of >evolved DNA reproduction mechanisms). > Those mechanisms are themselves defined and created by DNA. Certainly the entire dynamic system of a cell involves more than the DNA strands in the chromosomes, but DNA defines them itself. >DNA is nothing more nor less than the medium upon which biological >software (genes) is encoded. The software is the system. John
From: John Larkin on 26 Aug 2006 19:40
On Fri, 25 Aug 2006 06:43:04 +0100, John Woodgate <jmw(a)jmwa.demon.co.uk> wrote: >In message <0l7se2tv5ks4tg6e2p1mcd87dao9hspsju(a)4ax.com>, dated Thu, 24 >Aug 2006, John Larkin <jjSNIPlarkin(a)highTHISlandtechnology.com> writes > >>If DNA is not alive, and everything is just polymers and static >>blueprints, what is alive? > >Complete creatures. Half a mouse isn't alive, but it contains an awful >lot of DNA. So a single mouse cell isn't alive, even a mouse cancer cell. And a single cell of a plant must not be alive (it's a fraction of a plant) even though you can remove it and coax it to grow into a full plant. Is a fertilized egg alive? A seed? > >What you are doing is to assume a special definition of 'alive' that >makes your statement true. Debate is impossible. > >Also, where did you get 'static' from? I didn't say that DNA is static. >If it were, most, perhaps all, cancers would not exist. It's been declared here that DNA is a sequence of proteins that is nothing more than a recipe, that it doesn't evolve, and that it is altered only by random mutation, amplified by natural selection. I can't imagine how anybody can know such things. John |