Hi Richard,
I appreciate.
That moving was quite a work. It is not even finished, but at least I
am reconnected.
There is still no quantum algorithm for finding a needle in an
haystack with 0 needle, although we might try with with quantum field
(annihilation and creation superposition),
On 13 Aug 2013, at 02:18, Russell Standish wrote:
On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 12:40:13PM -0400, John Clark wrote:
On Sun, Aug 11, 2013 Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
All evolutionary processes have variation, selection and heredity.
Yes.
What is missing from cultural
I agree that it is useful to try to see things from the genes point of view
Yes
without of course falling into the mental trap of anthropomorphizing
the gene and assigning to it qualia that are associated with self-aware
consciousness.
I am unaware of any thinker on evolution worthy of
Hi John -- I would hope they don't :)
When I made that statement, I was not thinking so much of the serious
researcher. However I do think it is important to communicate that genes are
not alive, in any real sense, nor are they motivated by some survival instinct,
not for the researchers
Darwin could explain how simple organisms could become more complex, but he
didn't even attempt to explain how the first organism came into existence
because before natural selection can kick in you need some sort of heredity.
Recently there has been some discussion about clays playing a
On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 , Chris de Morsella cdemorse...@yahoo.com wrote:
John Epigenetic changes do not change the sequence of bases in DNA, and
more important I see no evidence that the body has learned any lessons. I
see no evidence that epigenetic changes are more likely to happen in the
Chris - I suspected a certain lightheartedness ;)
I am not excluding the possibility that at some level - by extending
Darwinian selection to include the concept of group fitness as a good start
- that Darwinian selection is the driving process behind the continued
presence of such behavioral
Hi John - I agree that natural selection is the crux of evolution and that the
random (or carefully selected in the case of GMOs for example) new information
that is introduced into the mix and will go through this process of natural
selection is not by itself evolution. Heredity perhaps, but
Epigenetic changes show that there is more to hereditary information
than base pair sequence.
Which I find to be fascinating in and of itself.
It also begs the question: Are there any other as yet to be discovered encoding
schemas that can be faithfully transmitted across hereditary
On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
The central dogma of molecular biology deals with the detailed
residue-by-residue transfer of sequential information.
Yes, but we're not talking about molecular biology, we're talking about
Evolution and it has a different
On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 8:58 PM, Chris de Morsella cdemorse...@yahoo.comwrote:
I was wondering if there is any evidence baked into the DNA so to speak;
in other words are there any areas of coding DNA that are known to be (or
perhaps suspected of being) linked to and involved with such
Chris P - I agree, classic Darwinian selection is usually sufficient to
explain the presence of traits, such as altruism (which as you noted is not
a specifically human one) as long as one extends it to account for group
survival fitness. This hypothesis would seem to be supported by a high
Hi John -- that Russian experiment with Foxes was fascinating, and no doubt
breeding works. However the experiment you site does not correlate the
behavioral changes in the two populations of foxes - one bred for aggression
and the other bred for docility -- with any corresponding changes to
John Epigenetic changes do not change the sequence of bases in DNA, and more
important I see no evidence that the body has learned any lessons. I see no
evidence that epigenetic changes are more likely to happen in the direction of
greater adaptability rather than the reverse. All I see is the
On 8/13/2013 12:00 PM, Chris de Morsella wrote:
John Epigenetic changes do not change the sequence of bases in DNA, and more
important I see no evidence that the body has learned any lessons. I see no evidence
that epigenetic changes are more likely to happen in the direction of greater
On 8/13/2013 11:45 AM, Chris de Morsella wrote:
I don't question that breeding can induce hereditary changes in a population, but rather
am wondering about what mechanisms are used to do so.
I don't think induced is the right word. It isn't *inducing changes* in the DNA, it's
*selecting*
Brent -- yes there is that stability and durability of the change aspect, and
that would be a significant handicap for any epigenetic hereditary mechanism. I
agree that in this sense DNA based hereditary mechanisms seem better suited and
epigenetic ones more dicey.
However, even though an
Hi Chris
I think alarm calls are explained adequately by the benefits afforded to
individuals in a group that share some genetic material. If you are a monkey
with a few brothers and sisters in a troupe and plenty of cousins then a lot
of 'your' genes get protected by putting yourself at risk
On Tuesday, August 13, 2013 3:17:48 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote:
On 8/13/2013 12:00 PM, Chris de Morsella wrote:
John Epigenetic changes do not change the sequence of bases in DNA, and
more important I see no evidence that the body has learned any lessons. I
see no evidence that epigenetic
In practice, in the past at least, you are correct breeding is a process that
relies on the variation that sexual reproduction introduces. However in our
modern reality much of what is now being bred are GMOs and in these cases the
breeding is selecting the best outcomes.
Breeding is
As for dogs saving babies its not difficult to see the benefits. That dog is
made for life by that one risk. Its now king dog. The cats in the
neighbourhood must be kicking themselves. They do all the serious symbiotic
work keeping the vermin population down and some stupid dog puts on a
On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 12:01:52PM -0400, John Clark wrote:
On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
The central dogma of molecular biology deals with the detailed
residue-by-residue transfer of sequential information.
Yes, but we're not talking about
Hi Chris
You assume the dog acted with a premeditated anticipation of a reward.
No I really don't. I was just being a little light hearted in that paragraph.
There is a disjunct between the reasons the dog does something and the effect
the behavior has on genes. The dog may just love
Is this the topic that stopped Bruno from posting in the everything list?
Have we lost Bruno for good?
Richard
On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 1:59 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 8/11/2013 7:55 PM, Chris de Morsella wrote:
I would not be surprised to find that there is evidence of
I'm sure he still posts in some parallel feathers of the dove's tail. :)
Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2013 08:00:14 -0400
Subject: Re: Serious proof of why the theory of evolution is wrong
From: yann...@gmail.com
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Is this the topic that stopped Bruno from posting in the
I am on all the lists that to my knowledge he ever posted on and he has not
posted for some time now.
Richard
On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 9:28 AM, chris peck chris_peck...@hotmail.comwrote:
I'm sure he still posts in some parallel feathers of the dove's tail. :)
--
ISTM, he said he was moving and won't be able to post for some times... So
I guess that's just it.
Quentin
2013/8/12 Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com
I am on all the lists that to my knowledge he ever posted on and he has
not posted for some time now.
Richard
On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at
=== Found that:
2013/7/26 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
...snip
Bruno
PS I will have to put my computer in a box, as I am moving, so I will be
disconnected for awhile. Thanks for being patient for a possible answer to
your next possible comment.
2013/8/12 Quentin Anciaux
Good to know. Thanks
On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 10:18 AM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.comwrote:
ISTM, he said he was moving and won't be able to post for some times... So
I guess that's just it.
Quentin
2013/8/12 Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com
I am on all the lists that to my
On Sun, Aug 11, 2013 Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
All evolutionary processes have variation, selection and heredity.
Yes.
What is missing from cultural evolution is an equivalent of the central
dogma.
How on earth do you figure that? Ideas can be passed from one person
What co-evolutionary traits have been shown to have occurred in dogs and
cattle because of their association with humans (so which are therefore part
of the equation)?
For example with sheep - is sheep dog behavior evolved? Or are they
expressing genetic potential that was already innate in their
On Sun, Aug 11, 2013 Chris de Morsella cdemorse...@yahoo.com wrote:
I have heard this survival of the community dynamics being used to
suggest why for example we still have behaviors such as altruism still
quite common amongst members of our species
It's not just our species that displays
On Friday, August 9, 2013 10:37:29 AM UTC-4, John Clark wrote:
On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au javascript:
wrote:
variants like Larmarkianism may well be possible.
There are a number of problems with Lamarckism, such as it never having
been observed to
On 8/12/2013 9:41 AM, Chris de Morsella wrote:
What co-evolutionary traits have been shown to have occurred in dogs and cattle because
of their association with humans (so which are therefore part of the equation)?
Dogs are just wolves that, thru (un)natural selection have evolved to bond
Hi Chris d m
The papers Ive been reading regard horizontal genetic transfer as a mechanism
by which the machinery of translation, transcription and replication evolved.
As cellular organisms became more complex this mechanism gives way to vertical
genetic transfer which then dominates
On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 12:40:13PM -0400, John Clark wrote:
On Sun, Aug 11, 2013 Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
All evolutionary processes have variation, selection and heredity.
Yes.
What is missing from cultural evolution is an equivalent of the central
dogma.
Brent ~ I follow the logic and am not arguing with it.
I was wondering if there is any evidence baked into the DNA so to speak; in
other words are there any areas of coding DNA that are known to be (or perhaps
suspected of being) linked to and involved with such behavioral traits as
herding
Hi Prof. Standish
I read your paper 'Evolution in the Multiverse' and the related discussion in
your book.
I'm not sure I really got it. My original interpretation was wrong, I think,
but went something like (by all means laugh at any howlers):
there is the plenitude which is everything that
Re Larmarkian evolution, cultural evolution is usually considered to be
an examplar of Lamarkian evolution. Knowledge accumulated in one life
is passed onto the next via books, or in the very olden day oral
stories.
Cheers
--
On Sat, Aug 10, 2013 at 3:52 PM, Chris de Morsella cdemorse...@yahoo.comwrote:
It's not news that some chemicals increase the rate of mutation.
Epigenetic changes that effect what is transcribed is not mutation – at
least in the classic sense of changing – i.e. mutating – the
On Sun, Aug 11, 2013 at 7:14 AM, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.auwrote:
Re Larmarkian evolution, cultural evolution is usually considered to be
an examplar of Lamarkian evolution. Knowledge accumulated in one life is
passed onto the next via books, or in the very olden day oral stories.
On Sun, Aug 11, 2013 at 12:36:27PM -0400, John Clark wrote:
On Sun, Aug 11, 2013 at 7:14 AM, Russell Standish
li...@hpcoders.com.auwrote:
Re Larmarkian evolution, cultural evolution is usually considered to be
an examplar of Lamarkian evolution. Knowledge accumulated in one life is
John, Russell ~ Speaking from the perspective of information science, one
can abstract out the underlying information encoding scheme(s), actually
employed by life by conscious self-aware life as well, which could be any
number of suitable candidates. We know of three known currently employed
Hi Chris and John
The paper I linked to describes a evolutionary dynamic which emphasizes
horizontal over vertical genetic transfer. I think it is described in the paper
as Lamarckian because changes to the coding mechanism can occur in their model
within a single generation of organisms
Hello Chris ~ When one factors in group dynamics in addition to the
individual ones at play it is as you suggest more nuanced. I have heard this
survival of the community dynamics being used to suggest why for example we
still have behaviors such as altruism still quite common amongst members of
On 8/11/2013 7:55 PM, Chris de Morsella wrote:
I would not be surprised to find that there is evidence of cross species conglomerates
of organisms that have evolved to survive together, in other words that the Darwinian
selection mechanism could potentially be extended to take into account both
On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 9:43 PM, Chris de Morsella cdemorse...@yahoo.comwrote:
some feel Epigenetics should only refer to the actual molecular
mechanisms (such as DNA methylation and histone modification) that alter
the underlying gene expression; I find this restrictive and use epigenetics
to
John - No worries, I am not a Lamarckian true believer LOL - though I do
find the evidence for epigenetic hereditable traits to be incredibly
fascinating and thought provoking, and furthermore the fact that it does
seem to in fact occur suggests to me that it may play some, as yet, poorly
John ~ One more thought came to me after I hit the send button; so this
really is a segue to my earlier longer response. It regards specifically
your - which is, I very much agree, the correct -- assertion that without
the multi-generational process of Darwinian selection evolution cannot
occur,
On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
variants like Larmarkianism may well be possible.
There are a number of problems with Lamarckism, such as it never having
been observed to occur in the lab or in the wild, and it being completely
inconsistent with our
If not all acquired characteristics are beneficial and in fact the vast
majority of them are not
how is that functionally different from mutations.
Richard David Ruquist
On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 10:37 AM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 Russell Standish
On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 11:11 AM, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote:
If not all acquired characteristics are beneficial and in fact the vast
majority of them are not
how is that functionally different from mutations.
It is NOT functionally different from mutation, that was precisely my
John et al -- Not sure how demarcated the usage is here between the terms
Lamarckian Evolution and Epigenetics - some feel Epigenetics should only
refer to the actual molecular mechanisms (such as DNA methylation and
histone modification) that alter the underlying gene expression; I find this
Hi Prof. Standish
Thanks so much for the offer. I actually hunted the paper down from a link in
the original springer resource you posted. Some of it flies over my head, but
not all of it, so I'll persevere...
ISTM that you are implicitly assuming that these replicating
hypercycles only
On 8/8/2013 8:10 PM, chris peck wrote:
Hi Prof. Standish
Thanks so much for the offer. I actually hunted the paper down from a link in the
original springer resource you posted. Some of it flies over my head, but not all of it,
so I'll persevere...
ISTM that you are implicitly assuming that
Hi Brent
But random mutations *don't* result in catastrophe. Your body has hundreds
of cells with
copying errors in their DNA. Of course only those in gametes can get passed to
progeny.
But even gamete DNA can have copying errors without catastrophic results.
When youre talking about
It probably also depends a bit what you mean by Darwinian. If you mean
by that the central dogma is satisfied, then no - prebiotic evolution
probably did not satisfy the central dogma, so variants like
Larmarkianism may well be possible.
BTW, even anthropic selection from a large number of extant
Does Deism appeal to you at all Brent?
-Original Message-
From: meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Tue, Aug 6, 2013 12:14 am
Subject: Re: Serious proof of why the theory of evolution is wrong
On 8/5/2013 6:21 PM, Telmo Menezes
I doesn't appeal to me. It seems to be just an otiose layer of explanation on top of the
universe just is, but it seems possible.
Brent
On 8/6/2013 8:10 AM, spudboy...@aol.com wrote:
Does Deism appeal to you at all Brent?
-Original Message-
From: meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
To:
On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 4:51 PM, spudboy...@aol.com wrote:
If one has to disprove the best of sciences, which appears to be
evolutionary adaptation, in order to defend one's religion, then there must
be something wrong about the religion.
Yes, that's why there is something wrong with
Computer programs are transformed from one script (language) to another all the
time on a daily basis, and for the most part automatically by other
transformation software. As long as the input and the output schemas are
available or can be deduced from the input working code can be generated.
According to Smolin's Fecund Universe hypothesis since verified by
Poplawski's GR spin theory,
it's generations of universes all the way down
On Tue, Aug 6, 2013 at 12:57 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
I doesn't appeal to me. It seems to be just an otiose layer of
explanation on
Hi Prof. Standish
Unfortunately my subscription to Athens ran out a long time ago and I don't
have access to the paper you mention.
I'm still not sure you've addressed the crux of the argument. Lets say you have
a bunch of codons that when processed by a replicating mechanism spit out a
Hi Chris,
You can probably find all that you need here
http://physis.sourceforge.net/
It looks like it is a defunct research programme, but maybe you could
follow up citations.
I could probably dig out an e-copy of the ECAL paper from my
institution's Springerlink subscription, if you're really
Dominic Statham is a creationist.
http://creation.com/dominic-statham
On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 8:19 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote:
Serious proof of why the theory of evolution is wrong.
The irreducible complexity of DNA. See attached.
Dr. Roger B Clough NIST (ret.) [1/1/2000]
On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 8:19 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote:
Serious proof of why the theory of evolution is wrong.
The irreducible complexity of DNA. See attached.
You put no effort into defending your Juvenile ideas so I see no reason why
I should put any effort into attacking
On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 5:30 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 8:19 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote:
Serious proof of why the theory of evolution is wrong.
The irreducible complexity of DNA. See attached.
You put no effort into defending your
On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 12:50 PM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.comwrote:
if one is to believe in a god that created everything, then one also has
to believe that this god
was malicious enough to plant an incredible amount of false evidence: the
fossil record,
Yes, but that's not the
Presenting the complexity of getting to DNA directly from a chemical soup is
barking up the wrong tree as life probably evolved after it had developed auto
catalyzing peptides through a phase of RNA based life. The origins of life most
likely used some -- as yet unkown -- simpler information
On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 7:35 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 12:50 PM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.comwrote:
if one is to believe in a god that created everything, then one also
has to believe that this god
was malicious enough to plant an incredible
If one has to disprove the best of sciences, which appears to be evolutionary
adaptation, in order to defend one's religion, then there must be something
wrong about the religion. Or at least one's understanding of it. There's no
need to beat down Darwin, in order to believe in God.
I will bite on this, because unlike the usual rubbish Roger spouts,
this is more on topic.
Fortunately, it doesn't stand up to criticism.
The argument is that because the standard genetic code is well
optimised against error correction, and because changes to the code
will be highly disruptive,
Science labs are creating XNAs (or xeno-nucleic acids) some of which
(anhydrohexitol nucleic acid ) can be run through directed evolution and fold
into biologically useful forms. Life on earth uses DNA (now after billions of
years of evolution); however life likely first originated using much
On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 7:17 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy
multiplecit...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 7:35 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 12:50 PM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com
wrote:
if one is to believe in a god that created
Hello Dr. Standish
If I may play devil's advocate for a post it seems to me that the question over
duration required for an optimized system to evolve is only a minor aspect of
the argument presented in this paper.
More seriously it concerns the mechanics of such an evolution.
To use a
On Tue, Aug 06, 2013 at 01:46:44AM +, chris peck wrote:
Hello Dr. Standish
If I may play devil's advocate for a post it seems to me that the question
over duration required for an optimized system to evolve is only a minor
aspect of the argument presented in this paper.
More
On 8/5/2013 6:21 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
It allows annoys me how christians justify all the suffering and
overall shittiness of existence with: ah, but that is necessary
because God wanted us to have free will.
He apparently also wanted us to have leukemia, AIDS, plague, tsunamis, volcanoes,
77 matches
Mail list logo
