Re: Serious proof of why the theory of evolution is wrong
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), but not sure it can be used to find an electrician in summer in this neighborhood. At the time of my parents, phone company was the state, and you were reconnected the day of your moving, or at worst, the day after. Now, we have free competition with companies, which unfortunately fuse, share parts, and when you are disconnected you have to buy a GSM (!) and to give call phones to different companies, which always reply that it is a problem for the other company, ... and when they come, they do half of the work, and you have to ask the other company, which eventually come, and again do only half of the remaining work, etc. I met someone disconnected since two month. (My computer at the university is sick, and I have no portable one, sufficiently recent). Competition is good, but not the misuse and abuse, like with anything. Best wishes to all, Bruno On 12 Aug 2013, at 16:33, Richard Ruquist wrote: Good to know. Thanks On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 10:18 AM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote: 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 9:28 AM, chris peck chris_peck...@hotmail.com wrote: 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 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 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 group survival dynamics within one species and in the larger meta-groups of two or more species that get through life together by cooperating across species lines. Yeah, no need to be surprised by dogs and cattle. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to
Re: Serious proof of why the theory of evolution is wrong
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 evolution is an equivalent of the central dogma. How on earth do you figure that? Ideas can be passed from one person to another. Sometimes a person modifies the idea before passing it on to somebody else. Some ideas are good at infecting minds and thus get selected to play a major role in culture, and other ideas are not so good at infecting minds and thus become extinct after just a few transmissions and play no role in future culture. Not all evolutionary processes have the central dogma - and even in biological evolution, epigenetic changes violate the central dogma. How on earth do you figure that? There is certainly variation in epigenetic changes. If epigenetic changes can not be inherited then they are rather dull and play no part in evolution. If they can be inherited then in some animals those changes will work better than others in getting the animals genes and methylation levels and whatever other heredity factors there are into the next generation. And Darwin said that's all you need to get Evolution going; he knew nothing about DNA much less epigenetic changes but that doesn't matter because Darwin's logic still holds true whatever the heredity factors are. You don't appear to have looked up what the central dogma is: The central dogma of molecular biology deals with the detailed residue-by-residue transfer of sequential information. It states that such information cannot be transferred back from protein to either protein or nucleic acid. (Crick, 1970, Nature 227 (5258): 561–3). What it means is that lessons learnt by the body (ie protein) cannot be transferred back to the genome (ie DNA). It is the antithesis to Lamarkianism. Epigenetic changes involve changes of the genome by the body and its environment, so is contrary to the central dogma. How significant epigenesis is to evolution is another matter, of course. In cultural evolution, you said it yourself - individual minds can quite easily change memes prior to passing them on. Obviously, there is no equivalent central dogma in cultural evolution. Indeed. Nor are there equivalent central dogma for machine evolution, or intensional number relations in arithmetic, still less for the domain of the 'first-person' surviver point of view. I think the central dogma in molecular biology is a sort of evidence for comp. Selection is relative selection, and it explains how intensional relation can grow and develop. But more abstract relationship can be at play, like the Mandelbrot set, or fuzzy self-referential relations. Bruno Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Principal, High Performance Coders Visiting Professor of Mathematics hpco...@hpcoders.com.au University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Serious proof of why the theory of evolution is wrong
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 the name who has fallen into such a silly trap. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Serious proof of why the theory of evolution is wrong
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 sake -- they are not confused -- but in order to prevent this kind of confusion arising in the non-technical public, where there is a lot of confusion and poor understanding at play. When someone such as Dawkins makes statements like the one I quoted below -- he is so good at coming up with publicity generating sound bites -- he is skating quite close to the line of anthropomorphizing the gene and imputing it with motives. I don't think he believes that personally, but the meme of the selfish gene to use another one of his popularized terms has gotten a lot of people very confused. We are survival machines - robot vehicles blindly programmed to preserve the selfish molecules known as genes. This is a truth which still fills me with astonishment. -- Richard Dawkins, The Selfish Gene -Chris D From: John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2013 10:27 AM Subject: Re: Serious proof of why the theory of evolution is wrong 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 the name who has fallen into such a silly trap. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Serious proof of why the theory of evolution is wrong
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 part in that because under some circumstances the atoms in the crystal lattice of clays can display a sort of very rudimentary heredity; it's a interesting thought but right now the idea is so sketchy it would be pushing it to call it a theory. There is also the intriguing life-like behavior of self-replicating and evolving charged conglomerations of dust particles that come into contact with plasma and gather electrons (gaining a charge) generating an interesting phenomena called plasma crystals. http://iopscience.iop.org/1367-2630/9/8/263/fulltext/ Abstract. Complex plasmas may naturally self-organize themselves into stable interacting helical structures that exhibit features normally attributed to organic living matter. The self-organization is based on non-trivial physical mechanisms of plasma interactions involving over-screening of plasma polarization. As a result, each helical string composed of solid microparticles is topologically and dynamically controlled by plasma fluxes leading to particle charging and over-screening, the latter providing attraction even among helical strings of the same charge sign. These interacting complex structures exhibit thermodynamic and evolutionary features thought to be peculiar only to living matter such as bifurcations that serve as `memory marks', self-duplication, metabolic rates in a thermodynamically open system, and non-Hamiltonian dynamics. We examine the salient features of this new complex `state of soft matter' in light of the autonomy, evolution, progenity and autopoiesis principles used to define life. It is concluded that complex self-organized plasma structures exhibit all the necessary properties to qualify them as candidates for inorganic living matter that may exist in space provided certain conditions allow them to evolve naturally. From: John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Wednesday, August 14, 2013 8:57 PM Subject: Re: Serious proof of why the theory of evolution is wrong Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote: [The central dogma of molecular biology] deals with the detailed states that such information cannot be transferred back from protein to either protein or nucleic acid. I know of no example of a change in a protein making a systematic repeatable change (as opposed to a random mutation) in the sequence of bases in DNA that are passed onto the next generation. Epigenetic information is expressed by the presence or absence of methylation of the bases, not the sequence. A keen grasp of the obvious. So because information is not being transferred from proteins to the base sequence of DNA I take it that you are retracting your statement that epigenesis contradicts the central dogma, not that it would matter because that is about molecular biology and we're talking about Darwin and Evolution. By the way, after the discovery of prions a couple of decades ago we knew that sometimes hereditary information can move from protein to protein and bypass DNA, so the central dogma is not 100% true, just 98 or 99% true. I'm not arguing that epigenetic, prebiotic or cultural evolution Shouldn't be called Darwinian. But in that case, Lamarkian evolution is also Darwinian, And that’s exactly what I said in my first post on this thread, Lamarkian evolution can only work if its riding on the back of Darwin and his natural selection idea. Epigenetic changes show that there is more to hereditary information than base pair sequence. True without a doubt, so now the question is does that mean there is a lot more information or just a little bit more? My guess is it's just a little bit more, but as far as Darwin is concerned it doesn't matter. Darwinian Evolution was what we are talking about! Well, actually, what we started talking about was prebiotic evolution, 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 part in that because under some circumstances the atoms in the crystal lattice of clays can display a sort of very rudimentary heredity; it's a interesting thought but right now the idea is so sketchy it would be pushing it to call it a theory. the possibility of evolving an oprimised standard genetic code, to be precise. That idea has an interesting history. Soon after Francis Crick co-discovered the DNA double helix in 1953 he
Re: Serious proof of why the theory of evolution is wrong
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 direction of greater adaptability rather than the reverse. All I see is the environment causing random changes in hereditary factors that, like all changes, are more likely to be harmful than helpful. Sure, but then neither do random mutations to an organisms DNA, imply that the body has learned anything either. Obviously, otherwise they wouldn't be called RANDOM mutations. I rather doubt that epigenesis will turn out to be terribly important, at least not when compared with traditional genetics, but even if I'm wrong it would just mean that another chemical besides DNA is transferring genetic information to the next generation. And none of that would bother Darwin in the slightest because he knew nothing about either chemical and didn't need to and his idea of Natural Selection would still brilliantly explain how life got to be the way it is. The introduction of some random change is either harmful, beneficial or of little or no consequence And Darwin's Natural Selection will separate those things out regardless of if those random changes are made in DNA or in something else. What you say about epigenetic changes: environment causing random changes in hereditary factors applies as much to the classical hereditary mechanism of DNA changes. Yes but random mutation is only half of Darwin's idea and the least interesting half, the other half is Natural Selection. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
RE: Serious proof of why the theory of evolution is wrong
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 traits as altruism that are not immediately and self-evidently the result of this process. However we are speculating on the potential ways in which something like altruism can increase the survival fitness of an individual - mind you not make him or her a better person (or beast) but increase the individuals chances of surviving long enough to pass on its genetic (and epigenetic perhaps) heritage. I agree that it is useful to try to see things from the genes point of view - without of course falling into the mental trap of anthropomorphizing the gene and assigning to it qualia that are associated with self-aware consciousness. However the science and our maps of not only just the crude ACTG letters, but the larger more complex shall we say DNA words and verbs that we are beginning to recognize and map. This handicap - our ignorance and limited partial knowledge of how it all works and how the incredible (and incredibly rapid) molecular dance of auto catalyzing processes plays out step by step - limits what we can assert with any degree of accuracy about our living processes. There is so much yet that remains there to untangle, but also, at least for myself and others certainly as well, this is a fascinating arena. And it present one promising avenue to deepen our understanding of what it means to be alive and what life is. Cheers, -Chris From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of chris peck Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2013 6:41 PM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: RE: Serious proof of why the theory of evolution is wrong 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 children, it might be acting out of genuine concern and without a morsel of thought for its own well being. But it only can be doing that if that kind of behavior aids the propagation of the traits which underpin it. The point was that from the gene's pov that kind of behavior might well be reciprocal. Dogs get big benefits when they do good things. all the best Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2013 11:12:56 +1000 From: li...@hpcoders.com.au To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Serious proof of why the theory of evolution is wrong 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 molecular biology, we're talking about Evolution and it has a different central dogma. It states that such information cannot be transferred back from protein to either protein or nucleic acid. I know of no example of a change in a protein making a systematic repeatable change (as opposed to a random mutation) in the sequence of bases in DNA that are passed onto the next generation. Epigenetic information is expressed by the presence or absence of methylation of the bases, not the sequence. Not all evolutionary processes have the central dogma So what? As I said before, Darwin knew nothing about DNA or proteins or epigenetic changes and he didn't need to; he knew nothing about the details he only knew that there were hereditary factors of some sort that were passed from one generation to the next, and because no process is perfect he knew that there would sometimes be changes in that information, and he knew that some of those factors would reproduce faster than others, and he knew that the thing that would determine the winning factors from the losing factors is natural selection. Sure, I'm not arguing that epigenetic, prebiotic or cultural evolution shouldn't be called Darwinian. But in that case, Lamarkian evolution is also Darwinian, and sometimes people want to draw that distinction, so the adjective Darwinian become a bit ill-defined and meaningless. Any process satisfying Lewontin's 3 criteria I would call evolution. If any of the criteria are not satisfied, I would use a word like process, such as irreversible process, or whatever. What it means is that lessons learnt by the body (ie protein) cannot be transferred back to the genome (ie DNA). It is the antithesis to Lamarkianism. Epigenetic changes involve changes of the genome by the body Epigenetic changes do not change the sequence of bases in DNA, and
Re: Serious proof of why the theory of evolution is wrong
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 not the complete process of evolution. It also seems quite clear to me that DNA is the main means by which hereditary information is both encoded and passed from one generation to the next; however I think the evidence is mounting that epigenetic mechanisms exist, which can pass down epigenetic changes across generations. That life has evolved a second overlaying encoding system is in itself quite interesting - IMO. Epigenetic processes seem most central during the process of embryogenesis when they seem to be very active. Perhaps this is why they evolved in the first instance to be able to rapidly control which DNA is being expressed and how it is getting transcribed during a rapidly changing phase of life when entire complexes of genes are getting switched on and off and getting re-wired via epigenetic mechanisms to mean something else for the organism. -Chris D From: John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Wednesday, August 14, 2013 10:30 AM Subject: Re: Serious proof of why the theory of evolution is wrong 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 direction of greater adaptability rather than the reverse. All I see is the environment causing random changes in hereditary factors that, like all changes, are more likely to be harmful than helpful. Sure, but then neither do random mutations to an organisms DNA, imply that the body has learned anything either. Obviously, otherwise they wouldn't be called RANDOM mutations. I rather doubt that epigenesis will turn out to be terribly important, at least not when compared with traditional genetics, but even if I'm wrong it would just mean that another chemical besides DNA is transferring genetic information to the next generation. And none of that would bother Darwin in the slightest because he knew nothing about either chemical and didn't need to and his idea of Natural Selection would still brilliantly explain how life got to be the way it is. The introduction of some random change is either harmful, beneficial or of little or no consequence And Darwin's Natural Selection will separate those things out regardless of if those random changes are made in DNA or in something else. What you say about epigenetic changes: environment causing random changes in hereditary factors applies as much to the classical hereditary mechanism of DNA changes. Yes but random mutation is only half of Darwin's idea and the least interesting half, the other half is Natural Selection. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Serious proof of why the theory of evolution is wrong
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 boundaries? There are at least three hereditary capable encoding schema, e.g. DNA, RNA (RNA viruses as an example), and now also various epigenetic mechanisms (not just methylation mechanisms, but also histone modification and perhaps other means as yet to be discovered). Is this it? Or are there other means in addition to these? I understand why life would have soon discovered the need for (or perhaps great convenience of) developing this second more dynamic and more reversible level of encoding that operates on top of the underlying DNA, in order to be able to finesse the basic instruction set and make it do double, triple or even more duties. How important doing so is for living things can be understood by looking at the process of embryogenesis in complex animals (and plants as well, where epigenetics plays a role in the early maturation process of a plant form potentiated seed to the young but recognizably formed plant) Even post transcription the genetic expression chain is still being modified and regulated by dynamic processes along the way; mechanisms such as for example: autophagy, microRNAs, and ubiquitinization, which all regulate embryo development post-transcriptionally. Can we exclude that this highly dynamic complex of expression regulation stops there? What about in the Ribosomes themselves? Is it just a copy machine faithfully generating amino-acid chains based on the form of the mRNA template it is given; or does the dynamic cellular expression regulation mojo reach all the way down into our cell's protein factories? Why so many various expression regulation mechanisms in the first place? I suspect this gives a clue to the underlying dynamic equilibrium of living things and just how complex and finely tuned a balance life must be. Providing a static DNA blueprint does not suffice and so life has evolved these more dynamic mechanisms to regulate expression along -- each step on the chain that we look at. And now we are discovering that some of these more dynamic expression regulation mechanisms are capable of exerting hereditary influences on organisms yet to be born. -Chris From: Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2013 6:12 PM Subject: Re: Serious proof of why the theory of evolution is wrong 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 molecular biology, we're talking about Evolution and it has a different central dogma. It states that such information cannot be transferred back from protein to either protein or nucleic acid. I know of no example of a change in a protein making a systematic repeatable change (as opposed to a random mutation) in the sequence of bases in DNA that are passed onto the next generation. Epigenetic information is expressed by the presence or absence of methylation of the bases, not the sequence. Not all evolutionary processes have the central dogma So what? As I said before, Darwin knew nothing about DNA or proteins or epigenetic changes and he didn't need to; he knew nothing about the details he only knew that there were hereditary factors of some sort that were passed from one generation to the next, and because no process is perfect he knew that there would sometimes be changes in that information, and he knew that some of those factors would reproduce faster than others, and he knew that the thing that would determine the winning factors from the losing factors is natural selection. Sure, I'm not arguing that epigenetic, prebiotic or cultural evolution shouldn't be called Darwinian. But in that case, Lamarkian evolution is also Darwinian, and sometimes people want to draw that distinction, so the adjective Darwinian become a bit ill-defined and meaningless. Any process satisfying Lewontin's 3 criteria I would call evolution. If any of the criteria are not satisfied, I would use a word like process, such as irreversible process, or whatever. What it means is that lessons learnt by the body (ie protein) cannot be transferred back to the genome (ie DNA). It is the antithesis to Lamarkianism. Epigenetic changes involve changes of the genome by the body 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 Epigenetic changes show that
Re: Serious proof of why the theory of evolution is wrong
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 central dogma. It states that such information cannot be transferred back from protein to either protein or nucleic acid. I know of no example of a change in a protein making a systematic repeatable change (as opposed to a random mutation) in the sequence of bases in DNA that are passed onto the next generation. Not all evolutionary processes have the central dogma So what? As I said before, Darwin knew nothing about DNA or proteins or epigenetic changes and he didn't need to; he knew nothing about the details he only knew that there were hereditary factors of some sort that were passed from one generation to the next, and because no process is perfect he knew that there would sometimes be changes in that information, and he knew that some of those factors would reproduce faster than others, and he knew that the thing that would determine the winning factors from the losing factors is natural selection. What it means is that lessons learnt by the body (ie protein) cannot be transferred back to the genome (ie DNA). It is the antithesis to Lamarkianism. Epigenetic changes involve changes of the genome by the body 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 environment causing random changes in hereditary factors that, like all changes, are more likely to be harmful than helpful. How significant epigenesis is to evolution is another matter, of course. Well Darwinian Evolution was what we are talking about! At most all epigenesis does is provide a new source of variation for Darwinian Natural Selection to work on; and if those changes don't persist through many generations then epigenesis can't even do that. Obviously, there is no equivalent central dogma in cultural evolution. The central dogma of Evolution, both biological and cultural, has nothing to do with DNA or proteins or epigenesis. The central dogma of Evolution is: 1) Heredity factors exist. 2) The process that transfers those factors is very reliable but is not perfect and so sometimes they change. 3) Because there are more ways to be wrong than to be right most (but not all) of those changes are harmful. 4) Some of those changed heredity factors will reproduce faster than others and become dominant in a population. The discovery of epigenesis does not in any way challenge the central dogma of Evolution. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Serious proof of why the theory of evolution is wrong
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 behavioral traits as herding instinct etc. In 1959 a breeding program was started with foxes, one group was bred for aggregation the other group for tameness. Today the aggressive foxes are so dangerous a human dare not even approach them, but the tame foxes not only behave like dogs remarkably they've even started to look like dogs, and people looking at photos of the 2 groups almost universally regard the tame group as looking cuter than the aggressive breed. http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/350422/description/Tamed_fox_shows_domestications_effects_on_the_brain John K Clark that have been shown to have evolved in dogs (or more accurately been bred into dogs by human directed breeding for desired traits). I would not be surprised at all to find that there were, and feel pretty certain that a delta mapping of wolf DNA and say a Sheep Collies DNA will show changes in the key sets of genes that would be implicated in these behaviors... that is if we know what they are. Mapping behaviors to genes gets tricky because things as complex as a behavior, such as the instinct to herd sheep, probably draws upon multiple DNA coding sequences located in possibly different genes even. I don't think geneticists really have nailed down how instincts are wired into our genetic heredity -- we have statistical correlations and such, but - perhaps it is my own ignorance, but no clear story as to how these genetically encoded behavior genes actually work -- end to end. While, for example some Newspaper headline may boldly state that scientists have found the gene for aggression say, a deeper read will reveal that what was found was some DNA that may influence whether or not an individual becomes aggressive, for example, but that whether they actually do or not also depends on a lot of other co-factors, making it hard to determine what the trigger chain of events and changes actually is in reality. Very often, it turns out there is an environmental component in how behavioral traits arise in an individual as well. The interplay between hereditary information and the many dynamic processes at work in the organism at each phase: from the transcription phase that ultimately results in mRNA strands becoming used as a template in the ribosome to produce amino acid chains is still too poorly understood -- IMO -- for assertive statements. We hypothesize the genetic component in many behaviors; have found regions of DNA that are implicated in controlling behavior, but the science is still underdeveloped, the genetic maps we have at our disposal far too course and incomplete and our understanding of the many dynamic processes at work still incomplete. But -- [laughing] -- maybe I just need to catch up... it is such a rapidly moving field. -Chris *From:* meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net *To:* everything-list@googlegroups.com *Sent:* Monday, August 12, 2013 11:56 AM *Subject:* Re: Serious proof of why the theory of evolution is wrong 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 with humans as with a pack. Cattle similarly evolved to be docile and tolerant of humans. For example with sheep – is sheep dog behavior evolved? Or are they expressing genetic potential that was already innate in their species? That would also be an interesting example, if it can be shown that an evolved set of behaviors (e.g. instincts) developed in those dog species that were bred for working with cattle or sheep that is absent in other dog species that there are epigenetic and/or DNA encoding differences that are related to and underpin the behaviors and traits being observed. Wolves herd sheep too, so there was innate potential. But dogs can also learn a lot of words. I don't know whether wolves can or not. That might be an evolved capability. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and
RE: Serious proof of why the theory of evolution is wrong
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 correspondence of genetic closeness with altruistic behavior. It becomes a little more indirect when for example one considers the case where loose groupings, comprising of multiple species exhibit this behavior. For example in the case of the various monkey and bird species that seem to forage the tropical rain forest together, the individual animal that sounds the alarm call for some predator is increasing its own risk of becoming predated in order to alert individuals who may not even be the same species. I still think however that by increasing the overall group fitness of the loose multi-species confederation that individual benefits, on average. The linkage is however less clear. Altruism however becomes harder to explain - using Darwinian selection -- when it is pure altruism, such as an act of kindness to some complete stranger (that provides no easily discernible benefit to the individual initiating the altruistic act) or even a cross species acts of altruism, which on occasion seem to occur, for example the classic headline say of stray dog jumps into pool saves drowning baby. This pure altruism that occurs between individuals that are not closely related is what interests me most. In these cases what is the fitness payback for the individual who behaves in the altruistic manner; unless it is the indirect fitness payback that comes from that individual's act helping to build in a higher degree of altruism into their social group dynamics thus helping to lower transactional costs perhaps. Cheers, -Chris D From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of chris peck Sent: Monday, August 12, 2013 4:04 PM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Serious proof of why the theory of evolution is wrong 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 evolution. They call this hypothetical period the Darwinain Transition. At this point selection at a genetic level takes over. I cant vouch for the ideas plausibility. I think that selection at a genetic level is enough to account for altruism. Hamilton's law predicts that behaviors will be undertaken so long as the benefit multiplied by the degree of genetic relatedness outweighs the cost. This equation gets healthy support from the study of bees, wasps and ants etc where the unusual 2/3 relatedness between female siblings gives rise to unisially co-operative behaviour and between sisters. All the best --- Original Message --- From: meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net Sent: 13 August 2013 4:56 AM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Serious proof of why the theory of evolution is wrong 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 with humans as with a pack. Cattle similarly evolved to be docile and tolerant of humans. For example with sheep - is sheep dog behavior evolved? Or are they expressing genetic potential that was already innate in their species? That would also be an interesting example, if it can be shown that an evolved set of behaviors (e.g. instincts) developed in those dog species that were bred for working with cattle or sheep that is absent in other dog species that there are epigenetic and/or DNA encoding differences that are related to and underpin the behaviors and traits being observed. Wolves herd sheep too, so there was innate potential. But dogs can also learn a lot of words. I don't know whether wolves can or not. That might be an evolved capability. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to
Re: Serious proof of why the theory of evolution is wrong
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 the foxes DNA and specifically to DNA regions linked in controlling the trait of aggression. Not that I doubt that there must be some kind of hereditary link to these different behavioral traits -- whether it is epigenetic or there is an actual underlying difference in the populations DNA is what is still unclear to me and what I would like to know. Rephrasing my question to state it more clearly: I wonder to what extent breeding of behavioral traits especially act using epigenetic mechanisms (methylation etc.) to control expression in the phenotype versus actually mutating the target populations DNA. Is the docile Fox an example of an epigenetic breeding outcome or are these foxes DNA different from the aggressive populations DNA. More in general I am curious about the degree to which evolution makes use of these epigenetic techniques to more rapidly evolve behaviors and other traits that increase the fitness of the individual. 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. Epigenetic mechanisms seem well suited for this particular role and if indeed the differences in aggression can be traced back to methylation (or to the other existing epigenetic) mechanisms. If indeed, at least some types of bred characteristics or traits in animal populations result from epigenetic means then the selection or breeding selection of the fittest animals (according to the selection criteria) in the population could be said to be a case of epigenetic evolution. It would have satisfied all of the conditions required for evolution. Now I don't know that say in the cases of the experiment with Foxes that involves epigenetic changes, maybe in conjunction with some genetic predisposition -- as seems to be the case with some of the identified genes implicated in aggression for example. But if it can be demonstrated that there is an epigenetic component of this evolved (that is bred) outcome then epigenetic evolution will be demonstrated to have occurred. We now pretty much do know that epigenetic changes in an individual can have hereditary effects in the individuals offspring and in their offspring as well. I strongly suspect there are some good examples out there of epigenetic evolution -- cases where it can be demonstrated that these epigenetic hereditary changes were selected for and spread (i.e. increased their relative prevalence within an effected population). Cheers, -Chris D From: John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2013 9:23 AM Subject: Re: Serious proof of why the theory of evolution is wrong On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 8:58 PM, Chris de Morsella cdemorse...@yahoo.com wrote: 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 instinct etc. In 1959 a breeding program was started with foxes, one group was bred for aggregation the other group for tameness. Today the aggressive foxes are so dangerous a human dare not even approach them, but the tame foxes not only behave like dogs remarkably they've even started to look like dogs, and people looking at photos of the 2 groups almost universally regard the tame group as looking cuter than the aggressive breed. http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/350422/description/Tamed_fox_shows_domestications_effects_on_the_brain John K Clark that have been shown to have evolved in dogs (or more accurately been bred into dogs by human directed breeding for desired traits). I would not be surprised at all to find that there were, and feel pretty certain that a delta mapping of wolf DNA and say a Sheep Collies DNA will show changes in the key sets of genes that would be implicated in these behaviors... that is if we know what they are. Mapping behaviors to genes gets tricky because things as complex as a behavior, such as the instinct to herd sheep, probably draws upon multiple DNA coding sequences located in possibly different genes even. I don't think geneticists really have nailed down how instincts are wired into our genetic heredity -- we have statistical correlations and such, but - perhaps it is my own ignorance, but no clear story as to how these genetically encoded behavior genes actually work -- end to end. While, for example some Newspaper headline may boldly state that scientists have found the gene for
Re: Serious proof of why the theory of evolution is wrong
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 environment causing random changes in hereditary factors that, like all changes, are more likely to be harmful than helpful. Sure, but then neither do random mutations to an organisms DNA, imply that the body has learned anything either. The introduction of some random change is either harmful, beneficial or of little or no consequence to the individual, whether this phenotypical change is the result of inhibiting or promoting the expression of some underlying DNA or how that DNA get's transcribed, or is the result of an actual change in the individuals sequence of DNA. What you say about epigenetic changes: environment causing random changes in hereditary factors applies as much to the classical hereditary mechanism of DNA changes. Evolution only happens after multiple generations of selective pressure have either, presumably weeded out harmful maladaptations and promoted beneficial ones. There is nothing qualitatively different in random DNA mutation or random methylation and so forth. They are both instances of mutations in an organisms hereditary mechanisms. Why make one a first class citizen and the other an interloper? Naturally I am not arguing that epigenetic re-wiring is as permanent or important as classic genetic based heredity; it certainly seems more reversible for example. From: John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2013 9:01 AM Subject: Re: Serious proof of why the theory of evolution is wrong 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 central dogma. It states that such information cannot be transferred back from protein to either protein or nucleic acid. I know of no example of a change in a protein making a systematic repeatable change (as opposed to a random mutation) in the sequence of bases in DNA that are passed onto the next generation. Not all evolutionary processes have the central dogma So what? As I said before, Darwin knew nothing about DNA or proteins or epigenetic changes and he didn't need to; he knew nothing about the details he only knew that there were hereditary factors of some sort that were passed from one generation to the next, and because no process is perfect he knew that there would sometimes be changes in that information, and he knew that some of those factors would reproduce faster than others, and he knew that the thing that would determine the winning factors from the losing factors is natural selection. What it means is that lessons learnt by the body (ie protein) cannot be transferred back to the genome (ie DNA). It is the antithesis to Lamarkianism. Epigenetic changes involve changes of the genome by the body 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 environment causing random changes in hereditary factors that, like all changes, are more likely to be harmful than helpful. How significant epigenesis is to evolution is another matter, of course. Well Darwinian Evolution was what we are talking about! At most all epigenesis does is provide a new source of variation for Darwinian Natural Selection to work on; and if those changes don't persist through many generations then epigenesis can't even do that. Obviously, there is no equivalent central dogma in cultural evolution. The central dogma of Evolution, both biological and cultural, has nothing to do with DNA or proteins or epigenesis. The central dogma of Evolution is: 1) Heredity factors exist. 2) The process that transfers those factors is very reliable but is not perfect and so sometimes they change. 3) Because there are more ways to be wrong than to be right most (but not all) of those changes are harmful. 4) Some of those changed heredity factors will reproduce faster than others and become dominant in a population. The discovery of epigenesis does not in any way challenge the central dogma of Evolution. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to
Re: Serious proof of why the theory of evolution is wrong
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 adaptability rather than the reverse. All I see is the environment causing random changes in hereditary factors that, like all changes, are more likely to be harmful than helpful. Sure, but then neither do random mutations to an organisms DNA, imply that the body has learned anything either. The introduction of some random change is either harmful, beneficial or of little or no consequence to the individual, whether this phenotypical change is the result of inhibiting or promoting the expression of some underlying DNA or how that DNA get's transcribed, or is the result of an actual change in the individuals sequence of DNA. What you say about epigenetic changes: environment causing random changes in hereditary factors applies as much to the classical hereditary mechanism of DNA changes. Evolution only happens after multiple generations of selective pressure have either, presumably weeded out harmful maladaptations and promoted beneficial ones. There is nothing qualitatively different in random DNA mutation or random methylation and so forth. They are both instances of mutations in an organisms hereditary mechanisms. Why make one a first class citizen and the other an interloper? Naturally I am not arguing that epigenetic re-wiring is as permanent or important as classic genetic based heredity; it certainly seems more reversible for example. But isn't that the problem with epigenetic 'evolution'. Evolution requires faithful reproduction sufficient at least to create a local breeding population. My understanding of epigenetics is that it is hit-or-miss after only a couple of generations. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Serious proof of why the theory of evolution is wrong
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* certain combinations of genes. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Serious proof of why the theory of evolution is wrong
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 epigenetic change may be less permanent than a DNA based hereditary change if environmental pressures continue to favor it what's to say that it does not under these circumstances -- i.e. in a regimen of continued beneficial feedback -- acquire a kind of meta-stability. That is to say if some epigenetic change has occurred and spread in a population because it is beneficial (or desired by a breeder) what would make it spontaneously disappear as long as some survival fitness benefit accrued to the individuals possessing the phenotype resulting form the epigenetic hereditary mechanism. In this scenario would not the continued environmental pressures favor those individuals with the epigenetically altered phenotypes and so continue promoting the hereditary success of the epigenetic mutation? Often, in fact it seems, given traits that have been selected for, by breeding, begin to disappear after just a few generations from a population that has been left to revert to a wild state and after the selective breeding (environmental pressure) stops favoring the expression of those traits -- perhaps because, while good for the farmer they are not so good for the animal species in it's natural setting. Could this not indicate that these traits had an epigenetic hereditary mechanism underlying them, and that this is why they revert so easily. Cheers, -Chris D From: meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2013 12:17 PM Subject: Re: Serious proof of why the theory of evolution is wrong 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 adaptability rather than the reverse. All I see is the environment causing random changes in hereditary factors that, like all changes, are more likely to be harmful than helpful. Sure, but then neither do random mutations to an organisms DNA, imply that the body has learned anything either. The introduction of some random change is either harmful, beneficial or of little or no consequence to the individual, whether this phenotypical change is the result of inhibiting or promoting the expression of some underlying DNA or how that DNA get's transcribed, or is the result of an actual change in the individuals sequence of DNA. What you say about epigenetic changes: environment causing random changes in hereditary factors applies as much to the classical hereditary mechanism of DNA changes. Evolution only happens after multiple generations of selective pressure have either, presumably weeded out harmful maladaptations and promoted beneficial ones. There is nothing qualitatively different in random DNA mutation or random methylation and so forth. They are both instances of mutations in an organisms hereditary mechanisms. Why make one a first class citizen and the other an interloper? Naturally I am not arguing that epigenetic re-wiring is as permanent or important as classic genetic based heredity; it certainly seems more reversible for example. But isn't that the problem with epigenetic 'evolution'. Evolution requires faithful reproduction sufficient at least to create a local breeding population. My understanding of epigenetics is that it is hit-or-miss after only a couple of generations. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
RE: Serious proof of why the theory of evolution is wrong
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 by alarm calls. Whatever genes underpin alarm calling then have a good chance of passing on. If members of another species then derive some benefit from that then that in fact is a form of cheating. There might be mutual cheating insofar as both species might have evolved alarm calling and both noticed the alarm calls of the other species. I dont see the need to invoke group selection here. 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 big display and steals all the limelight. Acts of kindness to complete strangers is harder to explain. I think humans evolved in small groups where genetic relatedness was high. Even though we live in groups of thousands and even millions in cities our behaviour reflects what would be adaptive in much mich smaller groups. All the best --- Original Message --- From: Chris de Morsella cdemorse...@yahoo.com Sent: 14 August 2013 3:05 AM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: RE: Serious proof of why the theory of evolution is wrong 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 correspondence of genetic closeness with altruistic behavior. It becomes a little more indirect when for example one considers the case where loose groupings, comprising of multiple species exhibit this behavior. For example in the case of the various monkey and bird species that seem to forage the tropical rain forest together, the individual animal that sounds the alarm call for some predator is increasing its own risk of becoming predated in order to alert individuals who may not even be the same species. I still think however that by increasing the overall group fitness of the loose multi-species confederation that individual benefits, on average. The linkage is however less clear. Altruism however becomes harder to explain - using Darwinian selection -- when it is pure altruism, such as an act of kindness to some complete stranger (that provides no easily discernible benefit to the individual initiating the altruistic act) or even a cross species acts of altruism, which on occasion seem to occur, for example the classic headline say of stray dog jumps into pool saves drowning baby. This pure altruism that occurs between individuals that are not closely related is what interests me most. In these cases what is the fitness payback for the individual who behaves in the altruistic manner; unless it is the indirect fitness payback that comes from that individual's act helping to build in a higher degree of altruism into their social group dynamics thus helping to lower transactional costs perhaps. Cheers, -Chris D From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of chris peck Sent: Monday, August 12, 2013 4:04 PM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Serious proof of why the theory of evolution is wrong 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 evolution. They call this hypothetical period the Darwinain Transition. At this point selection at a genetic level takes over. I cant vouch for the ideas plausibility. I think that selection at a genetic level is enough to account for altruism. Hamilton's law predicts that behaviors will be undertaken so long as the benefit multiplied by the degree of genetic relatedness outweighs the cost. This equation gets healthy support from the study of bees, wasps and ants etc where the unusual 2/3 relatedness between female siblings gives rise to unisially co-operative behaviour and between sisters. All the best --- Original Message --- From: meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net Sent: 13 August 2013 4:56 AM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Serious proof of why the theory of evolution is wrong 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
Re: Serious proof of why the theory of evolution is wrong
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 changes are more likely to happen in the direction of greater adaptability rather than the reverse. All I see is the environment causing random changes in hereditary factors that, like all changes, are more likely to be harmful than helpful. Sure, but then neither do random mutations to an organisms DNA, imply that the body has learned anything either. The introduction of some random change is either harmful, beneficial or of little or no consequence to the individual, whether this phenotypical change is the result of inhibiting or promoting the expression of some underlying DNA or how that DNA get's transcribed, or is the result of an actual change in the individuals sequence of DNA. What you say about epigenetic changes: environment causing random changes in hereditary factors applies as much to the classical hereditary mechanism of DNA changes. Evolution only happens after multiple generations of selective pressure have either, presumably weeded out harmful maladaptations and promoted beneficial ones. There is nothing qualitatively different in random DNA mutation or random methylation and so forth. They are both instances of mutations in an organisms hereditary mechanisms. Why make one a first class citizen and the other an interloper? Naturally I am not arguing that epigenetic re-wiring is as permanent or important as classic genetic based heredity; it certainly seems more reversible for example. But isn't that the problem with epigenetic 'evolution'. Evolution requires faithful reproduction sufficient at least to create a local breeding population. My understanding of epigenetics is that it is hit-or-miss after only a couple of generations. The methyl groups could become married permanently to the DNA, getting replicated right along with it through a hundred generations. http://discovermagazine.com/2013/may/13-grandmas-experiences-leave-epigenetic-mark-on-your-genes#.Ugq_7KwyglT Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Serious proof of why the theory of evolution is wrong
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 repeatedly selecting the fittest or most desirable individuals out of a larger population based on evaluating the phenotypes for the presence of desirable traits. While, I suppose, in principal, individual organisms could have their individual DNA sequenced and then analyzed and selection could in principal be based on this process -- in practice it has been based on observations of variation across phenotypes. Whether the phenotype being selected for results from certain combinations of genes (arrived at by sexual reproduction), epigenetic changes that induce the phenotype to change based on epigenetic changes in what DNA is getting expressed, or even induced mutations -- when foreign DNA is introduced for example form one species into another -- the process of breeding itself -- at least in its logical goals and method does not really change. When Monsanto is breeding Roundup ready corn for example, it most certainly is not just re-arranging the existing genetic heritage of corn through the process of sexual reproduction selecting for desired traits -- already inherent in the corn plants genetic makeup. Certainly, you are correct that this is the classic meaning of the term, but especially since the discovery that certain viral vectors can be used, in a shotgun-like scattershot approach to insert (e.g. blast) foreign DNA into an organism's own DNA and then through a process of breeding the desired introduced traits can be selected for the meaning of what is meant by breeding has come due for an update. -Chris D From: meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2013 12:21 PM Subject: Re: Serious proof of why the theory of evolution is wrong 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* certain combinations of genes. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Serious proof of why the theory of evolution is wrong
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 big display and steals all the limelight. You assume the dog acted with a premeditated anticipation of a reward. What if the dog saved the baby, then after the child was safely out of the water it went on its way? It's a stretch to give the dog that much strategic abstract capacity to be able to make the link that -- if I save the drowning child I will collect a huge reward. Now I know dog's can be crazy smart and they certainly do seem to be able to read us very well, but that is giving them too many superpowers -- for a dog... though sometimes I get the impression my dog can easily read me and that I am an open book to him :) Chris D From: chris peck chris_peck...@hotmail.com To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2013 4:30 PM Subject: RE: Serious proof of why the theory of evolution is wrong 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 by alarm calls. Whatever genes underpin alarm calling then have a good chance of passing on. If members of another species then derive some benefit from that then that in fact is a form of cheating. There might be mutual cheating insofar as both species might have evolved alarm calling and both noticed the alarm calls of the other species. I dont see the need to invoke group selection here. 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 big display and steals all the limelight. Acts of kindness to complete strangers is harder to explain. I think humans evolved in small groups where genetic relatedness was high. Even though we live in groups of thousands and even millions in cities our behaviour reflects what would be adaptive in much mich smaller groups. All the best --- Original Message --- From: Chris de Morsella cdemorse...@yahoo.com Sent: 14 August 2013 3:05 AM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: RE: Serious proof of why the theory of evolution is wrong 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 correspondence of genetic closeness with altruistic behavior. It becomes a little more indirect when for example one considers the case where loose groupings, comprising of multiple species exhibit this behavior. For example in the case of the various monkey and bird species that seem to forage the tropical rain forest together, the individual animal that sounds the alarm call for some predator is increasing its own risk of becoming predated in order to alert individuals who may not even be the same species. I still think however that by increasing the overall group fitness of the loose multi-species confederation that individual benefits, on average. The linkage is however less clear. Altruism however becomes harder to explain – using Darwinian selection -- when it is pure altruism, such as an act of kindness to some complete stranger (that provides no easily discernible benefit to the individual initiating the altruistic act) or even a cross species acts of altruism, which on occasion seem to occur, for example the classic headline say of “stray dog jumps into pool saves drowning baby”. This pure altruism that occurs between individuals that are not closely related is what interests me most. In these cases what is the fitness payback for the individual who behaves in the altruistic manner; unless it is the indirect fitness payback that comes from that individual’s act helping to build in a higher degree of altruism into their social group dynamics thus helping to lower transactional costs perhaps. Cheers, -Chris D From:everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of chris peck Sent: Monday, August 12, 2013 4:04 PM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Serious proof of why the theory of evolution is wrong Hi Chris d m The papers Ive been reading regard horizontal genetic transfer as a mechanism by which the machinery of translation,
Re: Serious proof of why the theory of evolution is wrong
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 molecular biology, we're talking about Evolution and it has a different central dogma. It states that such information cannot be transferred back from protein to either protein or nucleic acid. I know of no example of a change in a protein making a systematic repeatable change (as opposed to a random mutation) in the sequence of bases in DNA that are passed onto the next generation. Epigenetic information is expressed by the presence or absence of methylation of the bases, not the sequence. Not all evolutionary processes have the central dogma So what? As I said before, Darwin knew nothing about DNA or proteins or epigenetic changes and he didn't need to; he knew nothing about the details he only knew that there were hereditary factors of some sort that were passed from one generation to the next, and because no process is perfect he knew that there would sometimes be changes in that information, and he knew that some of those factors would reproduce faster than others, and he knew that the thing that would determine the winning factors from the losing factors is natural selection. Sure, I'm not arguing that epigenetic, prebiotic or cultural evolution shouldn't be called Darwinian. But in that case, Lamarkian evolution is also Darwinian, and sometimes people want to draw that distinction, so the adjective Darwinian become a bit ill-defined and meaningless. Any process satisfying Lewontin's 3 criteria I would call evolution. If any of the criteria are not satisfied, I would use a word like process, such as irreversible process, or whatever. What it means is that lessons learnt by the body (ie protein) cannot be transferred back to the genome (ie DNA). It is the antithesis to Lamarkianism. Epigenetic changes involve changes of the genome by the body 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 Epigenetic changes show that there is more to hereditary information than base pair sequence. evidence that epigenetic changes are more likely to happen in the direction of greater adaptability rather than the reverse. All I see is the environment causing random changes in hereditary factors that, like all changes, are more likely to be harmful than helpful. How significant epigenesis is to evolution is another matter, of course. Well Darwinian Evolution was what we are talking about! Well, actually, what we started talking about was prebiotic evolution, the possibility of evolving an oprimised standard genetic code, to be precise. At most all epigenesis does is provide a new source of variation for Darwinian Natural Selection to work on; and if those changes don't persist through many generations then epigenesis can't even do that. Obviously, there is no equivalent central dogma in cultural evolution. The central dogma of Evolution, both biological and cultural, has nothing to do with DNA or proteins or epigenesis. The central dogma of Evolution is: 1) Heredity factors exist. 2) The process that transfers those factors is very reliable but is not perfect and so sometimes they change. 3) Because there are more ways to be wrong than to be right most (but not all) of those changes are harmful. 4) Some of those changed heredity factors will reproduce faster than others and become dominant in a population. Provide one citable source where the author uses the term central dogma to describe the above (which is a somewhat poor paraphrase of Lewontin's 3 criteria of evolution). The discovery of epigenesis does not in any way challenge the central dogma of Evolution. Only if you redefine the term central dogma to mean something else entirely, my Humpty! -- Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Principal, High Performance Coders Visiting Professor of Mathematics hpco...@hpcoders.com.au University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
RE: Serious proof of why the theory of evolution is wrong
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 children, it might be acting out of genuine concern and without a morsel of thought for its own well being. But it only can be doing that if that kind of behavior aids the propagation of the traits which underpin it. The point was that from the gene's pov that kind of behavior might well be reciprocal. Dogs get big benefits when they do good things. all the best Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2013 11:12:56 +1000 From: li...@hpcoders.com.au To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Serious proof of why the theory of evolution is wrong 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 molecular biology, we're talking about Evolution and it has a different central dogma. It states that such information cannot be transferred back from protein to either protein or nucleic acid. I know of no example of a change in a protein making a systematic repeatable change (as opposed to a random mutation) in the sequence of bases in DNA that are passed onto the next generation. Epigenetic information is expressed by the presence or absence of methylation of the bases, not the sequence. Not all evolutionary processes have the central dogma So what? As I said before, Darwin knew nothing about DNA or proteins or epigenetic changes and he didn't need to; he knew nothing about the details he only knew that there were hereditary factors of some sort that were passed from one generation to the next, and because no process is perfect he knew that there would sometimes be changes in that information, and he knew that some of those factors would reproduce faster than others, and he knew that the thing that would determine the winning factors from the losing factors is natural selection. Sure, I'm not arguing that epigenetic, prebiotic or cultural evolution shouldn't be called Darwinian. But in that case, Lamarkian evolution is also Darwinian, and sometimes people want to draw that distinction, so the adjective Darwinian become a bit ill-defined and meaningless. Any process satisfying Lewontin's 3 criteria I would call evolution. If any of the criteria are not satisfied, I would use a word like process, such as irreversible process, or whatever. What it means is that lessons learnt by the body (ie protein) cannot be transferred back to the genome (ie DNA). It is the antithesis to Lamarkianism. Epigenetic changes involve changes of the genome by the body 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 Epigenetic changes show that there is more to hereditary information than base pair sequence. evidence that epigenetic changes are more likely to happen in the direction of greater adaptability rather than the reverse. All I see is the environment causing random changes in hereditary factors that, like all changes, are more likely to be harmful than helpful. How significant epigenesis is to evolution is another matter, of course. Well Darwinian Evolution was what we are talking about! Well, actually, what we started talking about was prebiotic evolution, the possibility of evolving an oprimised standard genetic code, to be precise. At most all epigenesis does is provide a new source of variation for Darwinian Natural Selection to work on; and if those changes don't persist through many generations then epigenesis can't even do that. Obviously, there is no equivalent central dogma in cultural evolution. The central dogma of Evolution, both biological and cultural, has nothing to do with DNA or proteins or epigenesis. The central dogma of Evolution is: 1) Heredity factors exist. 2) The process that transfers those factors is very reliable but is not perfect and so sometimes they change. 3) Because there are more ways to be wrong than to be right most (but not all) of those changes are harmful. 4) Some of those changed heredity factors will reproduce faster than others and become dominant in a population. Provide one citable source where the author uses the term central dogma to describe the above (which is a somewhat poor paraphrase of Lewontin's 3 criteria of evolution). The discovery of epigenesis does not in any way challenge the central dogma of Evolution. Only if you redefine the term central
Re: Serious proof of why the theory of evolution is wrong
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 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 group survival dynamics within one species and in the larger meta-groups of two or more species that get through life together by cooperating across species lines. Yeah, no need to be surprised by dogs and cattle. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
RE: Serious proof of why the theory of evolution is wrong
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 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 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 group survival dynamics within one species and in the larger meta-groups of two or more species that get through life together by cooperating across species lines. Yeah, no need to be surprised by dogs and cattle. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Serious proof of why the theory of evolution is wrong
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. :) -- 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 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 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 group survival dynamics within one species and in the larger meta-groups of two or more species that get through life together by cooperating across species lines. Yeah, no need to be surprised by dogs and cattle. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Serious proof of why the theory of evolution is wrong
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 9:28 AM, chris peck chris_peck...@hotmail.comwrote: 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 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 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 group survival dynamics within one species and in the larger meta-groups of two or more species that get through life together by cooperating across species lines. Yeah, no need to be surprised by dogs and cattle. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Serious proof of why the theory of evolution is wrong
=== 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 allco...@gmail.com 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 9:28 AM, chris peck chris_peck...@hotmail.comwrote: 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 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 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 group survival dynamics within one species and in the larger meta-groups of two or more species that get through life together by cooperating across species lines. Yeah, no need to be surprised by dogs and cattle. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. -- All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Serious proof of why the theory of evolution is wrong
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 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. :) -- 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 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 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 group survival dynamics within one species and in the larger meta-groups of two or more species that get through life together by cooperating across species lines. Yeah, no need to be surprised by dogs and cattle. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Serious proof of why the theory of evolution is wrong
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 to another. Sometimes a person modifies the idea before passing it on to somebody else. Some ideas are good at infecting minds and thus get selected to play a major role in culture, and other ideas are not so good at infecting minds and thus become extinct after just a few transmissions and play no role in future culture. Not all evolutionary processes have the central dogma - and even in biological evolution, epigenetic changes violate the central dogma. How on earth do you figure that? There is certainly variation in epigenetic changes. If epigenetic changes can not be inherited then they are rather dull and play no part in evolution. If they can be inherited then in some animals those changes will work better than others in getting the animals genes and methylation levels and whatever other heredity factors there are into the next generation. And Darwin said that's all you need to get Evolution going; he knew nothing about DNA much less epigenetic changes but that doesn't matter because Darwin's logic still holds true whatever the heredity factors are. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
RE: Serious proof of why the theory of evolution is wrong
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 species? That would also be an interesting example, if it can be shown that an evolved set of behaviors (e.g. instincts) developed in those dog species that were bred for working with cattle or sheep that is absent in other dog species that there are epigenetic and/or DNA encoding differences that are related to and underpin the behaviors and traits being observed. From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of meekerdb Sent: Sunday, August 11, 2013 10:59 PM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Serious proof of why the theory of evolution is wrong 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 group survival dynamics within one species and in the larger meta-groups of two or more species that get through life together by cooperating across species lines. Yeah, no need to be surprised by dogs and cattle. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Serious proof of why the theory of evolution is wrong
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 altruistic behavior, a ground squirrel will call a warning alarm to the group if it spots a predator even though by calling attention to itself and behaving heroically it most certainly increases the likelihood that it will get eaten by the predator. when from a simple game theory perspective altruistic behavior is a handicap It's not a handicap it you look at it from the gene's point of view in a closely related population. If I have the altruistic gene and I save the life of 2 other individuals who also have that very same gene then even if my heroism costs me my life the altruism gene will tend to spread through the population. Evolutionary biologists call this The Green Beard Effect; a gene that causes you to have a green beard and behave altruistically toward others who also have a green beard can potentially spread threw a population (and if the group is very closely related then the same thing can happen even without the green beard). And yes, a mutated gene that gives you the green beard but no altruistic desires might spread even faster. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Serious proof of why the theory of evolution is wrong
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 occur in the lab or in the wild, There's this: http://discovermagazine.com/2013/may/13-grandmas-experiences-leave-epigenetic-mark-on-your-genes#.UcDO89iOGhr Craig -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Serious proof of why the theory of evolution is wrong
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 with humans as with a pack. Cattle similarly evolved to be docile and tolerant of humans. For example with sheep -- is sheep dog behavior evolved? Or are they expressing genetic potential that was already innate in their species? That would also be an interesting example, if it can be shown that an evolved set of behaviors (e.g. instincts) developed in those dog species that were bred for working with cattle or sheep that is absent in other dog species that there are epigenetic and/or DNA encoding differences that are related to and underpin the behaviors and traits being observed. Wolves herd sheep too, so there was innate potential. But dogs can also learn a lot of words. I don't know whether wolves can or not. That might be an evolved capability. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Serious proof of why the theory of evolution is wrong
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 evolution. They call this hypothetical period the Darwinain Transition. At this point selection at a genetic level takes over. I cant vouch for the ideas plausibility. I think that selection at a genetic level is enough to account for altruism. Hamilton's law predicts that behaviors will be undertaken so long as the benefit multiplied by the degree of genetic relatedness outweighs the cost. This equation gets healthy support from the study of bees, wasps and ants etc where the unusual 2/3 relatedness between female siblings gives rise to unisially co-operative behaviour and between sisters. All the best --- Original Message --- From: meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net Sent: 13 August 2013 4:56 AM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Serious proof of why the theory of evolution is wrong 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 with humans as with a pack. Cattle similarly evolved to be docile and tolerant of humans. For example with sheep -- is sheep dog behavior evolved? Or are they expressing genetic potential that was already innate in their species? That would also be an interesting example, if it can be shown that an evolved set of behaviors (e.g. instincts) developed in those dog species that were bred for working with cattle or sheep that is absent in other dog species that there are epigenetic and/or DNA encoding differences that are related to and underpin the behaviors and traits being observed. Wolves herd sheep too, so there was innate potential. But dogs can also learn a lot of words. I don't know whether wolves can or not. That might be an evolved capability. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Serious proof of why the theory of evolution is wrong
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. How on earth do you figure that? Ideas can be passed from one person to another. Sometimes a person modifies the idea before passing it on to somebody else. Some ideas are good at infecting minds and thus get selected to play a major role in culture, and other ideas are not so good at infecting minds and thus become extinct after just a few transmissions and play no role in future culture. Not all evolutionary processes have the central dogma - and even in biological evolution, epigenetic changes violate the central dogma. How on earth do you figure that? There is certainly variation in epigenetic changes. If epigenetic changes can not be inherited then they are rather dull and play no part in evolution. If they can be inherited then in some animals those changes will work better than others in getting the animals genes and methylation levels and whatever other heredity factors there are into the next generation. And Darwin said that's all you need to get Evolution going; he knew nothing about DNA much less epigenetic changes but that doesn't matter because Darwin's logic still holds true whatever the heredity factors are. You don't appear to have looked up what the central dogma is: The central dogma of molecular biology deals with the detailed residue-by-residue transfer of sequential information. It states that such information cannot be transferred back from protein to either protein or nucleic acid. (Crick, 1970, Nature 227 (5258): 561–3). What it means is that lessons learnt by the body (ie protein) cannot be transferred back to the genome (ie DNA). It is the antithesis to Lamarkianism. Epigenetic changes involve changes of the genome by the body and its environment, so is contrary to the central dogma. How significant epigenesis is to evolution is another matter, of course. In cultural evolution, you said it yourself - individual minds can quite easily change memes prior to passing them on. Obviously, there is no equivalent central dogma in cultural evolution. Cheers -- Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Principal, High Performance Coders Visiting Professor of Mathematics hpco...@hpcoders.com.au University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Serious proof of why the theory of evolution is wrong
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 instinct etc. that have been shown to have evolved in dogs (or more accurately been bred into dogs by human directed breeding for desired traits). I would not be surprised at all to find that there were, and feel pretty certain that a delta mapping of wolf DNA and say a Sheep Collies DNA will show changes in the key sets of genes that would be implicated in these behaviors... that is if we know what they are. Mapping behaviors to genes gets tricky because things as complex as a behavior, such as the instinct to herd sheep, probably draws upon multiple DNA coding sequences located in possibly different genes even. I don't think geneticists really have nailed down how instincts are wired into our genetic heredity -- we have statistical correlations and such, but - perhaps it is my own ignorance, but no clear story as to how these genetically encoded behavior genes actually work -- end to end. While, for example some Newspaper headline may boldly state that scientists have found the gene for aggression say, a deeper read will reveal that what was found was some DNA that may influence whether or not an individual becomes aggressive, for example, but that whether they actually do or not also depends on a lot of other co-factors, making it hard to determine what the trigger chain of events and changes actually is in reality. Very often, it turns out there is an environmental component in how behavioral traits arise in an individual as well. The interplay between hereditary information and the many dynamic processes at work in the organism at each phase: from the transcription phase that ultimately results in mRNA strands becoming used as a template in the ribosome to produce amino acid chains is still too poorly understood -- IMO -- for assertive statements. We hypothesize the genetic component in many behaviors; have found regions of DNA that are implicated in controlling behavior, but the science is still underdeveloped, the genetic maps we have at our disposal far too course and incomplete and our understanding of the many dynamic processes at work still incomplete. But -- [laughing] -- maybe I just need to catch up... it is such a rapidly moving field. -Chris From: meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Monday, August 12, 2013 11:56 AM Subject: Re: Serious proof of why the theory of evolution is wrong 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 with humans as with a pack. Cattle similarly evolved to be docile and tolerant of humans. For example with sheep – is sheep dog behavior evolved? Or are they expressing genetic potential that was already innate in their species? That would also be an interesting example, if it can be shown that an evolved set of behaviors (e.g. instincts) developed in those dog species that were bred for working with cattle or sheep that is absent in other dog species that there are epigenetic and/or DNA encoding differences that are related to and underpin the behaviors and traits being observed. Wolves herd sheep too, so there was innate potential. But dogs can also learn a lot of words. I don't know whether wolves can or not. That might be an evolved capability. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
RE: Serious proof of why the theory of evolution is wrong
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 could possibly be and it 'exists' as a kind of cloud of quantum superpositions of states waiting to decohere (collapse?). On measurement dechoerence traces out a history for each viable universe with the AP setting the end point, the type of intellegent organisms evolution must meet, with the SSA setting the most likely starting point. In this way, for any universe, the AP and SSA kind of govern the nature of life in the universe and combined can be seen as a kind of selective principle. I then had this image of a bunch of universes allowing life at varying degrees of sophistication peaking at the universe with the ultimate brainy ET. But then I thought hang on, decoherence is copenhagen whereas Prof. Standish is MWI so something is wrong. Im definately in a muddle here... Any pointers would be welcome. All the best. Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2013 17:58:49 -0700 From: cdemorse...@yahoo.com Subject: Re: Serious proof of why the theory of evolution is wrong To: everything-list@googlegroups.com 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 instinct etc. that have been shown to have evolved in dogs (or more accurately been bred into dogs by human directed breeding for desired traits). I would not be surprised at all to find that there were, and feel pretty certain that a delta mapping of wolf DNA and say a Sheep Collies DNA will show changes in the key sets of genes that would be implicated in these behaviors... that is if we know what they are. Mapping behaviors to genes gets tricky because things as complex as a behavior, such as the instinct to herd sheep, probably draws upon multiple DNA coding sequences located in possibly different genes even. I don't think geneticists really have nailed down how instincts are wired into our genetic heredity -- we have statistical correlations and such, but - perhaps it is my own ignorance, but no clear story as to how these genetically encoded behavior genes actually work -- end to end. While, for example some Newspaper headline may boldly state that scientists have found the gene for aggression say, a deeper read will reveal that what was found was some DNA that may influence whether or not an individual becomes aggressive, for example, but that whether they actually do or not also depends on a lot of other co-factors, making it hard to determine what the trigger chain of events and changes actually is in reality. Very often, it turns out there is an environmental component in how behavioral traits arise in an individual as well. The interplay between hereditary information and the many dynamic processes at work in the organism at each phase: from the transcription phase that ultimately results in mRNA strands becoming used as a template in the ribosome to produce amino acid chains is still too poorly understood -- IMO -- for assertive statements. We hypothesize the genetic component in many behaviors; have found regions of DNA that are implicated in controlling behavior, but the science is still underdeveloped, the genetic maps we have at our disposal far too course and incomplete and our understanding of the many dynamic processes at work still incomplete. But -- [laughing] -- maybe I just need to catch up... it is such a rapidly moving field. -Chris From: meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Monday, August 12, 2013 11:56 AM Subject: Re: Serious proof of why the theory of evolution is wrong 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 with humans as with a pack. Cattle similarly evolved to be docile and tolerant of humans. For example with sheep – is sheep dog behavior evolved? Or are they expressing genetic potential that was already innate in their species? That would also be an interesting example, if it can be shown that an evolved set of behaviors (e.g. instincts) developed in those dog species that were bred for working with cattle or sheep that is absent in other dog species that there are
Re: Serious proof of why the theory of evolution is wrong
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 -- Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Principal, High Performance Coders Visiting Professor of Mathematics hpco...@hpcoders.com.au University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Serious proof of why the theory of evolution is wrong
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 underlying DNA. The DNA is not mutated; the underlying sequence of bases remains unaltered. It's true that epigenetic changes don't effect the underlying DNA, but that is a distinction of little or no importance to Evolution because all it's interested in is the resulting phenotype and how well the animal does in getting its inheritance factors (regardless of if those factors are made of DNA base pairs or methylation) into the next generation. Perhaps on a distant planet there is a ecosystem that doesn't use DNA or methylation at all, but it must have some mechanism of inheritance and that mechanism must be very reliable but not perfectly so because there must be some way to generate random changes. And on that distant planet Darwinian natural selection would still be needed to separate the good changes from the bad. it seems to me – that life dances on the knife edge between order and chaos. Stray too far towards either chaos or order and life very quickly stops living. Yes, I agree. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Serious proof of why the theory of evolution is wrong
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. Yes but even there Darwinian natural selection is at work. Some ideas are good at infecting other minds and getting reproduce and thus can survive for thousands of generations, while other ideas are not good at that and vanish after a single generation. Of course minds work a lot faster than embryology so cultural evolution is vastly faster than biological evolution. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Serious proof of why the theory of evolution is wrong
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 passed onto the next via books, or in the very olden day oral stories. Yes but even there Darwinian natural selection is at work. Some ideas are good at infecting other minds and getting reproduce and thus can survive for thousands of generations, while other ideas are not good at that and vanish after a single generation. Of course minds work a lot faster than embryology so cultural evolution is vastly faster than biological evolution. I never said otherwise. What is missing from cultural evolution is an equivalent of the central dogma. All evolutionary processes have variation, selection and heredity. Lewontin said so. Not all evolutionary processes have the central dogma - and even in biological evolution, epigenetic changes violate the central dogma. The central dogma and Lamarkianism is in contradiction. Whether the central dogma is required for the label Darwinian to be applied seems to be a matter of scholar's taste. I usually avoid the label, unless I happen to be talking about biological evolution, just to avoid confusion. -- Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Principal, High Performance Coders Visiting Professor of Mathematics hpco...@hpcoders.com.au University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
RE: Serious proof of why the theory of evolution is wrong
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 encoding schemes DNA, RNA (RNA viruses for example) and epigenetic coding of how this DNA is expressed that can cross generational boundaries and mutate or change the resulting phenotype expressed in progeny. As Russell pointed out there is the matter of memes acting as a kind of encoded piece of cultural DNA that can culturally form individuals even after many generations have past. In some senses, in more advanced cultural creatures such as our species -- though some would argue that last statement J -- ideas transmit and evolve in a Darwinian manner. If we abstract away the details of how information is encoded, preserved, transmitted etc. and deal instead in the abstract, we can avoid a whole mess of confusion and focus in on the essential common characteristics that are shared. From this perspective what is required in order for evolution to occur is the following sequence: 1) A new abstract information entity or a mutation on an existing one is introduced into an individual organism or a population of individual organisms through some process. This process may be hereditary, in the special case of a mutated or new information entity that has been introduced in some earlier generation and is going through a new generation of natural selection. 2) This new information must be remembered by one or more individuals in the initial population set and be able to be encoded and preserved in a durable and high fidelity manner in those individuals. 3) It must also be able to be transmissible across generational boundaries and through some abstract hereditary process (again leaving out all details) and durable high quality copies of the original must exist and also be able to be expressed in the individuals in these successive generations - e.g. the process of heredity stated in an abstract way. Copying flaws and mutations are of course allowed and considered integral to the way things actually work. 4) Crucially, in each succeeding generation, it must undergo and survive a process of Darwinian selection being driven by the given environmental pressures in its world. Only the abstract information entities that make it through each generational selection obstacle course survive - amongst some individual members in the population of the succeeding generation - to be passed on to the next generation in the evolutionary chain. 5) Many generations of natural selection must occur - i.e. loop through steps 1,2,3,4 - in order to enable the bubbling up of beneficial mutations and the weeding out of harmful mutations. How many generations does it take? No easy answer for that but certainly more than say two or three. Only when new abstract information entities satisfy and survive through (step number 4) repeated over many generations (step 5) can evolution be said to have occurred. -Chris From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of John Clark Sent: Sunday, August 11, 2013 9:21 AM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Serious proof of why the theory of evolution is wrong On Sat, Aug 10, 2013 at 3:52 PM, Chris de Morsella cdemorse...@yahoo.com wrote: 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 underlying DNA. The DNA is not mutated; the underlying sequence of bases remains unaltered. It's true that epigenetic changes don't effect the underlying DNA, but that is a distinction of little or no importance to Evolution because all it's interested in is the resulting phenotype and how well the animal does in getting its inheritance factors (regardless of if those factors are made of DNA base pairs or methylation) into the next generation. Perhaps on a distant planet there is a ecosystem that doesn't use DNA or methylation at all, but it must have some mechanism of inheritance and that mechanism must be very reliable but not perfectly so because there must be some way to generate random changes. And on that distant planet Darwinian natural selection would still be needed to separate the good changes from the bad. it seems to me - that life dances on the knife edge between order and chaos. Stray too far towards either chaos or order and life very quickly stops living. Yes, I agree. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send
RE: Serious proof of why the theory of evolution is wrong
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 rather than over the course of many. I understand (perhaps incorrectly?) that horizontal transfer is not uncommon within bacteria and other 'simple' organisms. And of course in the evolutionary epoch they discuss organisms were far simpler again. I suspect also that their model goes against the neo-Darwinian grain insofar as it possibly emphasizes group selection over genetic selection. They suggest that in this very early period it was in fact communities of organisms that were being selected for or against rather than individual genes. But, that might be a misread. They say: The key element in this dynamic is innovation-sharing, an evolutionary protocol whereby descent with variation from one ‘‘generation’’ to the next is not genealogically traceable but is a descent of a cellular community as a whole Ofcourse, it might be the case that this kind of adaptation sits happily under the umbrella of Darwinism even neo-Darwinism. In fact as a layman I am (perhaps naively?) unconcerned about the taxonomy of their model within evolutionary theory. What really interests me isn't even the plausibility of their model but rather the bare possibility that it might offer an argument against Statham's in this thread's original post. All the best. From: cdemorse...@yahoo.com To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: RE: Serious proof of why the theory of evolution is wrong Date: Sun, 11 Aug 2013 17:15:13 -0700 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 encoding schemes DNA, RNA (RNA viruses for example) and epigenetic coding of how this DNA is expressed that can cross generational boundaries and mutate or change the resulting phenotype expressed in progeny.As Russell pointed out there is the matter of memes acting as a kind of encoded piece of cultural DNA that can culturally form individuals even after many generations have past. In some senses, in more advanced cultural creatures such as our species -- though some would argue that last statement J -- ideas transmit and evolve in a Darwinian manner.If we abstract away the details of how information is encoded, preserved, transmitted etc. and deal instead in the abstract, we can avoid a whole mess of confusion and focus in on the essential common characteristics that are shared.From this perspective what is required in order for evolution to occur is the following sequence: 1) A new abstract information entity or a mutation on an existing one is introduced into an individual organism or a population of individual organisms through some process. This process may be hereditary, in the special case of a mutated or new information entity that has been introduced in some earlier generation and is going through a new generation of natural selection.2) This new information must be remembered by one or more individuals in the initial population set and be able to be encoded and preserved in a durable and high fidelity manner in those individuals.3) It must also be able to be transmissible across generational boundaries and through some abstract hereditary process (again leaving out all details) and durable high quality copies of the original must exist and also be able to be expressed in the individuals in these successive generations – e.g. the process of heredity stated in an abstract way. Copying flaws and mutations are of course allowed and considered integral to the way things actually work.4) Crucially, in each succeeding generation, it must undergo and survive a process of Darwinian selection being driven by the given environmental pressures in its world. Only the abstract information entities that make it through each generational selection obstacle course survive – amongst some individual members in the population of the succeeding generation – to be passed on to the next generation in the evolutionary chain.5) Many generations of natural selection must occur – i.e. loop through steps 1,2,3,4 – in order to enable the bubbling up of beneficial mutations and the weeding out of harmful mutations. How many generations does it take? No easy answer for that but certainly more than say two or three. Only when new abstract information entities satisfy and survive through (step number 4) repeated over many generations (step 5) can evolution be said to have occurred.-Chris From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
RE: Serious proof of why the theory of evolution is wrong
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 our species when from a simple game theory perspective altruistic behavior is a handicap, as the cheater always comes out ahead. However when one factors in social transaction costs into the larger equation and compares between groups with a high degree of altruism and those lacking any altruism the difference in this cost for each social transaction is so large that the groups that behave altruistically - at least amongst themselves - have a significant survival advantage over similar groups that instead have very low levels of altruism. To make it more colorful imagine how high the transaction cost for a simple business deal is amongst two rival drug gangs. how many men with guns on each side need to show up and how when things don't work out things can suddenly go horribly wrong. the high transaction cost scenario versus a deal between two good friends that is just based on a handshake and maybe sharing a beer or something. It is certainly also true that information - i.e. DNA - is exchanged laterally between individuals and sometimes jumping from species to species, and that this would have been more the norm in the early epochs of life on earth before highly differentiated and specialized multicellular communities of animals and plants began to appear. In the case of horizontal transfer of DNA, if one looks at it from an abstract point of view this becomes another mode or vector by which the phenotype of the resulting organism will mutated or changed. It is a pathway for the introduction of alteration of the code but in itself is not the entire process of evolution. For that we need natural selection - driven by whatever environmental pressures are the most limiting - i.e. the gating factors. You raise a good point by pointing out group or community dynamics that are also probably influencing the whole selection outcome. It makes things more complex which some find irksome, perhaps, but which, I think, rather more reflects the messy fuzzy noisy nature of reality, life and consciousness. 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 group survival dynamics within one species and in the larger meta-groups of two or more species that get through life together by cooperating across species lines. For example I wonder if there is any statistically discoverable evidence of this kind of process going on amongst those tropical forest monkeys of several different species and niches that travel the forest together in multi-species bands that apparently also include some bird species as well. Apparently these closely linked species have learned each other's specific call sounds for the various predators - say leopard, snake, harpy and shout out for each other's shared benefit. On one level this seems culturally evolved, but I wonder if perhaps evolutionary adaptions could be discovered say for example in brain evolution favoring individuals with increased (albeit rudimentary) language abilities that the monkeys individuals who more closely tune into the calls of other types of monkeys and of the birds as well and can make sense of their meaning are more likely to be alerted in time of impending danger than the individuals that do not or are not able to listen in on the languages of other species - i.e. to multi-lingual monkeys. Over many generations of these unfortunate linguistically challenged monkeys being taken out of the evolutionary equation by becoming leopard food or a digesting bulge in an twelve foot boa would not language abilities be selected for? As always a fascinating subject. Cheers, -Chris From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of chris peck Sent: Sunday, August 11, 2013 5:44 PM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: RE: Serious proof of why the theory of evolution is wrong 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 rather than over the course of many. I understand (perhaps incorrectly?) that horizontal transfer is not uncommon within bacteria and other 'simple' organisms. And of course in the evolutionary epoch they discuss organisms were far simpler again. I suspect also that their model goes against the neo-Darwinian grain insofar as it possibly emphasizes group selection over
Re: Serious proof of why the theory of evolution is wrong
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 group survival dynamics within one species and in the larger meta-groups of two or more species that get through life together by cooperating across species lines. Yeah, no need to be surprised by dogs and cattle. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Serious proof of why the theory of evolution is wrong
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 also describe inheritance of changes in the expression of genes. There appears to be increasing evidence that points to epigenetic inheritance Yes, but that also means that epigenetic inheritance is fundamentally less important than the traditional sort. If you don't have the gene then you just don't have it and that's all there is to it, but if you have the gene but it's not expressed because of one simple methyl group then one of your sperm could lack those 4 atoms (CH3) and your offspring, or his offspring, could inherit the fully functional complex gene even if there was no sign of its expression in you. maternal nicotine exposure during pregnancy is linked to asthma in the third generation in disease models. [...] Isn’t this essentially describing a Lamarckian process? I don't dispute the existence of epigenetic changes even if it's far less important than Mendelian inheritance, but where is the acquired characteristic? If exposure to nicotine led to nicotine tolerance in the parent and the offspring then it would give some support to the inheritance of acquired characteristics, but instead you've just got asthma. It's not news that some chemicals increase the rate of mutation. And besides, you need a lot more than the inheritance of acquired characteristics for Lamarckian evolution to work, you need a way to separate the good acquired characteristics from the bad (asthma is bad), and only Darwinian natural selection can do that. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
RE: Serious proof of why the theory of evolution is wrong
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 understood role in heredity. Even if it is just a supporting actor and DNA has the leading role. just the fact that epigenetic wiring (if I can use that metaphor) can make it across the profound generational barrier and make the leap from one organism to its progeny is profound and amazing - IMO. you need a way to separate the good acquired characteristics from the bad (asthma is bad), and only Darwinian natural selection can do that. I take your point and agree. Darwinian natural selection - across many generations -- is required in order to promote beneficial traits and conversely to weed out those that are harmful or in some way mal-adaptive. From this more encompassing definition just the presence of inherited traits is not sufficient. What is required for evolution to take place is also the selective pressures imposed on each generation -- generation after generation - over time promoting the viability and hence relative abundance of individual organisms with desirable traits (according to environmental pressures); while diminishing the proportion of individuals lacking those traits or having other harmful mal-adaptions or mutations. However epigenetics seems to play a vital and non-discountable role in enabling complex living organisms to evolve and maintain their living processes throughout the complex trajectory of life from the moment of inception through embryogenesis and onto to maturity and then eventually to whatever leads to death. Epigenetic mechanisms - Methylation and also histone modification - themselves almost certainly co-evolved in life, and the fact that it is so markedly present across so many species points to the importance it must have for living systems. Darwinian evolution itself seems to have selected for epigenetics. This secondary and less irreversible - but not therefore unimportant - coding system operates on top of the primary underlying and exquisitely tightly packed DNA code. Most geneticists would agree, I believe, that for most species epigenetics plays a vital role, and that absent this - still poorly understood -- process complex life would not exist. By having this additional secondary encoding schema that operates on top of the underlying DNA schema living things are able to alter that which gets transcribed and expressed and to do so in a more stable manner than transcription factors can alone - transcription factors choose genes for transcriptional activation or repression by recognizing the sequence of DNA bases in their promoter regions. This, secondary level of encoding schema that controls the alternate expression of DNA sequences seems to be quite prevalent. In fact, in the mammalian genome around 95% of multi-exon genes generate alternatively spliced transcripts (Hnilicova and Stanek, 2011; Ip et al., 2011); this is a pretty astounding percentage of re-wiring of the underlying DNA encoding during the process in which it is transcribed and expressed in the resulting mRNA that then controls protein expression. We can all agree - I hope - that at the cellular level living things are characterized by the proteins they produce and are made of. These proteins themselves result from specific patterns of gene expression - encoded in the mRNA that control the ribosome organelles protein production. Gene expression itself is a complex and multi-phased process that ultimately leads to the resulting mRNA. Some examples of this fast and furious molecular activity during the transcription process are: pre-mRNA splicing, in which introns are removed and exons joined; chromatin remodeling, which is the process by which tightly packed DNA is exposed for (or conversely hidden from) the cellular transcription machinery, which is seeking to bind to promoter sequence on coding regions of DNA. Right from the very beginning of an organisms living trajectory, epigenetic processes are vital, switching the underlying genetic expression on and off in what seems to be a highly sequenced and well-orchestrated process. Life, as we know it would not be possible without this epigenetic code dancing on top of the code; in fact it appears that proper DNA methylation is essential for cell differentiation and embryonic development. For example researchers (Suzuki Bird, 2008) have found that mice that lack a particular DNMT have reduced methylation levels and die early in development; evidence that epigenetics plays a vital role in the regulation of gene expression. Researchers have also been able to determine that the DNA methylation process tends to happen at certain specific locations within the genomes of different species and has been shown to play a vital role in numerous cellular
RE: Serious proof of why the theory of evolution is wrong
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, and that multi-generational epigenetic hereditary changes are not therefore examples of evolution in and of themselves. I agree, Darwinian selection is the crux of evolution; hereditary transmission alone is not an example of evolution; so in this I stand corrected - I had originally suggested the case of great grandmother's smoking habit being epigenetically linked to the asthma in their 3rd generation progeny as an example of Lamarckian or perhaps less controversial less baggage burdened term Epigenetic evolution. Of course - and this is the extra point I want to make -- this same quite correct assertion also applies to changes in an organism's DNA as well - whether introduced by random mutation or directed genetic engineering. Individual organisms within a population may inherit mutated/altered DNA, but evolution does not occur in this scenario either, until generations of evolutionary pressure have selected for the most well adapted individuals (more specifically, at least, those well adapted in terms of being able to survive long enough and compete well enough in order to wide cast their genetic information J). -Chris From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of John Clark Sent: Saturday, August 10, 2013 7:56 AM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Serious proof of why the theory of evolution is wrong On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 9:43 PM, Chris de Morsella cdemorse...@yahoo.com wrote: 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 also describe inheritance of changes in the expression of genes. There appears to be increasing evidence that points to epigenetic inheritance Yes, but that also means that epigenetic inheritance is fundamentally less important than the traditional sort. If you don't have the gene then you just don't have it and that's all there is to it, but if you have the gene but it's not expressed because of one simple methyl group then one of your sperm could lack those 4 atoms (CH3) and your offspring, or his offspring, could inherit the fully functional complex gene even if there was no sign of its expression in you. maternal nicotine exposure during pregnancy is linked to asthma in the third generation in disease models. [...] Isn't this essentially describing a Lamarckian process? I don't dispute the existence of epigenetic changes even if it's far less important than Mendelian inheritance, but where is the acquired characteristic? If exposure to nicotine led to nicotine tolerance in the parent and the offspring then it would give some support to the inheritance of acquired characteristics, but instead you've just got asthma. It's not news that some chemicals increase the rate of mutation. And besides, you need a lot more than the inheritance of acquired characteristics for Lamarckian evolution to work, you need a way to separate the good acquired characteristics from the bad (asthma is bad), and only Darwinian natural selection can do that. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Serious proof of why the theory of evolution is wrong
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 understanding of embryology, but there is an even more significant flaw. As Richard Dawkins has said Lamarckism can only work by riding on the back of Darwin. According to Lamarck we can inherit the acquired characteristics that our parents developed during their lives, like powerful arm muscles if your father was a blacksmith and thick skin on your feet if your mother did a lot of barefoot walking; but not all acquired characteristics are beneficial and in fact the vast majority of them are not. If Lamarckian evolution is to proceed in the direction of greater adaption then you can't inherit things from your parents like scars or broken legs or a poked out eye or the general decrepitude of old age. So Lamarck needs a way to separate out the good acquired characteristics from the bad acquired characteristics, and the only known way to do that is Darwinian style Natural Selection. Therefore as Dawkins says Darwinism is the only known theory that is in principle CAPABLE of explaining certain aspects of life John K Clark ** -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Serious proof of why the theory of evolution is wrong
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 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 understanding of embryology, but there is an even more significant flaw. As Richard Dawkins has said Lamarckism can only work by riding on the back of Darwin. According to Lamarck we can inherit the acquired characteristics that our parents developed during their lives, like powerful arm muscles if your father was a blacksmith and thick skin on your feet if your mother did a lot of barefoot walking; but not all acquired characteristics are beneficial and in fact the vast majority of them are not. If Lamarckian evolution is to proceed in the direction of greater adaption then you can't inherit things from your parents like scars or broken legs or a poked out eye or the general decrepitude of old age. So Lamarck needs a way to separate out the good acquired characteristics from the bad acquired characteristics, and the only known way to do that is Darwinian style Natural Selection. Therefore as Dawkins says Darwinism is the only known theory that is in principle CAPABLE of explaining certain aspects of life John K Clark ** -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Serious proof of why the theory of evolution is wrong
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 point. No matter what theory you try to dream up to explain the existence of complex life, except for the invisible man in the sky theory, Darwin's natural selection is always hiding in that theory somewhere. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
RE: Serious proof of why the theory of evolution is wrong
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 restrictive and use epigenetics to also describe inheritance of changes in the expression of genes. There appears to be increasing evidence that points to epigenetic inheritance - from what I have been able to find out -- by different credible researchers and it there is evidence that it occurs in different species, including our own. This is quite topical a subject. for example: A recent study by Los Angeles Biomedical Research Institute at Harbor-UCLA Medical Center, published online by the American Journal of Physiology -- Lung Cellular and Molecular Physiology, reported that maternal nicotine exposure during pregnancy is linked to asthma in the third generation in disease models. This is known as a transgenerational linkage because the third generation was never directly exposed to nicotine or smoking. Previous research had found nicotine exposure was linked to asthma in the second generation, or was a multigenerational cause of asthma. Isn't this essentially describing a Lamarckian process? If in fact - as two independent studies have concluded - cigarette smoking triggers epigenetic changes; causing increased incidence of asthma across at least three generations -- doesn't this appear to show that the epigenetic inheritance is occurring? Hasn't it been demonstrated that both DNA methylation and histone modification can regulate gene expression without altering the underlying DNA sequence? Or is this still a matter of some contention? Quoting from the article on ScienceDaily http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/08/130805131009.htm that was quoting the study published online by the American Journal of Physiology [don't have a subscription to that journal] In previous studies, the researchers have concluded that the cause of the second generation's asthma was epigenetic modification (an environmental factor causing a genetic change). Nicotine was affecting both the lung cells and the sex cells in ways that caused the lungs that developed from those cells to develop abnormally, causing asthma. The current study paves the way for determining the epigenetic mechanisms behind smoking and the transmission of asthma to future generations, the researchers concluded. Cheers, -Chris de Morsella From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of John Clark Sent: Friday, August 09, 2013 7:37 AM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Serious proof of why the theory of evolution is wrong 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 understanding of embryology, but there is an even more significant flaw. As Richard Dawkins has said Lamarckism can only work by riding on the back of Darwin. According to Lamarck we can inherit the acquired characteristics that our parents developed during their lives, like powerful arm muscles if your father was a blacksmith and thick skin on your feet if your mother did a lot of barefoot walking; but not all acquired characteristics are beneficial and in fact the vast majority of them are not. If Lamarckian evolution is to proceed in the direction of greater adaption then you can't inherit things from your parents like scars or broken legs or a poked out eye or the general decrepitude of old age. So Lamarck needs a way to separate out the good acquired characteristics from the bad acquired characteristics, and the only known way to do that is Darwinian style Natural Selection. Therefore as Dawkins says Darwinism is the only known theory that is in principle CAPABLE of explaining certain aspects of life John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit
RE: Serious proof of why the theory of evolution is wrong
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 emerged once, whereas I would think that replicating RNA probably arose many times quite easily when life wasn't around to gobble them up. Not really, but re-reading your original post I'm actually quite persuaded by the idea that even if these replicating mechanisms emerged very rarely it would be possible and enough to invoke the anthropic principle. After all, it only had to emerge once in the whole universe for these questions to get asked... Whats niggling me though is something else. Dawkins sometimes intimates that the current code was something that itself evolved from low to high fidelity. For reasons I've made I can't see how that can be so. Evolution is a process where beneficial but random changes accumulate and are passed on through successive generations. But if a random mutation in the code results in catastrophe as Dawkins acknowledges then that can't happen. This is to say that if the code evolved then that evolution could not be Darwinian in nature. I find it reassuring that there is research underway addressing this issue. I found this paper over my lunch break: http://www.pnas.org/content/103/28/10696.full They emphasize ambiguity over error in early coding mechanisms and suggest a kind of Lamarkian evolutionary dynamic that existed prior to and eventually gave way to Darwinian evolutionary dynamics. Horizontal vs. vertical heredity etc. In many ways that might be seen as heresy by the biological community but laymen like me don't mind a little heresy here and there. We don't know any better. :) Anyway, it seems to offer the following response to Statham. His argument is underpinned by the assumption that all evolution is Darwinian. If one sheds that assumption then the code could evolve without the consequent catastrophe. All the best. Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2013 14:02:33 +1000 From: li...@hpcoders.com.au To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Serious proof of why the theory of evolution is wrong 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 interested. Further comments interspersed On Wed, Aug 07, 2013 at 01:03:36AM +, chris peck wrote: 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 bunch of amino acids. Lets say the replicating system isn't optimized and has low redundancy so that codonA - aa1 codonB - aa2 codonC - aa3 Now there is a random mutation in the mechanism that ought to offer some redundancy: codonA - aa1 codonB - aa1 codonC - aa2 codonD - aa3 Unless there has been a concomitant mutation in the DNA strands the mechanism will process, this 'optimization' is in fact catastrophic. That is what I was referring to as the boundary being unstable. The two schema cannot coexist at the same location. What I had in mind was that they existed contemporaneously, but in different physical locations - eg different rock pools perhaps. ISTM that you are implictly assuming that these replicating hypercycles only emerged once, whereas I would think that replicating RNA probably arose many times quite easily when life wasn't around to gobble them up. -- Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Principal, High Performance Coders Visiting Professor of Mathematics hpco...@hpcoders.com.au University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from
Re: Serious proof of why the theory of evolution is wrong
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 these replicating hypercycles only emerged once, whereas I would think that replicating RNA probably arose many times quite easily when life wasn't around to gobble them up. Not really, but re-reading your original post I'm actually quite persuaded by the idea that even if these replicating mechanisms emerged very rarely it would be possible and enough to invoke the anthropic principle. After all, it only had to emerge once in the whole universe for these questions to get asked... Whats niggling me though is something else. Dawkins sometimes intimates that the current code was something that itself evolved from low to high fidelity. For reasons I've made I can't see how that can be so. Evolution is a process where beneficial but random changes accumulate and are passed on through successive generations. But if a random mutation in the code results in catastrophe as Dawkins acknowledges then that can't happen. 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. This is to say that if the code evolved then that evolution could not be Darwinian in nature. Sure it could. Random mutations, most of which are bad, many of which are neutral, and a few of which are beneficial relative to subsequent natural selection. If DNA copying were perfect there could be no evolution, so if some organisms developed with perfect (or just, too good) error correcting codes, they almost certainly got left behind in the evolutionary arms race and have left no descendants. Brent I find it reassuring that there is research underway addressing this issue. I found this paper over my lunch break: http://www.pnas.org/content/103/28/10696.full They emphasize ambiguity over error in early coding mechanisms and suggest a kind of Lamarkian evolutionary dynamic that existed prior to and eventually gave way to Darwinian evolutionary dynamics. Horizontal vs. vertical heredity etc. In many ways that might be seen as heresy by the biological community but laymen like me don't mind a little heresy here and there. We don't know any better. :) Anyway, it seems to offer the following response to Statham. His argument is underpinned by the assumption that all evolution is Darwinian. If one sheds that assumption then the code could evolve without the consequent catastrophe. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
RE: Serious proof of why the theory of evolution is wrong
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 common-all-garden mutations within strands of DNA ofcourse there is no catestrophic result. Infact, evolution via natural selection depends on the possibility of copying error. Its a good source of mutation. The genetic code is high fidelity but not *that* high fidelity. When you're talking about mutation and evolution of the code itself, between the mapping of codons and amino acids for example then that is genuinely catestrophic. That doesn't seem to me to be contentious, btw. All the best Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2013 20:28:41 -0700 From: meeke...@verizon.net To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Serious proof of why the theory of evolution is wrong 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 these replicating hypercycles only emerged once, whereas I would think that replicating RNA probably arose many times quite easily when life wasn't around to gobble them up. Not really, but re-reading your original post I'm actually quite persuaded by the idea that even if these replicating mechanisms emerged very rarely it would be possible and enough to invoke the anthropic principle. After all, it only had to emerge once in the whole universe for these questions to get asked... Whats niggling me though is something else. Dawkins sometimes intimates that the current code was something that itself evolved from low to high fidelity. For reasons I've made I can't see how that can be so. Evolution is a process where beneficial but random changes accumulate and are passed on through successive generations. But if a random mutation in the code results in catastrophe as Dawkins acknowledges then that can't happen. 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. This is to say that if the code evolved then that evolution could not be Darwinian in nature. Sure it could. Random mutations, most of which are bad, many of which are neutral, and a few of which are beneficial relative to subsequent natural selection. If DNA copying were perfect there could be no evolution, so if some organisms developed with perfect (or just, too good) error correcting codes, they almost certainly got left behind in the evolutionary arms race and have left no descendants. Brent I find it reassuring that there is research underway addressing this issue. I found this paper over my lunch break: http://www.pnas.org/content/103/28/10696.full They emphasize ambiguity over error in early coding mechanisms and suggest a kind of Lamarkian evolutionary dynamic that existed prior to and eventually gave way to Darwinian evolutionary dynamics. Horizontal vs. vertical heredity etc. In many ways that might be seen as heresy by the biological community but laymen like me don't mind a little heresy here and there. We don't know any better. :) Anyway, it seems to offer the following response to Statham. His argument is underpinned by the assumption that all evolution is Darwinian. If one sheds that assumption then the code could evolve without the consequent catastrophe. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Serious proof of why the theory of evolution is wrong
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 possibilities I still consider to be a form of evolution (in the general sense of satisfying Lewontin's criteria) - see Evolution in the Multiverse, or the discussion in my book. Its a very fecund research area right now :). Cheers On Fri, Aug 09, 2013 at 03:53:03AM +, chris peck wrote: 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 common-all-garden mutations within strands of DNA ofcourse there is no catestrophic result. Infact, evolution via natural selection depends on the possibility of copying error. Its a good source of mutation. The genetic code is high fidelity but not *that* high fidelity. When you're talking about mutation and evolution of the code itself, between the mapping of codons and amino acids for example then that is genuinely catestrophic. That doesn't seem to me to be contentious, btw. All the best Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2013 20:28:41 -0700 From: meeke...@verizon.net To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Serious proof of why the theory of evolution is wrong 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 these replicating hypercycles only emerged once, whereas I would think that replicating RNA probably arose many times quite easily when life wasn't around to gobble them up. Not really, but re-reading your original post I'm actually quite persuaded by the idea that even if these replicating mechanisms emerged very rarely it would be possible and enough to invoke the anthropic principle. After all, it only had to emerge once in the whole universe for these questions to get asked... Whats niggling me though is something else. Dawkins sometimes intimates that the current code was something that itself evolved from low to high fidelity. For reasons I've made I can't see how that can be so. Evolution is a process where beneficial but random changes accumulate and are passed on through successive generations. But if a random mutation in the code results in catastrophe as Dawkins acknowledges then that can't happen. 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. This is to say that if the code evolved then that evolution could not be Darwinian in nature. Sure it could. Random mutations, most of which are bad, many of which are neutral, and a few of which are beneficial relative to subsequent natural selection. If DNA copying were perfect there could be no evolution, so if some organisms developed with perfect (or just, too good) error correcting codes, they almost certainly got left behind in the evolutionary arms race and have left no descendants. Brent I find it reassuring that there is research underway addressing this issue. I found this paper over my lunch break: http://www.pnas.org/content/103/28/10696.full They emphasize ambiguity over error in early coding mechanisms and suggest a kind of Lamarkian evolutionary dynamic that existed prior to and eventually gave way to Darwinian evolutionary dynamics. Horizontal vs. vertical heredity etc. In many ways that might be seen as heresy by the biological community but laymen like me don't mind a little heresy here and there. We don't know any better. :) Anyway, it seems to offer the following response to Statham. His argument is underpinned by the assumption that all evolution is Darwinian. If one sheds that assumption then the code could evolve without the consequent catastrophe. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at
Re: Serious proof of why the theory of evolution is wrong
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 wrote: It allows annoys me how christians justify all the suffering and verall shittiness of existence with: ah, but that is necessary ecause God wanted us to have free will. He apparently also wanted us to have leukemia, AIDS, plague, tsunamis, volcanoes, malaria, polio, influenza, and smallpox. None of which have anything to do with 'free will', except maybe polio and smallpox which we DON'T have because human beings found a way to suppress them. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Serious proof of why the theory of evolution is wrong
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: 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 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, malaria, polio, influenza, and smallpox. None of which have anything to do with 'free will', except maybe polio and smallpox which we DON'T have because human beings found a way to suppress them. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com http://www.avg.com Version: 2013.0.3392 / Virus Database: 3209/6554 - Release Date: 08/05/13 -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Serious proof of why the theory of evolution is wrong
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 religion. There's no need to beat down Darwin, in order to believe in God. There is a very urgent need to beat down Darwin in order to believe in a God that is not a moral monster. And if you've got Darwin then that doesn't leave God with anything to do. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Serious proof of why the theory of evolution is wrong
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. Code is generated all the time based on inputs that are not code. If we change the compiler and even the language say going from C to Java for example -- increasingly, as transformation (and generation) tools and techniques evolve -- this can be done almost seamlessly and largely automatically -- by machine driven transformation -- with very little human intervention. It is not all that difficult to scan for a symbol and transform it to some other canonical form or to build an expression tree that can be used to control a more sophisticated and less direct transformation process. As long as there is some transformer agent that can understand the schema of the input format and knows how to produce the desired schema of the output (even if it can not run or operate on it) the underlying functionality described by an instruction set in one language can be transformed into a faithful analog in another perhaps very different output language (for example say going from UML to java code) This is done all the time by programmers and is in fact the kind of tool I am working on today -- to take csv input and produce well formatted xml output conforming to a given schema. It's our bread and butter; we do things like this every day. Similarly in living things code is transformed all the time between encoding formats -- moving back and forth between DNA and RNA and between RNA and amino-acid chains. Proto self-replicating chemicals could have similarly transformed their rudimentary hereditary programming to some better evolved encoding format as the necessary building blocks (specific necessary catalyzing enzymes for example) became evolved and available. Molecules, including peptides proteins, often undergo processes of self assembly that result in predictable outcomes and can generate important precursors required by living cells. Until Theists can present a God that can be seen, felt or in some way shown to exist (that does not rely on circular logic or faith), evolution driven abiogenesis is the best explanation/theory we have for how life sprang up on this rock. From: Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au To: everything-list@googlegroups.com everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Monday, August 5, 2013 7:48 PM Subject: Re: Serious proof of why the theory of evolution is wrong 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 seriously it concerns the mechanics of such an evolution. To use a computer analogy: It doesn't concern for example the developing fitness of specific algorithms written in a language but the fitness of the language itself. Many algorithms can be written in C and we can store these algorithms in files etc. However, if we change the mechanics of C, if we change the compiler, then these files become useless. Perhaps C requires a semi-colon to designate the end of a line of code. If this changes even slightly, perhaps the requirement becomes a comma rather than semi-colon, then all those code files are effectively useless and will no longer compile in to workable algorithms. C is a rather poor example, as it is a brittle language, as are most computer languages. Examples of less brittle languages are the assembly language used in Tierra or Avida. The have been some examples of people evolving the instruction set itself, although admittedly I haven't heard how successful that has been, or recent results in that area. One reference you could follow up is Egri-Nagy Nehaniv (2003), Proceedings ECAL 2003, LNAI 2801, p238--247 (SpringerLink) Evolvability og the Genotype-Phenotype Relation in Populations of Self-Replicating Digital Organisms in a Tierra-Like System. Compare that with the degree to which we can fiddle with the specifics of the code files themselves. We can randomly change strings, constants, all manner of things and there will be a set of changes that result in files that compile into runnable algorithms. Different ones than before, with semantic 'bugs' perhaps but there will be a further subset of new algorithms which do the same as before, more or less, but more efficiently. And in this analogy that is exactly what evolution requires. The point here is surely that in the former case even a subtle change to the compiler is instantly catastrophic and is therefore different to usual selective techniques which involve the
Re: Serious proof of why the theory of evolution is wrong
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 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 meeke...@verizon.net To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.comeverything-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 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, malaria, polio, influenza, and smallpox. None of which have anything to do with 'free will', except maybe polio and smallpox which we DON'T have because human beings found a way to suppress them. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2013.0.3392 / Virus Database: 3209/6554 - Release Date: 08/05/13 -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
RE: Serious proof of why the theory of evolution is wrong
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 bunch of amino acids. Lets say the replicating system isn't optimized and has low redundancy so that codonA - aa1 codonB - aa2 codonC - aa3 Now there is a random mutation in the mechanism that ought to offer some redundancy: codonA - aa1 codonB - aa1 codonC - aa2 codonD - aa3 Unless there has been a concomitant mutation in the DNA strands the mechanism will process, this 'optimization' is in fact catastrophic. Far from being optimized the fidelity of the system has dramatically dropped and the amino acids spat out by the mechanism will be hugely error prone. The phenotype will be useless. This is what Dawkins means when he says : “Any change in the genetic code ... would have an instantly catastrophic effect, not just in one place but throughout the whole organism. If any word ... changed its meaning, so that it came to specify a different amino acid, just about every protein in the body would instantaneously change ... and this would spell disaster.” That kind of stumps the possibility of natural selection within individual coding mechanisms. They can not develop from low to high fidelity. It doesn't matter how much time you give them. Er, competition? If you can see how all different codes existed at one point at different parts of the globe, and you can see that the region boundaries are unstable (no mechanism like speciation, or bilingualism, to keep different codes distinct), then it follows that the code with the best replication ability will ultimately dominate. Yes, like I said, I can see that. I can see that there could be competition between a number of different coding strategies. One strategy could win out over the others in terms of fidelity. But whilst that is natural selection it isn't really evolution. This is why Stathan is keen to point out that there *are* other coding strategies found in nature. Probably, there is an abiogenetic story whereby coding strategies pop out of the primordial soup quite randomly and that therefore this isn't quite the issue for evolutionary theory Stathan supposes. He hints at that with reference to Dawkins. Alternatively, maybe Im just barking up the wrong tree. Wouldn't be the first time... Best Regards Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2013 14:04:07 -0400 Subject: Re: Serious proof of why the theory of evolution is wrong From: yann...@gmail.com To: everything-list@googlegroups.com 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 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: 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 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, malaria, polio, influenza, and smallpox. None of which have anything to do with 'free will', except maybe polio and smallpox which we DON'T have because human beings found a way to suppress them. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List
Re: Serious proof of why the theory of evolution is wrong
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 interested. Further comments interspersed On Wed, Aug 07, 2013 at 01:03:36AM +, chris peck wrote: 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 bunch of amino acids. Lets say the replicating system isn't optimized and has low redundancy so that codonA - aa1 codonB - aa2 codonC - aa3 Now there is a random mutation in the mechanism that ought to offer some redundancy: codonA - aa1 codonB - aa1 codonC - aa2 codonD - aa3 Unless there has been a concomitant mutation in the DNA strands the mechanism will process, this 'optimization' is in fact catastrophic. That is what I was referring to as the boundary being unstable. The two schema cannot coexist at the same location. What I had in mind was that they existed contemporaneously, but in different physical locations - eg different rock pools perhaps. ISTM that you are implictly assuming that these replicating hypercycles only emerged once, whereas I would think that replicating RNA probably arose many times quite easily when life wasn't around to gobble them up. -- Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Principal, High Performance Coders Visiting Professor of Mathematics hpco...@hpcoders.com.au University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Serious proof of why the theory of evolution is wrong
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] See my Leibniz site at http://independent.academia.edu/RogerClough *The listing of the attachments is as following:* (1) The remarkable language of DNA.pdf (617.8 K) Dr. Roger B Clough NIST (ret.) [1/1/2000] See my Leibniz site at http://independent.academia.edu/RogerClough -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Serious proof of why the theory of evolution is wrong
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 them. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Serious proof of why the theory of evolution is wrong
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 Juvenile ideas so I see no reason why I should put any effort into attacking them. Ditto. I would just like to point out that, 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, the phylogenetic tree and its strong correlation between genotypical and phenotypical distance, all the evidence for biological complexification along time, all the remains of higher primates that look like less evolved humans, the ability of bacteria to evolve in controlled lab experiments, the fact the genetic algorithms work, the fact that genetic mutations occur at a rate that match theoretical models, the Cambrian explosion, the correct predictions on the existence of certain species based on evolutionary theory, the fact that bacteria are becoming resistant to antibiotics, the island effect in speciation and so on and so forth. Telmo. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Serious proof of why the theory of evolution is wrong
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 only reason God would be a sadistic monster. He could have produced complex animals like you and me just by snapping His fingers, but instead he decided to do it by way of Evolution. And Evolution has made some beautiful things but the process itself is not beautiful, in fact its cruelty is ASTRONOMICAL, for every tiny advance millions die horrible deaths. There is no getting around it, Evolution is a hideously cruel process and if I were God I would have done things very very differently, among other things I would have made intense physical pain a logical impossibility, but unfortunately that punk Yahweh got the job and not me. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Serious proof of why the theory of evolution is wrong
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 repository that could be assembled through non-enzymatic means. Chemically simpler -- and easier to assemble -- RNA like polymers exist that have been suggested as a candidate and some of these polymer chains have been shown to be able to (in laboratory conditions) act as a template for the formation of complimentary transcribed strands of RNA. In the anoxic conditions of early earth iron may have played a role in this first genesis. You present the picture -- after billions of years of evolution and say how could life have gotten here without a designer -- as if it got here from nothing in a single leap -- but you ignore that over billions of years an astronomically huge number of variations on all manner of themes can be tried out, and that over time incremental change can set the stage for radical leaps (for example moving from RNA based life to DNA based life) The move to the more stable and higher fidelity DNA double helix no doubt took a lot of time (the precursor enzymes etc. needed to be available first) and may have evolved more than once as well. There is evidence from comparative genomics, structural biology that the specific enzymes involved in the synthesis of DNA precursors, retro-transcription of RNA templates and replication of single and double-stranded DNA molecules evolved independently and on several occasions. DNA is chemically quite similar to RNA and in modern cellular biology DNA building blocks are in fact assembled from RNA precursors -- which itself suggests that DNA evolved from RNA. Their is a fair amount of enzymatic and other evidence that suggest life evolved from RNA based genetic encoding to the DNA double helix (RNA is, in fact, vital and still very central to cellular chemistry of life -- as an intermediary information messenger -- mRNA -- (and ribosomal actor perhaps) -- transcribed from DNA gene regions onto complimentary strands of RNA transcript using the enzyme RNA polymerase) There is evidence for RNA having filled the role that DNA now plays -- at the enzymatic and biochemical level -- for example in how mRNA catalyzes the building of peptides by ribosomes. We do not know for sure how life began on our planet (or even if it began here or was transported here -- the pangenesis hypothesis) -- whatever and however it was a very long time ago. However there is evidence buried in the DNA, the cellular organelles (ribosomes, mitochondria etc.) biochemical processes and artifacts of present day living things that provide intriguing hints of earlier intermediary stages that life may have evolved through. May I suggest reading these extracts: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK6360/ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK26876/ It is a fascinating story that is still being unraveled by curious minds and denied by minds who need a neatly packaged explanation and who abdicate the attempt to discover genesis by invoking a designer. I am aware that -- true believers in a created universe, will not be convinced, for there is nothing that can be said or done that can reach into the mind of a believer safely sedimented by their dogma. From: Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net To: - mindbr...@yahoogroups.com mindbr...@yahoogroups.com; everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com; 4dworldx 4dwor...@yahoogroups.com; inclusional...@jiscmail.ac.uk inclusional...@jiscmail.ac.uk; inclusional...@yahoogroups.com inclusional...@yahoogroups.com; plamen simeonov plamen.l.simeo...@gmail.com; theoretical_physics theoretical_phys...@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, August 5, 2013 5:19 AM Subject: Serious proof of why the theory of evolution is wrong 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] See my Leibniz site at http://independent.academia.edu/RogerClough The listing of the attachments is as following: (1) The remarkable language of DNA.pdf (617.8 K) Dr. Roger B Clough NIST (ret.) [1/1/2000] See my Leibniz site at http://independent.academia.edu/RogerClough -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Re: Serious proof of why the theory of evolution is wrong
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 amount of false evidence: the fossil record, Yes, but that's not the only reason God would be a sadistic monster. He could have produced complex animals like you and me just by snapping His fingers, but instead he decided to do it by way of Evolution. And Evolution has made some beautiful things but the process itself is not beautiful, in fact its cruelty is ASTRONOMICAL, for every tiny advance millions die horrible deaths. There is no getting around it, Evolution is a hideously cruel process and if I were God I would have done things very very differently, among other things I would have made intense physical pain a logical impossibility, but unfortunately that punk Yahweh got the job and not me. According to NSA records you didn't get the job because you ticked YES at the QM box and NO at possibility of computationalism box. That's why we got Yahweh, because Bruno wrote this test is not decidable and walked out of the room. Concerning the rest of us getting the job (whether we finally all wound up getting the damned job, because everything's a janitor job, even being god... cue strange music...), that's classified apparently. PGC John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Serious proof of why the theory of evolution is wrong
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. -Original Message- From: Platonist Guitar Cowboy multiplecit...@gmail.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Mon, Aug 5, 2013 2:17 pm Subject: Re: Serious proof of why the theory of evolution is wrong 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 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 only reason God would be a sadistic monster. He could have produced complex animals like you and me just by snapping His fingers, but instead he decided to do it by way of Evolution. And Evolution has made some beautiful things but the process itself is not beautiful, in fact its cruelty is ASTRONOMICAL, for every tiny advance millions die horrible deaths. There is no getting around it, Evolution is a hideously cruel process and if I were God I would have done things very very differently, among other things I would have made intense physical pain a logical impossibility, but unfortunately that punk Yahweh got the job and not me. According to NSA records you didn't get the job because you ticked YES at the QM box and NO at possibility of computationalism box. That's why we got Yahweh, because Bruno wrote this test is not decidable and walked out of the room. Concerning the rest of us getting the job (whether we finally all wound up getting the damned job, because everything's a janitor job, even being god... cue strange music...), that's classified apparently. PGC John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Serious proof of why the theory of evolution is wrong
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, it evolution must have proceeded very early on in life's history, that there wouldn't be sufficient time for the billions of experiments required to optimise the code. Assuming for a moment that there are many possible viable genetic codes. Then all of these genetic codes would have coexisted on different parts of the Earth. Gradually all but the small handful of very similar codes would be replaced by the code that replicates the most faithfully. This process would be like hill climbing optimisation, and happens very fast, geologically speaking. The few hundred million years available early on in Earth's history before the last universal common ancestor would be ample for the task. Unlike human languages (referred to in the article), there would be no equivalent of bilingualism at the group boundaries, leading to instability of border areas between different codes. Of course, if there is only one viable genetic code, in a sea of nonviables codes, evolution would have a more difficult job. But then we would probably appeal to the anthropic principle - we happen to live on a planet with a viable genetic code, out of billions that don't, because we must. We now know there are billions of planets out there. We will know shortly, which way the code is. We now have the technology to create alternate artificial genetic codes, and will be able to test the hypotheses that the standard code is unique optimised, or uniquely viable. But either way, it does not pose much of a problem for evolution. On Mon, Aug 05, 2013 at 08:19:42AM -0400, Roger Clough 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] See my Leibniz site at http://independent.academia.edu/RogerClough The listing of the attachments is as following: (1) The remarkable language of DNA.pdf (617.8 K) Dr. Roger B Clough NIST (ret.) [1/1/2000] See my Leibniz site at http://independent.academia.edu/RogerClough -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Principal, High Performance Coders Visiting Professor of Mathematics hpco...@hpcoders.com.au University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Serious proof of why the theory of evolution is wrong
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 simpler chemicals that would be easier to synthesize in the first instance, but would have been supplanted by the harder to synthesize (until the precursor catalysts are in place) DNA, because of it's superior fidelity. Several candidates for a pre-RNA information carrier exist and are being looked at. Threose nucleic acid TNA (it differs from RNA/DNA in it's sugar backbone) is on. TNA has the interesting capacity to bind with RNA through antiparallel Watson-Crick base pairing, which provides a potential pathway by which it could have transferred information from the pre-RNA genesis to RNA based life. Life could have had multiple genesis's and begun in its very simplest forms with a various different chemical structures encoding the hereditary information required for fidelity of reproduction. That almost all life (except a few RNA viruses) is DNA based is the result of trillions of generations of evolutionary pressure favoring the high fidelity of DNA. From: Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Monday, August 5, 2013 3:14 PM Subject: Re: Serious proof of why the theory of evolution is wrong 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, it evolution must have proceeded very early on in life's history, that there wouldn't be sufficient time for the billions of experiments required to optimise the code. Assuming for a moment that there are many possible viable genetic codes. Then all of these genetic codes would have coexisted on different parts of the Earth. Gradually all but the small handful of very similar codes would be replaced by the code that replicates the most faithfully. This process would be like hill climbing optimisation, and happens very fast, geologically speaking. The few hundred million years available early on in Earth's history before the last universal common ancestor would be ample for the task. Unlike human languages (referred to in the article), there would be no equivalent of bilingualism at the group boundaries, leading to instability of border areas between different codes. Of course, if there is only one viable genetic code, in a sea of nonviables codes, evolution would have a more difficult job. But then we would probably appeal to the anthropic principle - we happen to live on a planet with a viable genetic code, out of billions that don't, because we must. We now know there are billions of planets out there. We will know shortly, which way the code is. We now have the technology to create alternate artificial genetic codes, and will be able to test the hypotheses that the standard code is unique optimised, or uniquely viable. But either way, it does not pose much of a problem for evolution. On Mon, Aug 05, 2013 at 08:19:42AM -0400, Roger Clough 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] See my Leibniz site at http://independent.academia.edu/RogerClough The listing of the attachments is as following: (1) The remarkable language of DNA.pdf (617.8 K) Dr. Roger B Clough NIST (ret.) [1/1/2000] See my Leibniz site at http://independent.academia.edu/RogerClough -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Principal, High Performance Coders Visiting Professor of Mathematics hpco...@hpcoders.com.au University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to
Re: Serious proof of why the theory of evolution is wrong
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 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 only reason God would be a sadistic monster. He could have produced complex animals like you and me just by snapping His fingers, but instead he decided to do it by way of Evolution. And Evolution has made some beautiful things but the process itself is not beautiful, in fact its cruelty is ASTRONOMICAL, for every tiny advance millions die horrible deaths. There is no getting around it, Evolution is a hideously cruel process and if I were God I would have done things very very differently, among other things I would have made intense physical pain a logical impossibility, but unfortunately that punk Yahweh got the job and not me. According to NSA records you didn't get the job because you ticked YES at the QM box and NO at possibility of computationalism box. That's why we got Yahweh, because Bruno wrote this test is not decidable and walked out of the room. Concerning the rest of us getting the job (whether we finally all wound up getting the damned job, because everything's a janitor job, even being god... cue strange music...), that's classified apparently. PGC 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. Fuck free will! I would much rather exist in a state of constant bliss, unable to feel anything but orgasm x1000, no pain, no boredom, no negative emotion whatsoever, forever. Instead I get free will. Great. In the beginning, the universe was created. This made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move. Many races believe it was created by some sort of god, but the Jatravartid people of Viltvodle VI firmly believed that the entire universe was, in fact, sneezed out of the nose of a being called the Great Green Arkleseizure. The Jatravartids, who lived in perpetual fear of the time they called The Coming of the Great White Handkerchief were small, blue creatures with more than fifty arms each. They were therefore unique in being the only race in history to have invented the aerosol deodorant before the wheel. - Douglas Adams, in The Restaurant at the End of the Universe. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
RE: Serious proof of why the theory of evolution is wrong
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 computer analogy: It doesn't concern for example the developing fitness of specific algorithms written in a language but the fitness of the language itself. Many algorithms can be written in C and we can store these algorithms in files etc. However, if we change the mechanics of C, if we change the compiler, then these files become useless. Perhaps C requires a semi-colon to designate the end of a line of code. If this changes even slightly, perhaps the requirement becomes a comma rather than semi-colon, then all those code files are effectively useless and will no longer compile in to workable algorithms. Compare that with the degree to which we can fiddle with the specifics of the code files themselves. We can randomly change strings, constants, all manner of things and there will be a set of changes that result in files that compile into runnable algorithms. Different ones than before, with semantic 'bugs' perhaps but there will be a further subset of new algorithms which do the same as before, more or less, but more efficiently. And in this analogy that is exactly what evolution requires. The point here is surely that in the former case even a subtle change to the compiler is instantly catastrophic and is therefore different to usual selective techniques which involve the accumulation of little changes over time. Now, I'm very very possibly barking up the very wrong tree here, because Ive never been the sharpest tool in the box, and maybe you have addressed that and I can't see it. I can see how if all the different codes exist at some point one can emerge as a winning replicator but I can't see how there can be development of a single code into a winning replicator and I think that's the main issue at stake. What is the mechanism for that? Or have I just lost the plot? All the best Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2013 02:21:19 +0100 Subject: Re: Serious proof of why the theory of evolution is wrong From: te...@telmomenezes.com To: everything-list@googlegroups.com 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 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 only reason God would be a sadistic monster. He could have produced complex animals like you and me just by snapping His fingers, but instead he decided to do it by way of Evolution. And Evolution has made some beautiful things but the process itself is not beautiful, in fact its cruelty is ASTRONOMICAL, for every tiny advance millions die horrible deaths. There is no getting around it, Evolution is a hideously cruel process and if I were God I would have done things very very differently, among other things I would have made intense physical pain a logical impossibility, but unfortunately that punk Yahweh got the job and not me. According to NSA records you didn't get the job because you ticked YES at the QM box and NO at possibility of computationalism box. That's why we got Yahweh, because Bruno wrote this test is not decidable and walked out of the room. Concerning the rest of us getting the job (whether we finally all wound up getting the damned job, because everything's a janitor job, even being god... cue strange music...), that's classified apparently. PGC 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. Fuck free will! I would much rather exist in a state of constant bliss, unable to feel anything but orgasm x1000, no pain, no boredom, no negative emotion whatsoever, forever. Instead I get free will. Great. In the beginning, the universe was created. This made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move. Many races believe it was created by some sort of god, but the Jatravartid people of Viltvodle VI firmly believed that the entire universe was, in fact, sneezed out of the nose of a being called the Great Green Arkleseizure. The Jatravartids, who lived in perpetual fear of the time they called The Coming of the Great White Handkerchief were small, blue creatures with more than fifty arms each. They were therefore unique in being the only race in history to have invented the aerosol deodorant before the wheel. - Douglas Adams, in The
Re: Serious proof of why the theory of evolution is wrong
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 seriously it concerns the mechanics of such an evolution. To use a computer analogy: It doesn't concern for example the developing fitness of specific algorithms written in a language but the fitness of the language itself. Many algorithms can be written in C and we can store these algorithms in files etc. However, if we change the mechanics of C, if we change the compiler, then these files become useless. Perhaps C requires a semi-colon to designate the end of a line of code. If this changes even slightly, perhaps the requirement becomes a comma rather than semi-colon, then all those code files are effectively useless and will no longer compile in to workable algorithms. C is a rather poor example, as it is a brittle language, as are most computer languages. Examples of less brittle languages are the assembly language used in Tierra or Avida. The have been some examples of people evolving the instruction set itself, although admittedly I haven't heard how successful that has been, or recent results in that area. One reference you could follow up is Egri-Nagy Nehaniv (2003), Proceedings ECAL 2003, LNAI 2801, p238--247 (SpringerLink) Evolvability og the Genotype-Phenotype Relation in Populations of Self-Replicating Digital Organisms in a Tierra-Like System. Compare that with the degree to which we can fiddle with the specifics of the code files themselves. We can randomly change strings, constants, all manner of things and there will be a set of changes that result in files that compile into runnable algorithms. Different ones than before, with semantic 'bugs' perhaps but there will be a further subset of new algorithms which do the same as before, more or less, but more efficiently. And in this analogy that is exactly what evolution requires. The point here is surely that in the former case even a subtle change to the compiler is instantly catastrophic and is therefore different to usual selective techniques which involve the accumulation of little changes over time. Now, I'm very very possibly barking up the very wrong tree here, because Ive never been the sharpest tool in the box, and maybe you have addressed that and I can't see it. I can see how if all the different codes exist at some point one can emerge as a winning replicator but I can't see how there can be development of a single code into a winning replicator and I think that's the main issue at stake. What is the mechanism for that? Or have I just lost the plot? All the best Er, competition? If you can see how all different codes existed at one point at different parts of the globe, and you can see that the region boundaries are unstable (no mechanism like speciation, or bilingualism, to keep different codes distinct), then it follows that the code with the best replication ability will ultimately dominate. It will be interesting to see what the genetic code is if (or more likely when) life is discovered on Mars. Paul Davies has an interesting bookn on the subject. I suspect that the Martian genetic code will be similar the Earth's, but probably less similar than the variation that currently exists on the Earth, as it seems plausible that the evolution of the standard genetic code ocurred during the period of late heavy bombardment, when there was a lot of material interchange between Mars and Earth. If they're very different, it would point to a much later evolution of the standard code than LHB, and the creationists had better hope it turns out to be identical :). Cheers Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2013 02:21:19 +0100 Subject: Re: Serious proof of why the theory of evolution is wrong From: te...@telmomenezes.com To: everything-list@googlegroups.com 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 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 only reason God would be a sadistic monster. He could have produced complex animals like you and me just by snapping His fingers, but instead he decided to do it by way of Evolution. And Evolution has made some beautiful things but the process itself is not beautiful, in fact its cruelty is ASTRONOMICAL, for every tiny advance millions die horrible deaths. There is no getting around it, Evolution is a hideously
Re: Serious proof of why the theory of evolution is wrong
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, malaria, polio, influenza, and smallpox. None of which have anything to do with 'free will', except maybe polio and smallpox which we DON'T have because human beings found a way to suppress them. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
