no pre-programmed mechanism

[Timothy Sutter]

say acorns and eggs and spores and such
are like decks of cards
just say it, because you ca
see how a deck of cards
can be shuffled up and dealt out
in a variety of patterns,
sort of like, the whole deck is the "genotype"
and an individual 'hand' is like the "phenotype"


where the "genotype" is like the whole deck,
or the genetic structure of a given organism,
and the "phentotype" is a composite of "expressed" traits.


like, two blue eyed people can have a brown eyed child,

because, though, they both have a visible
trait which expresses itself as blue eyes,

at least one of them has the 'card' for brown eyes,
and, when they shuffle their decks together,
and deal out a 'hand' the cards in the 'hand'

can -express- a different individual make-up
from the 'hands' of either of the 'parents'

like, you -see- the 'hands'[phenotype] but
you don't -see- the entire deck[genotype].


now, you know what happens when you play
cards with a given deck for a wbile,

the edges may get bent and maybe even
tear off and a card or two may even
fall to the floor.

up to a point, you can still play
with cards that are bent and torn

but, bending and tearing cards,
is -not- a mechanism whereby a deck
exclusively of twos of hearts

becomes a deck of twos fours and
sixes of hearts diamonds and clubs.

so, while you may be able to show
me how a deck of twos of hearts,

becomes a degraded deck of twos of hearts,

what is -not- in evidence, nor seen, nor exposed critically,
is how a deck of twos of hearts, slowly and gradually,
becomes a degraded deck of twos of hearts,
-and- a deck of twos fours and sixes
of hearts diamonds and clubs.


it simply is -not- 'obvious'
how a process which is ripping cards apart
is also, manufacturing -new- _and_ -different- cards
which were never in the deck, and not just different cards,
but whole different suits, -while- the individual -deck-
-is- the "template" for a -replication- of the 'old' deck.

and...

what this practically demands that -bacteria- be
the -more- genetically rich and diverse organism
and that slow and gradual degradation leads to a
less genetically rich and diverse human being,

which is sort of like saying that you can
rearrange the words in "Fun With Dick and Jane"
to manufacture "War and Peace" -from-
english to russian.

it's not just the depth of the -alphabet-
which must be similar, but the depth of
the -vocabulary-.

cuz there is -no- clear mechanism which could account
for taking the letters from "Fun With Dick and Jane"
and slowly and gradually manufacturing "War and Peace"
analogous to a bacterium to man alteration.

not that it isn't a total stretch to suggest that
you could start with even 100 million copies of

"Fun With Dick and Jane" to produce

copies of "War and Peace"


-while- "Fun With Dick and Jane"
is pre-programmed to produce
"Fun With Dick and Jane"


people may go from reading
"Fun With Dick and Jane" to
reading "War and Peace"


but...


but see, that's the thing,

the claim seems to be that the process
which is degrading the deck is the process
which is responsible for driving
increased levels of genetic richness,

and not that there is some 'other' process
which entirely geared towards the increase
in genetic richness, and so, as a parallel
to the "acorn to stately oak" mechanism,
there is no such parallel.


there is no bacterium to man mechanism...
while there is an acorn to stately oak mechanism,
and so, the "sleight of hand" is the -virus- here.


and that "sleight of hand" is
in drawing the parallel
where none exists.



alright, so we do have analogous parallels
from genetic codes to language.

some people even refer to
the "decks" as "libraries"

so, it's really _not_ -contrary- to "reason"
to suggest an "author" of Life,
where this "author" has 'translated'
=templates= from supra-physical 'mind'
in to the physical manifestation.
a physical manifestation that was initiated by
this same supra-physical mind.


that's not 'beyond' "reason"
no, there's just some 'gap'
between this supra-physical 'mind'
and the physical manifestation which
is not -trivially- bridged.


but, it doesn't -require- _human_ -malice- to
fall prey to and pass on the "sleight of hand"

in presmuing the parallel
as described previously,

and so, i don't have to make
any claim of human malice

and so, i don't have to support
what i don't have to maintain.


even if the prisms and mirrors in your mind
lead you to jump to this conceptual conclusion

and you fail to recognize the /smokiness/
of your own -lack- of direct knowledge,

and you play a "sleight of hand" on your -self-

i still don't have to suggest -malice-


albeit, i do not suggest that malice remains at bay...

i just don't have to maintain malice as the sole source
of some of this 'viral' "sleight of hand"


an acorn becoming a stately oak
can be said to be 'evolving'
on some level of appearance.
the oprganism is slowly and gradually
changing from seed to full blown plant.


if you want to imply that people 'evolve'
in passing from infancy to adulthood
you could, and you might even say
that this is 'obvious' given the
very broad meaning of 'evolve'


this sort of 'evolution',
from acorn to stately oak,
is not, itself, changing
and is, pre-programmed
-in- the acorn itself.


so, the sleight of hand to watch for,
is in the suggestion that acorn-to-oak
is -parallelled- by mouse-to-giraffe,


because there is no pre-programmed
mechanism that can be shown which
would consistently account for
such a transformation.