Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
DNA – Information - Evolution.
87 views
Skip to first unread message
socr...@bezeqint.net
Apr 15, 2012, 5:35:59 AM4/15/12
to
DNA – Information - Evolution.
Carl Friedrich von Weizsacker in his book:
‘ The unity of Nature ‘ tried to understand the interaction
between information and DNA. He wrote:
‘ Organisms control their own growth by means of the genetic
information stored in the DNA molecules, . . . ‘ / page 281 /
‘ . . . the amount of information contained in the DNA . . . . is
the information corresponding to the concept ‘ genetic constitution’.
/ page 281 /
DNA is indeed the carrier of the genetic constitution.
/ page 282 /
#
My question.
How does DNA "draw" the shape of a human?
To draw the shape of a child from zygote DNA must know physics,
mathematics, geometry . . . etc.
How is possible to understand that DNA knows all these subjects?
If the child was born intelligent then it means that DNA knows
physics,
mathematics, geometry and . . . etc.
#
My question.
Where does DNA fit into the evolution debate?
DNA information is not static information.
DNA information is dealing with ‘ flow of information.’
DNA information is dealing with ‘progressive information.’
DNA information can evolve.
DNA information evolves from zygote to the intelligent child.
#
Our body is a multi-cellular organism made up
of perhaps 100 trillion different cells.
‘ The information content in the nucleus of a single human cell
is comparable to that of a library containing a thousand volumes.’
/ The unity of Nature, page 40. /
Question:
How can 100 trillion different cells (100 trillion libraries with a
thousand volumes in each) create a child ( by the chance )
during 9 months if according to the probability theory
it is impossible?
#
Today scientists think that everything begins from ‘Big Bang’.
And according to ‘big bang’ our Universe exist 13 (+) billion years.
My question :
Is it possible to create a child from cell [ zygote] only in 280 days
according to Probability theory?
If " yes "it will be take time not 280 days but it will be take
time
more than our Universe exist and then ,maybe, the pregnancy
woman was before the ‘ big bang’.
If ‘ no’ then the process must have aim.
It means somebody /something must manage this process.
===.
Best wishes.
Israel Sadovnik. Socratus.
========.
Carl Friedrich von Weizsacker in his book:
‘ The unity of Nature ‘ tried to understand the interaction
between information and DNA. He wrote:
‘ Organisms control their own growth by means of the genetic
information stored in the DNA molecules, . . . ‘ / page 281 /
‘ . . . the amount of information contained in the DNA . . . . is
the information corresponding to the concept ‘ genetic constitution’.
/ page 281 /
DNA is indeed the carrier of the genetic constitution.
/ page 282 /
#
My question.
How does DNA "draw" the shape of a human?
To draw the shape of a child from zygote DNA must know physics,
mathematics, geometry . . . etc.
How is possible to understand that DNA knows all these subjects?
If the child was born intelligent then it means that DNA knows
physics,
mathematics, geometry and . . . etc.
#
My question.
Where does DNA fit into the evolution debate?
DNA information is not static information.
DNA information is dealing with ‘ flow of information.’
DNA information is dealing with ‘progressive information.’
DNA information can evolve.
DNA information evolves from zygote to the intelligent child.
#
Our body is a multi-cellular organism made up
of perhaps 100 trillion different cells.
‘ The information content in the nucleus of a single human cell
is comparable to that of a library containing a thousand volumes.’
/ The unity of Nature, page 40. /
Question:
How can 100 trillion different cells (100 trillion libraries with a
thousand volumes in each) create a child ( by the chance )
during 9 months if according to the probability theory
it is impossible?
#
Today scientists think that everything begins from ‘Big Bang’.
And according to ‘big bang’ our Universe exist 13 (+) billion years.
My question :
Is it possible to create a child from cell [ zygote] only in 280 days
according to Probability theory?
If " yes "it will be take time not 280 days but it will be take
time
more than our Universe exist and then ,maybe, the pregnancy
woman was before the ‘ big bang’.
If ‘ no’ then the process must have aim.
It means somebody /something must manage this process.
===.
Best wishes.
Israel Sadovnik. Socratus.
========.
Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-origins@moderators.isc.org
Apr 15, 2012, 8:09:32 AM4/15/12
to
On Sunday, April 15, 2012 10:35:59 AM UTC+1, socr...@bezeqint.net wrote:
> DNA – Information - Evolution.
>
> Carl Friedrich von Weizsacker in his book:
> ‘ The unity of Nature ‘ tried to understand the interaction
> between information and DNA. He wrote:
> ‘ Organisms control their own growth by means of the genetic
> information stored in the DNA molecules, . . . ‘ / page 281 /
> ‘ . . . the amount of information contained in the DNA . . . . is
> the information corresponding to the concept ‘ genetic constitution’.
> / page 281 /
> DNA is indeed the carrier of the genetic constitution.
> / page 282 /
> #
> My question.
> How does DNA "draw" the shape of a human?
> To draw the shape of a child from zygote DNA must know physics,
> mathematics, geometry . . . etc.
> How is possible to understand that DNA knows all these subjects?
> If the child was born intelligent then it means that DNA knows
> physics,
> mathematics, geometry and . . . etc.
I haven't read the book, but, by the same logic,
> DNA – Information - Evolution.
>
> Carl Friedrich von Weizsacker in his book:
> ‘ The unity of Nature ‘ tried to understand the interaction
> between information and DNA. He wrote:
> ‘ Organisms control their own growth by means of the genetic
> information stored in the DNA molecules, . . . ‘ / page 281 /
> ‘ . . . the amount of information contained in the DNA . . . . is
> the information corresponding to the concept ‘ genetic constitution’.
> / page 281 /
> DNA is indeed the carrier of the genetic constitution.
> / page 282 /
> #
> My question.
> How does DNA "draw" the shape of a human?
> To draw the shape of a child from zygote DNA must know physics,
> mathematics, geometry . . . etc.
> How is possible to understand that DNA knows all these subjects?
> If the child was born intelligent then it means that DNA knows
> physics,
> mathematics, geometry and . . . etc.
your computer must already know about DNA, so
that you can write your question on the computer.
Ron O
Apr 15, 2012, 8:52:21 AM4/15/12
to
On Apr 15, 4:35 am, "socra...@bezeqint.net" <socra...@bezeqint.net>
wrote:
Probably the simplest way to look at the problem is that any lifeform
is a sum of it's history. Evolution has built on what came before.
Any change had to work within the bounds of what previously existed,
so things were likely mostly modified instead of wholesale
replacement.
Just take origin of life studies. There likely was self replication
before DNA was used as the genetic material. Something like the cell
membrane probably existed before DNA and was maintained by some other
mode of self replication. DNA began to be used as the genetic
material and didn't change the cell structure so much as replace the
other self replicating parts that were maintaining the cell
structure. That is how it has been since. Lifeforms are not just the
information found in the DNA.
What do you think of cell theory? All cells come from preexisting
cells. What does that mean in terms of the information in DNA? The
existence of the cellular structure is as important as the information
held in the DNA. The DNA only has information that can modify the
structure or output of the cell. The DNA cannot make a cell from
scratch. It needs to have an existing cell to work with.
That is how it has been since the first self replicators. We do not
know what those self replicators looked like. Evolution has simply
built on what has already existed. The complex development from
single cell zygote to adult human is due to the modification of single
cell organisms so that the cells do different things. It is just a
fact that life didn't need a plan. You just need any change to work
within the bounds of what already exists to get what you observe
today. Natural selection comes in, in that it winnows the
possibilities to those that can compete and reproduce in the
environment that the lifeform exists in. Every change gets added to
something that is already competitive, and doesn't change it enough to
make a difference or makes it better or worse. We only see the
survivors of this type of creation. You only see what has worked.
Everything else is mostly gone or by chance survived long enough to
patch the problem or evolve something else that made them competitive
again.
Ron Okimoto
wrote:
is a sum of it's history. Evolution has built on what came before.
Any change had to work within the bounds of what previously existed,
so things were likely mostly modified instead of wholesale
replacement.
Just take origin of life studies. There likely was self replication
before DNA was used as the genetic material. Something like the cell
membrane probably existed before DNA and was maintained by some other
mode of self replication. DNA began to be used as the genetic
material and didn't change the cell structure so much as replace the
other self replicating parts that were maintaining the cell
structure. That is how it has been since. Lifeforms are not just the
information found in the DNA.
What do you think of cell theory? All cells come from preexisting
cells. What does that mean in terms of the information in DNA? The
existence of the cellular structure is as important as the information
held in the DNA. The DNA only has information that can modify the
structure or output of the cell. The DNA cannot make a cell from
scratch. It needs to have an existing cell to work with.
That is how it has been since the first self replicators. We do not
know what those self replicators looked like. Evolution has simply
built on what has already existed. The complex development from
single cell zygote to adult human is due to the modification of single
cell organisms so that the cells do different things. It is just a
fact that life didn't need a plan. You just need any change to work
within the bounds of what already exists to get what you observe
today. Natural selection comes in, in that it winnows the
possibilities to those that can compete and reproduce in the
environment that the lifeform exists in. Every change gets added to
something that is already competitive, and doesn't change it enough to
make a difference or makes it better or worse. We only see the
survivors of this type of creation. You only see what has worked.
Everything else is mostly gone or by chance survived long enough to
patch the problem or evolve something else that made them competitive
again.
Ron Okimoto
ed wolf
Apr 15, 2012, 9:12:32 AM4/15/12
to
http://biology.kenyon.edu/courses/biol114/biol114_fall_sec0.html
Personally, I rarely find the time besides work and family to properly work through all these difficult subjects. But at least I know what kind of effort is done to answer all your questions(not the loaded bits ,though), and how much effort is needed to understand the answers.
ed wolf
Conclusions invariably come after investigations, and not before. Only a blockhead cudgels his brains on his own, or together with a group, to " find a solution" or "evolve an idea" without making any investigation.
Mao Tse Tung 1930
socr...@bezeqint.net
Apr 15, 2012, 10:05:04 AM4/15/12
to
1
If DNA contains code - instructions - bits, it means that
DNA knows physics, chemistry, mathematics, geometry . . . etc.
2
If the reason of evolution is ' by chance ' ( by the DNA chance )
then before was a pregnant woman who gave life to a child
who created the ‘ big bang’ theory.
===.
If DNA contains code - instructions - bits, it means that
DNA knows physics, chemistry, mathematics, geometry . . . etc.
2
If the reason of evolution is ' by chance ' ( by the DNA chance )
then before was a pregnant woman who gave life to a child
who created the ‘ big bang’ theory.
===.
Mark Buchanan
Apr 15, 2012, 1:16:44 PM4/15/12
to
http://bks3.books.google.ca/books?id=Y8AdzfU8E5sC&dq=related:ISBN0877735948&lr=&sitesec=reviews
seems to indicate that Carl wasn't that knowledgeable about biology.
To answer your questions would require teaching you quite a bit of background, and a commitment on your part to understand it.
Mark
socr...@bezeqint.net
Apr 15, 2012, 3:27:33 PM4/15/12
to
>
> seems to indicate that Carl wasn't that knowledgeable about biology.
>
> To answer your questions would require teaching you quite a bit of background, and a commitment on your part to understand it.
>
> Mark- Hide quoted text -
> seems to indicate that Carl wasn't that knowledgeable about biology.
>
> To answer your questions would require teaching you quite a bit of background, and a commitment on your part to understand it.
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
==.
Carl Friedrich von Weizsacker.
#
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Friedrich_von_Weizs%C3%A4cker
#
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/27789
Did he have enough knowledge and information to speak about biology?
I think, enough.
==.
ed wolf
Apr 15, 2012, 4:00:33 PM4/15/12
to
Am Sonntag, 15. April 2012 16:05:04 UTC+2 schrieb socr...@bezeqint.net:
> 1
> If DNA contains code - instructions - bits, it means that
> DNA knows physics, chemistry, mathematics, geometry . . . etc.
when I open a CAD file, mail it to a producer who converts it into CAM data to guide a milling machine or a laser cutter, at no point in the production line the data become subject. They do contain "code", but these data have no personality. Same with DNA.
> 1
> If DNA contains code - instructions - bits, it means that
> DNA knows physics, chemistry, mathematics, geometry . . . etc.
> 2
> If the reason of evolution is ' by chance ' ( by the DNA chance )
> then before was a pregnant woman who gave life to a child
> who created the ‘ big bang’ theory.
>
ed wolf
If at first you don't succeed, try, try again. Then quit. There's no point in being a damn fool about it.
W. C. Fields
Richard Norman
Apr 15, 2012, 4:19:10 PM4/15/12
to
knowledge of biology. But far more important, everything that you
originally wrote to start this post indicates that you know absolutely
nothing about biology. There is so much wrong in your questions and
your statements that one hardly knows where to begin except to repeat
what others have said: first learn some biology, then come back and
ask.
Mark Buchanan
Apr 15, 2012, 4:36:41 PM4/15/12
to
On Sunday, April 15, 2012 5:35:59 AM UTC-4, socr...@bezeqint.net wrote:
http://www.amazon.com/The-Biological-Basis-Religion-Genius/dp/0060647884
Looks like a really bad choice for creationist wisdom.
Mark
Kalkidas
Apr 15, 2012, 5:24:44 PM4/15/12
to
On 4/15/2012 7:05 AM, socr...@bezeqint.net wrote:
> 1
> If DNA contains code - instructions - bits, it means that
> DNA knows physics, chemistry, mathematics, geometry . . . etc.
The designer of a machine knows the principles of design needed to make
> 1
> If DNA contains code - instructions - bits, it means that
> DNA knows physics, chemistry, mathematics, geometry . . . etc.
the machine.
> 2
> If the reason of evolution is ' by chance ' ( by the DNA chance )
> then before was a pregnant woman who gave life to a child
> who created the ‘ big bang’ theory.
Kalkidas
Apr 15, 2012, 5:28:02 PM4/15/12
to
an organism. Is that not a legitimate question? In fact, is that not a
$64,000 question?
Richard Norman
Apr 15, 2012, 5:50:56 PM4/15/12
to
goes into the developmental process. However we do know a great deal
of details. So let is see what the original post said:
Original query: My question. How does DNA "draw" the shape of a
human?
Problem: this seems to assume the notion that DNA is a "blueprint"
with drawings and details about shape (morphology). That is not how
DNA works.
Original query: How is possible to understand that DNA knows all
these subjects? If the child was born intelligent then it means that
DNA knows physics, mathematics, geometry and . . . etc.
Problem: This is just totally silly, DNA does not "know" anything.
DNA knows physics, mathematics, geometry and . . . etc.
That is not how DNA works.
Original query: My question. Where does DNA fit into the evolution
debate?
Problem: That is a legitimate question but one that demonstrates
absolutely no knowledge of biology. DNA sequences have over the last
half century been added to the long list of evidence for evolution. In
fact, according to the definition of evolution -- a change in the
genetic composition of a population -- the DNA sequence plays a major
role: evolution is a change in the ensemble of DNA sequences held by
a population.
Original statement: DNA information evolves from zygote to the
intelligent child.
Problem: this is simply false and demonstrates a total lack of
understanding of either DNA or of evolution.
Original query: Question: How can 100 trillion different cells (100
trillion libraries with a thousand volumes in each) create a child (by
the chance ) during 9 months if according to the probability theory
it is impossible?
Problem: Probablility theory says no such thing. That a child is
the chance ) during 9 months if according to the probability theory
it is impossible?
produced from a single cell in 9 months is simple fact. We understand
a tremendous amount about the cellular machinery involved in every
step of the way. We do not understand how all the regulatory
machinery interacts because it is such a complex problem.
Given all this, there is no way of simply answering a simple question.
There is no simple question and the question you pose requires more
than a simple answer. The best possible answer is "take a course in
developmental biology" and that will give you at least a start in
understanding what we do know. But 42 hours of lecture plus a several
hundred page densely written textbook plus hours in the library
reading primary literature plus 14 weeks of concentrated laboratory
study, in other words one course in developmental biology, will just
barely scratch the surface.
Free Lunch
Apr 15, 2012, 5:55:21 PM4/15/12
to
On Sun, 15 Apr 2012 14:28:02 -0700, Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub> wrote in
talk.origins:
Isn't morphology an emergent property?
talk.origins:
gdgu...@gmail.com
Apr 15, 2012, 5:57:33 PM4/15/12
to
On Apr 15, 5:28 pm, Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
> On 4/15/2012 1:19 PM, Richard Norman wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sun, 15 Apr 2012 12:27:33 -0700 (PDT), "socra...@bezeqint.net"
> On 4/15/2012 1:19 PM, Richard Norman wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > <socra...@bezeqint.net> wrote:
"My question.
How does DNA "draw" the shape of a human?
To draw the shape of a child from zygote DNA must know physics,
mathematics, geometry . . . etc.
How is possible to understand that DNA knows all these subjects?
If the child was born intelligent then it means that DNA knows
physics,
mathematics, geometry and . . . etc."
Richard Norman
Apr 15, 2012, 6:29:29 PM4/15/12
to
On Sun, 15 Apr 2012 16:55:21 -0500, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us>
We needn't add to poor Wilkins woes by dredging this up now. We do
know that specific proteins expressed at specific times by specific
cells and placed at specific locations within those cells causes
differential rates of growth and cell division, causes changes in the
internal skeleton and hence the shape of individual cells, causes
changes in cell motility, and causes changes in patterns of adhesion
between adjacent cells. These are all explained by the action of
specific genes, that is by DNA, and these are the factors that result
in the "emergence" of form, of morphogenesis.
know that specific proteins expressed at specific times by specific
cells and placed at specific locations within those cells causes
differential rates of growth and cell division, causes changes in the
internal skeleton and hence the shape of individual cells, causes
changes in cell motility, and causes changes in patterns of adhesion
between adjacent cells. These are all explained by the action of
specific genes, that is by DNA, and these are the factors that result
in the "emergence" of form, of morphogenesis.
Kalkidas
Apr 15, 2012, 7:34:12 PM4/15/12
to
rigidly to my programming, I can see that Socratus is not a native
English speaker, and that although his choice of metaphors is arguably
poor, he nevertheless is also a person, and therefore really means
something when he asks a question. So I took into account his
idiosyncracies and put the best construction on his question, with the
result that he meant to ask exactly what I said he meant to ask.
You, on the other hand, simply reacted to his literal choice of words,
without any benevolence, and without any real attempt to discern his
meaning.
Richard Norman
Apr 15, 2012, 7:51:08 PM4/15/12
to
somewhat likely that he is an actual person. However he does have a
history of posting rather absurd notions about many branches of
science. He seems to take some ideas which start out sensible and run
with them to someplace nobody else has ever imagined. You did a good
job of converting his diffuse rant into an actual biological question
but then by doing so you converted Socratus into a semblance of a
rational being and therefore significantly changed reality.
Free Lunch
Apr 15, 2012, 8:10:17 PM4/15/12
to
On Sun, 15 Apr 2012 16:34:12 -0700, Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub> wrote in
talk.origins:
...
talk.origins:
...
>> No, he asked the following:
>>
>> "My question.
>> How does DNA "draw" the shape of a human?
>> To draw the shape of a child from zygote DNA must know physics,
>> mathematics, geometry . . . etc.
>> How is possible to understand that DNA knows all these subjects?
>> If the child was born intelligent then it means that DNA knows
>> physics,
>> mathematics, geometry and . . . etc."
>>
>> Can you see the difference?
>
>Since I am actually a person and not a biochemical robot responding
>rigidly to my programming,
So you imagine.
>>
>> "My question.
>> How does DNA "draw" the shape of a human?
>> To draw the shape of a child from zygote DNA must know physics,
>> mathematics, geometry . . . etc.
>> How is possible to understand that DNA knows all these subjects?
>> If the child was born intelligent then it means that DNA knows
>> physics,
>> mathematics, geometry and . . . etc."
>>
>> Can you see the difference?
>
>Since I am actually a person and not a biochemical robot responding
>rigidly to my programming,
Earle Jones
Apr 15, 2012, 8:16:01 PM4/15/12
to
In article
<03c48b19-2368-4ae2...@w5g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>,
My Macintosh disk drive contains, code, instructions, bits, etc.
But I don't think it knows physics, chemistry, etc.
Learn before you teach, dude.
earle
*
<03c48b19-2368-4ae2...@w5g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>,
"socr...@bezeqint.net" <socr...@bezeqint.net> wrote:
> 1
> If DNA contains code - instructions - bits, it means that
> DNA knows physics, chemistry, mathematics, geometry . . . etc.
*
> 1
> If DNA contains code - instructions - bits, it means that
> DNA knows physics, chemistry, mathematics, geometry . . . etc.
My Macintosh disk drive contains, code, instructions, bits, etc.
But I don't think it knows physics, chemistry, etc.
Learn before you teach, dude.
earle
*
Earle Jones
Apr 15, 2012, 8:17:21 PM4/15/12
to
In article <jmfdvp$nfv$1...@dont-email.me>, Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
> On 4/15/2012 7:05 AM, socr...@bezeqint.net wrote:
> > 1
> > If DNA contains code - instructions - bits, it means that
> > DNA knows physics, chemistry, mathematics, geometry . . . etc.
>
> The designer of a machine knows the principles of design needed to make
> the machine.
>
> > 2
> > If the reason of evolution is ' by chance ' ( by the DNA chance )
> > then before was a pregnant woman who gave life to a child
> > who created the Ś big bangą theory.
> On 4/15/2012 7:05 AM, socr...@bezeqint.net wrote:
> > 1
> > If DNA contains code - instructions - bits, it means that
> > DNA knows physics, chemistry, mathematics, geometry . . . etc.
>
> The designer of a machine knows the principles of design needed to make
> the machine.
>
> > 2
> > If the reason of evolution is ' by chance ' ( by the DNA chance )
> > then before was a pregnant woman who gave life to a child
>
> The Big Bang Singularity *is* a pregnant woman.
*
> The Big Bang Singularity *is* a pregnant woman.
No shit!!??
I had always wondered about that.
Many thanks for your excellent explanation.
Wait till I tell the kids at school about this!
earle
*
Kalkidas
Apr 15, 2012, 8:50:25 PM4/15/12
to
many of his ideas lead nowhere. His problem would then be only that he
lacks sufficient interpersonal skills to edit himself when communicating
to others.
I think he's basically rational but excessively verbose.
wiki trix
Apr 15, 2012, 8:52:50 PM4/15/12
to
On Apr 15, 5:35 am, "socra...@bezeqint.net" <socra...@bezeqint.net>
wrote:
Complex systems and self-organized structures can arise out of simple
interactions between large numbers of simple components. Neural
networks, turbulent fluid mechanics, economic markets, embryological
development, biological evolution, weather, natural language, earth
quakes, climate, war, sand dunes, ocean currents, phase transition,
statistical mechanics, dissipative systems, symmetry breaking,
cellular automata, urban sprawl, ecological systems, automobile
traffic, swarm algorithms, structural failure, heart attacks,
epileptic seizures, orgasm, love... Take your pick.
wrote:
interactions between large numbers of simple components. Neural
networks, turbulent fluid mechanics, economic markets, embryological
development, biological evolution, weather, natural language, earth
quakes, climate, war, sand dunes, ocean currents, phase transition,
statistical mechanics, dissipative systems, symmetry breaking,
cellular automata, urban sprawl, ecological systems, automobile
traffic, swarm algorithms, structural failure, heart attacks,
epileptic seizures, orgasm, love... Take your pick.
Mr.Dunsapy
Apr 16, 2012, 12:10:34 AM4/16/12
to
Bread is simple, but it doesn't happen on its own. It has to be created.
Mr.Dunsapy
Apr 16, 2012, 12:17:30 AM4/16/12
to
On Sunday, April 15, 2012 5:52:50 PM UTC-7, wiki trix wrote:
All things you mentioned have to with ID.
So I didn't get your point?
wiki trix
Apr 16, 2012, 12:27:41 AM4/16/12
to
created now destroyed in a significant way here.
> All things you mentioned have to with ID.
> So I didn't get your point?
Mr.Dunsapy
Apr 16, 2012, 12:45:49 AM4/16/12
to
What makes you think that the origins of the universe just happened?
after all the scientists say, they don't know what happened to set it off. And they say energy can be converted into matter.
Yet creation answers both of these questions.
Neural
> > networks, turbulent fluid mechanics, economic markets, embryological
> > development, biological evolution, weather, natural language, earth
> > quakes, climate, war, sand dunes, ocean currents, phase transition,
> > statistical mechanics, dissipative systems, symmetry breaking,
> > cellular automata, urban sprawl, ecological systems, automobile
> > traffic, swarm algorithms, structural failure, heart attacks,
> > epileptic seizures, orgasm, love
Richard Norman
Apr 16, 2012, 1:03:51 AM4/16/12
to
Mr.Dunsapy
Apr 16, 2012, 1:43:33 AM4/16/12
to
> > These are all ID. Not very much gets done without it.
>
> Your saying it doesn't make it so.
Mr.Dunsapy
Apr 16, 2012, 1:29:28 AM4/16/12
to
> > These are all ID. Not very much gets done without it.
>
> Your saying it doesn't make it so.
Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-origins@moderators.isc.org
Apr 16, 2012, 6:41:06 AM4/16/12
to
No... oh, I can't choose. Can you give us 5 minutes?
Mr.Dunsapy
Apr 16, 2012, 9:59:45 AM4/16/12
to
>
> I'll have the orgasm, please. No! Make it love!
> No... oh, I can't choose. Can you give us 5 minutes?
Richard Norman
Apr 16, 2012, 1:12:36 PM4/16/12
to
because the science of complexity theory demonstrates processes that
do not require intelligent design to generate them. The science
specifically takes us away from ID. Now show evidence and science for
ID beyond "well, it looks like design to me!"
socr...@bezeqint.net
Apr 17, 2012, 10:49:08 AM4/17/12
to
On Apr 15, 10:19 pm, Richard Norman <r_s_nor...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Sun, 15 Apr 2012 12:27:33 -0700 (PDT), "socra...@bezeqint.net"
> ask.- Hide quoted text -
biology.
. . first learn some biology, then come back and ask.
/ Richard Norman /
======.
I swear, I am not biologist.
I swear, I am not physicist, not chemist, not . . . etc.
I swear, I have not PhD, MD, . . . etc.
I am a peasant who knows that 1+1=2 and . . . etc.
For example:
1.
Our body made up of perhaps 100 trillion different cells.
2.
A single human cell contains as much information as
a library with a thousand volumes.
3.
I don’t need to learn biology in order to ask peasant question:
How can 100 trillion different cells (100 trillion libraries with a
thousand volumes in each) create a child ( by the chance )
during 9 months if according to the probability theory
it is impossible?
And if in spate of probability theory the child was boren
doesn’t it mean that somebody /something manage this process?
===.
> On Sun, 15 Apr 2012 12:27:33 -0700 (PDT), "socra...@bezeqint.net"
>
> - Show quoted text -
More briefly.
> - Show quoted text -
he had any knowledge of biology.
But far more important, . . you know absolutely nothing about
biology.
. . first learn some biology, then come back and ask.
/ Richard Norman /
======.
I swear, I am not biologist.
I swear, I am not physicist, not chemist, not . . . etc.
I swear, I have not PhD, MD, . . . etc.
I am a peasant who knows that 1+1=2 and . . . etc.
For example:
1.
Our body made up of perhaps 100 trillion different cells.
2.
A single human cell contains as much information as
a library with a thousand volumes.
3.
I don’t need to learn biology in order to ask peasant question:
How can 100 trillion different cells (100 trillion libraries with a
thousand volumes in each) create a child ( by the chance )
during 9 months if according to the probability theory
it is impossible?
doesn’t it mean that somebody /something manage this process?
===.
wiki trix
Apr 17, 2012, 11:27:27 AM4/17/12
to
On Apr 17, 10:49 am, "socra...@bezeqint.net" <socra...@bezeqint.net>
Not in all cases. 1+1 = 3 for sufficiently large values of 1.
...
> I don’t need to learn biology in order to ask peasant question:
>
> How can 100 trillion different cells (100 trillion libraries with a
> thousand volumes in each) create a child ( by the chance )
> during 9 months if according to the probability theory
> it is impossible?
> And if in spate of probability theory the child was boren
> doesn’t it mean that somebody /something manage this process?
> ===.
Peasant questions do not contain the words "probability theory".
Also, logical fallacy (argument from incredulity) noted.
...
> I don’t need to learn biology in order to ask peasant question:
>
> How can 100 trillion different cells (100 trillion libraries with a
> thousand volumes in each) create a child ( by the chance )
> during 9 months if according to the probability theory
> it is impossible?
> And if in spate of probability theory the child was boren
> doesn’t it mean that somebody /something manage this process?
> ===.
Also, logical fallacy (argument from incredulity) noted.
Richard Norman
Apr 17, 2012, 11:55:47 AM4/17/12
to
questions about biology when they demonstrate at least some ability to
understand the issues. Your postings indicate that you are not likely
to read and try to assimilate any biological explanation so I choose
not to waste my time offering them to you. If somebody else chooses
to break in at this point to ask a real question of biology, I will do
my best to answer.
But still, what you propose is wrong in two completely different
respects, both showing a fundamental lack of understanding. First,
that there are a lot of cells in the human body, perhaps 100 trillion,
is irrelevant to the information content since the DNA in all of these
is essentially the same. So 100 trillion libraries is no different
from one library if you choose to use that very unhelpful metaphor for
what DNA constitutes. Second, I already said that probability theory
in no way says that the development of a human child in nine months
from a single fertilized egg is impossible. Therefore the existence
of such a child does not at all mean somebody/something must be
managing it. Actually there is something that does manage it: the
workings out of the machinery of biochemistry and biophysics and
molecular biology and developmental biology.
wiki trix
Apr 17, 2012, 2:34:34 PM4/17/12
to
On Apr 15, 5:24 pm, Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
are two examples where machines design themselves, so no designer and
no principles of design . In my opinion, that is the big future of all
engineering.
> On 4/15/2012 7:05 AM, socra...@bezeqint.net wrote:
>
> > 1
> > If DNA contains code - instructions - bits, it means that
> > DNA knows physics, chemistry, mathematics, geometry . . . etc.
>
> The designer of a machine knows the principles of design needed to make
> the machine.
That is so old school. Neural network theory and genetic algorithms
>
> > 1
> > If DNA contains code - instructions - bits, it means that
> > DNA knows physics, chemistry, mathematics, geometry . . . etc.
>
> The designer of a machine knows the principles of design needed to make
> the machine.
are two examples where machines design themselves, so no designer and
no principles of design . In my opinion, that is the big future of all
engineering.
wiki trix
Apr 17, 2012, 2:37:14 PM4/17/12
to
...
Exactly how are you different from a physically identical "biochemical
robot"?
And what is your take on: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Brain_Project
> Since I am actually a person and not a biochemical robot responding
> rigidly to my programming...
Exactly how are you different from a physically identical "biochemical
robot"?
And what is your take on: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Brain_Project
wiki trix
Apr 17, 2012, 3:04:01 PM4/17/12
to
On Apr 17, 11:55 am, Richard Norman <r_s_nor...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Apr 2012 07:49:08 -0700 (PDT), "socra...@bezeqint.net"
Actually there is something that does manage it: Occasionalism and the
incredibly consistency of reality...
Al-Ghazali said that when fire and cotton are placed in contact, the
cotton is burned directly by God rather than by the fire. It just so
happens that god is incredibly consistent and preoccupied in this
regard. Sad really. I guess god is OCD. I picture god as rocking back
and forth violently with all these small fires to micro-manage at
every moment. But if someone has to do it, it may as well be god.
Einstein said that reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very
persistent one. I take that as occasionalism without the god part.
Gotta like that.
I say that the thing that makes reality interesting is the constraints
that it seems to put on itself. That is what makes it computable.
That's what makes it indistinguishable from a computer. Gotta love
that.
> On Tue, 17 Apr 2012 07:49:08 -0700 (PDT), "socra...@bezeqint.net"
incredibly consistency of reality...
Al-Ghazali said that when fire and cotton are placed in contact, the
cotton is burned directly by God rather than by the fire. It just so
happens that god is incredibly consistent and preoccupied in this
regard. Sad really. I guess god is OCD. I picture god as rocking back
and forth violently with all these small fires to micro-manage at
every moment. But if someone has to do it, it may as well be god.
Einstein said that reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very
persistent one. I take that as occasionalism without the god part.
Gotta like that.
I say that the thing that makes reality interesting is the constraints
that it seems to put on itself. That is what makes it computable.
That's what makes it indistinguishable from a computer. Gotta love
that.
Richard Norman
Apr 17, 2012, 3:37:58 PM4/17/12
to
socratus.
wiki trix
Apr 17, 2012, 5:11:12 PM4/17/12
to
Richard Norman
Apr 17, 2012, 5:48:22 PM4/17/12
to
are satire, which pure sarcasm, which mere humor or cleverness, and
which actual serious beliefs.
Kalkidas
Apr 17, 2012, 6:44:42 PM4/17/12
to
Richard Norman
Apr 17, 2012, 6:53:49 PM4/17/12
to
There is just a little hyperbole in the claim. Machines are designed
so that some aspects, in fact rather critically important aspects, of
their operation are learned by the operation of the machine, itself.
When all is done, the human designer does not really know exactly what
or how the machine is doing when it does its job. Even that first step
is an enormous foot in the door towards complete machine autonomy.
Kalkidas
Apr 17, 2012, 7:01:48 PM4/17/12
to
On 4/17/2012 11:37 AM, wiki trix wrote:
> ...
>> Since I am actually a person and not a biochemical robot responding
>> rigidly to my programming...
>
> Exactly how are you different from a physically identical "biochemical
> robot"?
"physically identical" to what?
> ...
>> Since I am actually a person and not a biochemical robot responding
>> rigidly to my programming...
>
> Exactly how are you different from a physically identical "biochemical
> robot"?
If the brain is a computer, then simulating it will be no different in
principle than the virtual machines which allow Linux to run under
Windows. The simulation can do no more than the brain it's simulating.
It is, of course, a mere dream to think that the brain is understood
well enough to create "a synthetic brain by reverse-engineering the
mammalian brain down to the molecular level." It's big talk, but that's
about all at this point.
The article does not mention whether the simulation of part of a rat
neocortex (the only thing that the project has actually accomplished)
has shown signs of consciousness. I rather think not, since such a
discovery would guarantee a ticket to Stockholm.
Kalkidas
Apr 17, 2012, 7:19:13 PM4/17/12
to
On 4/17/2012 3:53 PM, Richard Norman wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Apr 2012 15:44:42 -0700, Kalkidas<e...@joes.pub> wrote:
>
>> On 4/17/2012 11:34 AM, wiki trix wrote:
>>> On Apr 15, 5:24 pm, Kalkidas<e...@joes.pub> wrote:
>>>> On 4/15/2012 7:05 AM, socra...@bezeqint.net wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> 1
>>>>> If DNA contains code - instructions - bits, it means that
>>>>> DNA knows physics, chemistry, mathematics, geometry . . . etc.
>>>>
>>>> The designer of a machine knows the principles of design needed to make
>>>> the machine.
>>>
>>> That is so old school. Neural network theory and genetic algorithms
>>> are two examples where machines design themselves, so no designer and
>>> no principles of design . In my opinion, that is the big future of all
>>> engineering.
>>
>> Machines do not "design themselves". That is a logical impossibility.
>
> It is not a logical impossibility, merely a practical one.
No, it's a logical impossibility. If the machine exists, it is already
> On Tue, 17 Apr 2012 15:44:42 -0700, Kalkidas<e...@joes.pub> wrote:
>
>> On 4/17/2012 11:34 AM, wiki trix wrote:
>>> On Apr 15, 5:24 pm, Kalkidas<e...@joes.pub> wrote:
>>>> On 4/15/2012 7:05 AM, socra...@bezeqint.net wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> 1
>>>>> If DNA contains code - instructions - bits, it means that
>>>>> DNA knows physics, chemistry, mathematics, geometry . . . etc.
>>>>
>>>> The designer of a machine knows the principles of design needed to make
>>>> the machine.
>>>
>>> That is so old school. Neural network theory and genetic algorithms
>>> are two examples where machines design themselves, so no designer and
>>> no principles of design . In my opinion, that is the big future of all
>>> engineering.
>>
>> Machines do not "design themselves". That is a logical impossibility.
>
> It is not a logical impossibility, merely a practical one.
itself and can't be designed to be itself; and if the machine doesn't
exist, then it can't design anything, much less itself.
Here is as much as can be said about the capabilities of machines: they
can be designed to give the appearance of autonomy but are not, in fact,
autonomous.
> There is just a little hyperbole in the claim. Machines are designed
> so that some aspects, in fact rather critically important aspects, of
> their operation are learned by the operation of the machine, itself.
> When all is done, the human designer does not really know exactly what
> or how the machine is doing when it does its job. Even that first step
> is an enormous foot in the door towards complete machine autonomy.
moment to moment behavior does not in any way translate to "the machine
designs itself".
Even an algorithm that appears to learn, or to create new algorithms,
was designed to do those things.
Consider an algorithm that produces arbitrarily long sequences of the
digits of Pi. The programmer of the algorithm may not know which digit
will appear in the 5487231th place. But that doesn't mean that the
algorithm "designed itself". In fact, the designer can, in principle,
find out what the 5487231th digit would be, but that would defeat the
purpose of the algorithm, which he built to save himself the trouble!
wiki trix
Apr 17, 2012, 8:02:21 PM4/17/12
to
On Apr 17, 5:48 pm, Richard Norman <r_s_nor...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Apr 2012 14:11:12 -0700 (PDT), wiki trix
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, 17 Apr 2012 14:11:12 -0700 (PDT), wiki trix
>
>
>
>
>
religion.
wiki trix
Apr 17, 2012, 8:03:19 PM4/17/12
to
wiki trix
Apr 17, 2012, 8:04:57 PM4/17/12
to
wiki trix
Apr 17, 2012, 8:21:23 PM4/17/12
to
On Apr 17, 7:01 pm, Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
> On 4/17/2012 11:37 AM, wiki trix wrote:
>
> > ...
> >> Since I am actually a person and not a biochemical robot responding
> >> rigidly to my programming...
>
> > Exactly how are you different from a physically identical "biochemical
> > robot"?
>
> "physically identical" to what?
Read it again... I said to a physically identical biochemical robot.
> On 4/17/2012 11:37 AM, wiki trix wrote:
>
> > ...
> >> Since I am actually a person and not a biochemical robot responding
> >> rigidly to my programming...
>
> > Exactly how are you different from a physically identical "biochemical
> > robot"?
>
> "physically identical" to what?
It's a hypothetical. Do you know how that works?
> > And what is your take on:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Brain_Project
>
> If the brain is a computer, then simulating it will be no different in
> principle than the virtual machines which allow Linux to run under
> Windows. The simulation can do no more than the brain it's simulating.
> It is, of course, a mere dream to think that the brain is understood
> well enough to create "a synthetic brain by reverse-engineering the
> mammalian brain down to the molecular level." It's big talk, but that's
> about all at this point.
Lord Kelvin. But planes fly today.
> The article does not mention whether the simulation of part of a rat
> neocortex (the only thing that the project has actually accomplished)
> has shown signs of consciousness. I rather think not, since such a
> discovery would guarantee a ticket to Stockholm.
prefrontal lobotomy. So It is not always a good thing. But the
developers of Blue Brain could very well a future Nobel. More
interestingly, Blue Brain itself may win a few on its own, once it
really gets going. That is if the minions of Moniz don't get to it
first.
wiki trix
Apr 17, 2012, 8:32:08 PM4/17/12
to
wiki trix
Apr 17, 2012, 8:00:24 PM4/17/12
to
On Apr 17, 5:48 pm, Richard Norman <r_s_nor...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Apr 2012 14:11:12 -0700 (PDT), wiki trix
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, 17 Apr 2012 14:11:12 -0700 (PDT), wiki trix
>
>
>
>
>
Free Lunch
Apr 17, 2012, 9:27:12 PM4/17/12
to
On Tue, 17 Apr 2012 17:21:23 -0700 (PDT), wiki trix <wiki...@gmail.com>
wrote in talk.origins:
At the time, it was the best tool available since we had no useful drugs
for the problems being treated. Yes, from our view today it was a
horrible treatment, but, like democracy as a form of government, it was
better than everything else.
wrote in talk.origins:
for the problems being treated. Yes, from our view today it was a
horrible treatment, but, like democracy as a form of government, it was
better than everything else.
socr...@bezeqint.net
Apr 18, 2012, 12:55:57 AM4/18/12
to
On Apr 17, 5:55 pm, Richard Norman <r_s_nor...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Apr 2012 07:49:08 -0700 (PDT), "socra...@bezeqint.net"
> molecular biology and developmental biology.- Hide quoted text -
Maybe ‘the DNA in all of these is essentially the same.’
But cells come in all shapes and sizes .
Socratus
#
It is your opinion or law that probability theory doesn’t work
in biology ( cells ) and in astrophysics ( big bang ).
Socratus
Actually there is something that does manage it:
the workings out of the machinery of biochemistry and
biophysics and molecular biology and developmental biology.
/ Richard Norman /
Cells make copies of themselves,. . .
Different cells make different copies of themselves,. . .
Cells come in all shapes and sizes . . . .
Somehow these different cells are tied between themselves
and during pregnancy process of 9 months gradually ( ! )
and by chance ( ! ) they change own geometrical form
from zygote to a child.
Cells come in all shapes and sizes, and then . . . they are you
( !? )
This is modern biomechanical /electrical point of view.
Socratus
==.
> On Tue, 17 Apr 2012 07:49:08 -0700 (PDT), "socra...@bezeqint.net"
>
> - Show quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -
But still, what you propose is wrong in two completely different
respects, both showing a fundamental lack of understanding.
#
respects, both showing a fundamental lack of understanding.
First,
that there are a lot of cells in the human body, perhaps 100
trillion,
is irrelevant to the information content since the DNA in all of
these
is essentially the same.
So 100 trillion libraries is no different from one library if you
choose to use that very unhelpful metaphor for what DNA constitutes.
/ Richard Norman /
that there are a lot of cells in the human body, perhaps 100
trillion,
is irrelevant to the information content since the DNA in all of
these
is essentially the same.
So 100 trillion libraries is no different from one library if you
choose to use that very unhelpful metaphor for what DNA constitutes.
the DNA in all of these is essentially the same.
/ Richard Norman /
Maybe ‘the DNA in all of these is essentially the same.’
But cells come in all shapes and sizes .
Socratus
#
Second,
I already said that probability theory in no way says that the
development of a human child in nine months from a single
fertilized egg is impossible.
Therefore the existence of such a child does not at all mean
somebody/something must be managing it.
/ Richard Norman /
I already said that probability theory in no way says that the
development of a human child in nine months from a single
fertilized egg is impossible.
Therefore the existence of such a child does not at all mean
somebody/something must be managing it.
It is your opinion or law that probability theory doesn’t work
in biology ( cells ) and in astrophysics ( big bang ).
Socratus
Actually there is something that does manage it:
the workings out of the machinery of biochemistry and
biophysics and molecular biology and developmental biology.
Cells make copies of themselves,. . .
Different cells make different copies of themselves,. . .
Cells come in all shapes and sizes . . . .
Somehow these different cells are tied between themselves
and during pregnancy process of 9 months gradually ( ! )
and by chance ( ! ) they change own geometrical form
from zygote to a child.
Cells come in all shapes and sizes, and then . . . they are you
( !? )
This is modern biomechanical /electrical point of view.
Socratus
==.
socr...@bezeqint.net
Apr 18, 2012, 4:22:15 AM4/18/12
to
socratus wrote:
> Maybe `the DNA in all of these is essentially the same.'
> But cells come in all shapes and sizes .
>
Indeed.
> Maybe `the DNA in all of these is essentially the same.'
> But cells come in all shapes and sizes .
>
Consider your word processor. Sometimes you're looking at the
spell-checker, sometimes the main text entry area, sometimes an
outlining tool perhaps. There are many screens that the word processor
can show you, in all shapes and sizes.
Nevertheless, it's the same source code. Different parts are turned on
and off, so what is produced looks different.
It is exactly the same with cells. A neuron looks like it does because
chemical and mechanical signaling from neighboring cells caused the
machinery to engage the "produce a nerve cell" portion of the program.
We've seen that moving a cell early enough in the process, before it's
committed, will allow it to pick up the signaling in its new home.
That's all stem cells are: not yet committed to a course of
development.
This is amazing, astounding even; it is a wondrous mechanism. But it
is
not magical.
>> Second,
>> I already said that probability theory in no way says that the
>> development of a human child in nine months from a single
>> fertilized egg is impossible.
>> Therefore the existence of such a child does not at all mean
>> somebody/something must be managing it.
>> / Richard Norman /
> It is your opinion or law that probability theory doesn't work
> in biology ( cells ) and in astrophysics ( big bang ).
> Socratus
>
situation, and we do not understand exactly what the probabilities
should be in that instant. We have, we think, a fair handle on what
was
probably happening a tiny fraction of a second later; probability
calculations are very much involved in these calculations, and in
cosmology in general, especially in the sorts of reactions happening
at
the subatomic scale. Quantum physics, at its core, probability theory
in practice.
But you were talking about cells before, a completely different topic
and not related to astrophysics.
Your terminology is ... surprising. Probability calculations are
involved in random events, but the overall process of picking up
signaling and activating or suppressing parts of the DNA program to
create different cell types is not a random process at all.
At a very low level, probability calculations come into play:
Accidents
happen, things move around in the cell, /this/ particular ribosome
hooks
up with /that/ copy of a protein instead of a nearby identical copy.
And
damage can occur at various steps in the process; i.e. something can
go
wrong.
But the damage is rare, and the probability is not the major driver;
the
programming is. So, in a sense, the production of a developing human
child is the result of probability; past a certain stage of
fertilization, it's the main chance that is likely to result because
of
the mechanisms at work.
>
>> Actually there is something that does manage it:
>> the workings out of the machinery of biochemistry and
>> biophysics and molecular biology and developmental biology.
>> / Richard Norman /
There is a famous neurologist named Richard Norman, inventor of the
>> Actually there is something that does manage it:
>> the workings out of the machinery of biochemistry and
>> biophysics and molecular biology and developmental biology.
>> / Richard Norman /
Utah
Array for connecting electrodes with neurons. Any relation? And I met
a
Richard Norman who is a professor in London when I was teaching some
seminars at a college there.
Ah -- I just recalled that the neurologist spells his name "Normann"
--
a pity (no reflection on you) as my meeting him online would have a
certain irony (or at least coincidence) because of some of my other
activities.
> Cells make copies of themselves,. . .
> Different cells make different copies of themselves,. . .
> Cells come in all shapes and sizes . . . .
> Somehow these different cells are tied between themselves
> and during pregnancy process of 9 months gradually ( ! )
> and by chance ( ! ) they change own geometrical form
> from zygote to a child.
>
You are using "chance" in an odd way. It's not what's happening here.
> Different cells make different copies of themselves,. . .
> Cells come in all shapes and sizes . . . .
> Somehow these different cells are tied between themselves
> and during pregnancy process of 9 months gradually ( ! )
> and by chance ( ! ) they change own geometrical form
> from zygote to a child.
>
> Cells come in all shapes and sizes, and then . . . they are you ( !? )
> This is modern biomechanical /chemical point of view.
>
Whenever you assert the correct way of thinking about something, I am
always amused. Here, you seem to suggest that "something magical
occurs" is all we know about the processes being described.
/ D. Keith Howington /
=================..
.
Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-origins@moderators.isc.org
Apr 18, 2012, 7:46:54 AM4/18/12
to
On Tuesday, April 17, 2012 8:04:01 PM UTC+1, wiki trix wrote:
> Al-Ghazali said that when fire and cotton
> are placed in contact, the cotton is burned
> directly by God rather than by the fire.
> It just so happens that god is incredibly
> consistent and preoccupied in this regard.
Did Al-Ghazali mention the quite similar scenario
> Al-Ghazali said that when fire and cotton
> are placed in contact, the cotton is burned
> directly by God rather than by the fire.
> It just so happens that god is incredibly
> consistent and preoccupied in this regard.
of somebody setting fire to the orphanage at night,
and can I call him as a defence witness? - Goddidit!
The example I've used before is when, I mean if,
I stabbed somebody, no one in particular of course,
but if the act and therefore the responsibility
of the knife continuing to be a stabby thing
instead of changing into a bunch of flowers or
something was - /would/ have been - not mine but
God's, then it was an Act of God that killed him.
Just as the voice told me to, I mean, told me that
God did it.
(This argument might be better expressed without
my supposed extended personal involement.)
wiki trix
Apr 18, 2012, 11:07:41 AM4/18/12
to
On Apr 18, 7:46 am, "Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-
Good question. It also implies that free will is out for everyone
other than god. Go finger.
other than god. Go finger.
Richard Norman
Apr 18, 2012, 12:57:30 PM4/18/12
to
differentiation. That is the name of the way that different shapes
and sizes and categories of cells arise through cell division from one
parent cell. The process of development is not completely worked out
but pretty much all of the basic machinery is known: specific
chemicals unequally distributed in the parent cell and specific
chemicals and physical conditions unequally distributed in the
specific locations of the daughter cells trigger differential gene
activation in different cells which triggers the entire process.
Although there are some probabilistic aspects of a number of
biophysical and biochemical events, the process of development is NOT
by chance.
The process is extremely complex because of positive and negative
feedback in the interactions between cells. The future fate of any
cell including its chemical characteristics depends in part on the
chemical characteristics of surrounding cells which depend in part on
that cell. At the same time, the future activation of particular
genes depends on the history of activation of particular genes so
everything interacts with everything else. We understand the
machinery of all the interactions. We have trouble tracing the
enormous complexity of all the interactions in detail but can do so in
general.
That cells come in all shapes and sizes is very interesting but to
your argument about the impossibility of creating a fully developed
organism from a single fertilized egg in a relatively short time span.
I never even hinted that probability theory does not work in
biophysics or astrophysics, only that there are rather few situations
where it is really useful. Macroscopic objects depend on the law of
large numbers to ensure that almost always the result of a macroscopic
process agrees with the "expected outcome" of a large number of
probabilistic processes and so can be treated in a deterministic way.
Richard Norman
Apr 18, 2012, 1:05:22 PM4/18/12
to
I can't really identify just who wrote what.
In any event, there are only a small number of academics named
"Norman" to whom I am related because my father changed his name to
Norman after immigrating to the United States almost a century ago.
My favorite adopted relative, of course, is Richard the Norman, aka
"Richard the Good", son of Richard the Fearless and grandfather of
William the Conqueror.
Kalkidas
Apr 18, 2012, 1:25:40 PM4/18/12
to
On 4/17/2012 5:21 PM, wiki trix wrote:
> On Apr 17, 7:01 pm, Kalkidas<e...@joes.pub> wrote:
>> On 4/17/2012 11:37 AM, wiki trix wrote:
>>
>>> ...
>>>> Since I am actually a person and not a biochemical robot responding
>>>> rigidly to my programming...
>>
>>> Exactly how are you different from a physically identical "biochemical
>>> robot"?
>>
>> "physically identical" to what?
>
> Read it again... I said to a physically identical biochemical robot.
> It's a hypothetical. Do you know how that works?
"Physically identical" to what? One thing cannot be "physically
> On Apr 17, 7:01 pm, Kalkidas<e...@joes.pub> wrote:
>> On 4/17/2012 11:37 AM, wiki trix wrote:
>>
>>> ...
>>>> Since I am actually a person and not a biochemical robot responding
>>>> rigidly to my programming...
>>
>>> Exactly how are you different from a physically identical "biochemical
>>> robot"?
>>
>> "physically identical" to what?
>
> Read it again... I said to a physically identical biochemical robot.
> It's a hypothetical. Do you know how that works?
identical". The phrase requires two things to be compared to see if they
are "physically identical." So what is the second thing to which the
biochemical robot is supposed to be "physically identical"?
>>> And what is your take on:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Brain_Project
>>
>> If the brain is a computer, then simulating it will be no different in
>> principle than the virtual machines which allow Linux to run under
>> Windows. The simulation can do no more than the brain it's simulating.
>
> ???
>
>> It is, of course, a mere dream to think that the brain is understood
>> well enough to create "a synthetic brain by reverse-engineering the
>> mammalian brain down to the molecular level." It's big talk, but that's
>> about all at this point.
>
> There will be hard problems to solve. But we shall see. You sound like
> Lord Kelvin. But planes fly today.
without verifiable collateral in the present.
>> The article does not mention whether the simulation of part of a rat
>> neocortex (the only thing that the project has actually accomplished)
>> has shown signs of consciousness. I rather think not, since such a
>> discovery would guarantee a ticket to Stockholm.
>
> The 1949 Nobel in Medicine was won by Antonio Moniz for developing the
> prefrontal lobotomy. So It is not always a good thing. But the
> developers of Blue Brain could very well a future Nobel. More
> interestingly, Blue Brain itself may win a few on its own, once it
> really gets going. That is if the minions of Moniz don't get to it
> first.
made good on their claims. Every time I hear someone say "in ten years
we will have done such and such...", I hang up the phone.
The last (and only) "news" post on
http://actu.epfl.ch/search/blue_brain/ is over a year old. And their
timeline ends in 2010, with nothing but some papers published since 2006.
The entire history of A.I research is full of empty boasts which never
came true. And anyone who still falls for "5-year plans", "10-year
plans", etc. is pretty much guaranteed to be disappointed.
socr...@bezeqint.net
Apr 18, 2012, 1:48:20 PM4/18/12
to
On Apr 18, 7:05 pm, Richard Norman <r_s_nor...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Apr 2012 01:22:15 -0700 (PDT),
> On Wed, 18 Apr 2012 01:22:15 -0700 (PDT),
My favorite adopted relative, of course, is Richard the Norman,
aka "Richard the Good", son of Richard the Fearless and
grandfather of William the Conqueror.
>
===============
aka "Richard the Good", son of Richard the Fearless and
grandfather of William the Conqueror.
>
Richard Norman the Good.
God, bless this name.
=====.
Best wishes.
Socratus.
socr...@bezeqint.net
Apr 18, 2012, 11:24:20 PM4/18/12
to
Maybe 99% agree that ‘Cells - they are you .’
But this explanation is not complete.
Cells have an energy / electrical potential.
Cells have an electromagnetic field.
Therefore we need to say:
‘ Cells and electromagnetic field - they are you.’
===.
Is this formulation correct?
==.
But this explanation is not complete.
Cells have an energy / electrical potential.
Cells have an electromagnetic field.
Therefore we need to say:
‘ Cells and electromagnetic field - they are you.’
===.
Is this formulation correct?
==.
Richard Norman
Apr 19, 2012, 1:04:29 AM4/19/12
to
'Cells distort the geometry of the space in which they exist.'
No, your formulation is not correct. Anybody with understanding of
basic biophysics and cellular physiology knows about electric
potentials of cells. Magnetics is rather a different story but is
also well known.
If you want to get weird, almost all of the energy you use is derived
from an electric machine as about 100 amperes of current flows through
the cytochrome chains in your mitochondria down an electric potential
drop of about 1 volt resulting in your metabolic rate of approximately
100 watts.
None of this stuff is at all new or surprising.
jillery
Apr 19, 2012, 1:22:58 AM4/19/12
to
timoth...@gmail.com
Apr 19, 2012, 3:53:18 AM4/19/12
to
On Monday, April 16, 2012 3:29:28 PM UTC+10, Mr.Dunsapy wrote:
> > > These are all ID. Not very much gets done without it.
> >
> > Your saying it doesn't make it so.
>
> That is why it is evidence, for ID.
May I write to the Discovery Institute proposing that you be granted a fellowship. Your logic is right up their alley, and they own the ID street stall.
Your line of argument seems to be: "I believe in ID, therefore X is evidence of ID because I say so."
You should try that one next time you want to get off a parking violation.
> > > These are all ID. Not very much gets done without it.
> >
> > Your saying it doesn't make it so.
>
> That is why it is evidence, for ID.
May I write to the Discovery Institute proposing that you be granted a fellowship. Your logic is right up their alley, and they own the ID street stall.
Your line of argument seems to be: "I believe in ID, therefore X is evidence of ID because I say so."
You should try that one next time you want to get off a parking violation.
socr...@bezeqint.net
Apr 19, 2012, 5:55:22 AM4/19/12
to
Cells make copies of themselves.
Different cells make different copies of themselves.
Cells come in all shapes and sizes.
Cells they are you ( !? )
This is modern biomechanical /chemical point of view.
#
Why?
Because:
Bioelectromagnetism (sometimes equated with bioelectricity)
refers to the electrical, magnetic or electromagnetic fields
produced by living cells, tissues or organisms.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bioelectromagnetism
What does it mean?
It means there isn’t biological cell without electromagnetic fields.
It means that in the cell we have two ( 2 ) substances:
matter and electromagnetic fields.
And in 1985 Richard P. Feynman wrote book:
QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter
The idea of book - the interaction between light
( electromagnetic fields ) and matter is strange.
He wrote: ‘ The theory of quantum electrodynamics
describes Nature as absurd from the point of view
of common sense. And it agrees fully with experiment.
So I hope you accept Nature as She is — absurd. ‘
/ page 10. /
#
Once again:
1.
We cannot understand their interaction and therefore
we don’t know the answer to the question: ‘ who am I ?’
===.
Socratus.
Different cells make different copies of themselves.
Cells come in all shapes and sizes.
Somehow these different cells are tied between themselves
and during pregnancy process of 9 months gradually ( ! )
and by chance ( or not by chance ) they change own
and during pregnancy process of 9 months gradually ( ! )
geometrical form from zygote to a child.
Cells come in all shapes and sizes, and then . . . they are you.
Cells they are you ( !? )
This is modern biomechanical /chemical point of view.
#
Maybe 99% agree that ‘Cells - they are you .’
But this explanation is not complete.
Cells have an energy / electrical potential.
Cells have an electromagnetic field.
Therefore we need to say:
‘ Cells and electromagnetic field - they are you.’
===.
Is this formulation correct?
Of course it is correct.
But this explanation is not complete.
Cells have an energy / electrical potential.
Cells have an electromagnetic field.
Therefore we need to say:
‘ Cells and electromagnetic field - they are you.’
===.
Is this formulation correct?
Why?
Because:
Bioelectromagnetism (sometimes equated with bioelectricity)
refers to the electrical, magnetic or electromagnetic fields
produced by living cells, tissues or organisms.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bioelectromagnetism
What does it mean?
It means there isn’t biological cell without electromagnetic fields.
It means that in the cell we have two ( 2 ) substances:
matter and electromagnetic fields.
And in 1985 Richard P. Feynman wrote book:
QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter
The idea of book - the interaction between light
( electromagnetic fields ) and matter is strange.
He wrote: ‘ The theory of quantum electrodynamics
describes Nature as absurd from the point of view
of common sense. And it agrees fully with experiment.
So I hope you accept Nature as She is — absurd. ‘
/ page 10. /
#
Once again:
1.
Cells and electromagnetic field - they are you.
2.
We cannot understand their interaction and therefore
we don’t know the answer to the question: ‘ who am I ?’
===.
Socratus.
Arkalen
Apr 19, 2012, 6:30:10 AM4/19/12
to
On 15/04/12 10:35, socr...@bezeqint.net wrote:
> DNA – Information - Evolution.
>
> Carl Friedrich von Weizsacker in his book:
> ‘ The unity of Nature ‘ tried to understand the interaction
> between information and DNA. He wrote:
> ‘ Organisms control their own growth by means of the genetic
> information stored in the DNA molecules, . . . ‘ / page 281 /
> ‘ . . . the amount of information contained in the DNA . . . . is
> the information corresponding to the concept ‘ genetic constitution’.
> / page 281 /
> DNA is indeed the carrier of the genetic constitution.
> / page 282 /
> #
> My question.
> How does DNA "draw" the shape of a human?
> To draw the shape of a child from zygote DNA must know physics,
> mathematics, geometry . . . etc.
> How is possible to understand that DNA knows all these subjects?
> If the child was born intelligent then it means that DNA knows
> physics,
> mathematics, geometry and . . . etc.
The DNA knows about as much about physics as the hot water bottle does
> DNA – Information - Evolution.
>
> Carl Friedrich von Weizsacker in his book:
> ‘ The unity of Nature ‘ tried to understand the interaction
> between information and DNA. He wrote:
> ‘ Organisms control their own growth by means of the genetic
> information stored in the DNA molecules, . . . ‘ / page 281 /
> ‘ . . . the amount of information contained in the DNA . . . . is
> the information corresponding to the concept ‘ genetic constitution’.
> / page 281 /
> DNA is indeed the carrier of the genetic constitution.
> / page 282 /
> #
> My question.
> How does DNA "draw" the shape of a human?
> To draw the shape of a child from zygote DNA must know physics,
> mathematics, geometry . . . etc.
> How is possible to understand that DNA knows all these subjects?
> If the child was born intelligent then it means that DNA knows
> physics,
> mathematics, geometry and . . . etc.
when it keeps your drinks cold in summer and hot in winter.
How do you think the bottle *knows* ?
(hint : look at how the bottle *works*)
Arkalen
Apr 19, 2012, 6:52:36 AM4/19/12
to
In the "my argument from assertion is wrong, which is evidence I'm right
!" category :
!" category :
wiki trix
Apr 19, 2012, 6:55:48 AM4/19/12
to
On Apr 19, 1:22 am, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Apr 2012 10:05:22 -0700, Richard Norman
>
>
>
>
>
> <r_s_nor...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Apr 2012 10:05:22 -0700, Richard Norman
>
>
>
>
>
William I of England, Duke of Normandy, also known as William the
Conqueror, was more fondly known William the Bastard.
nick_keigh...@hotmail.com
Apr 19, 2012, 9:05:56 AM4/19/12
to
On Tuesday, April 17, 2012 7:37:14 PM UTC+1, wiki trix wrote:
> > Since I am actually a person and not a biochemical robot responding
> > rigidly to my programming...
>
> Exactly how are you different from a physically identical "biochemical
> robot"?
ambitious. Very ambitious. I'm surprised we're ready to do this, technologically speaking.
> > Since I am actually a person and not a biochemical robot responding
> > rigidly to my programming...
>
> Exactly how are you different from a physically identical "biochemical
> robot"?
Since I don't believe there is a ghost in the machine, no Penrose quantum stuff or such like then the blue brain gives me no problem at all.
This...
"If we build it correctly it should speak and have an intelligence and behave very much as a human does."[4]
...does though
I think they're going to have embodiment problems.
--
"For the blue brain was mad..."
nick_keigh...@hotmail.com
Apr 19, 2012, 9:43:41 AM4/19/12
to
On Tuesday, April 17, 2012 3:49:08 PM UTC+1, socr...@bezeqint.net wrote:
> On Apr 15, 10:19 pm, Richard Norman <r_s_nor...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Apr 15, 10:19 pm, Richard Norman <r_s_nor...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > On Sun, 15 Apr 2012 12:27:33 -0700 (PDT), "socra...@bezeqint.net"
> > <socra...@bezeqint.net> wrote:
> > >On Apr 15, 7:16 pm, Mark Buchanan <marklynn.bucha...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> On Sunday, April 15, 2012 5:35:59 AM UTC-4, socr...@bezeqint.net wrote:
<snip>
> > <socra...@bezeqint.net> wrote:
> > >On Apr 15, 7:16 pm, Mark Buchanan <marklynn.bucha...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> On Sunday, April 15, 2012 5:35:59 AM UTC-4, socr...@bezeqint.net wrote:
> More briefly.
> he had any knowledge of biology.
> But far more important, . . you know absolutely nothing about
> biology.
> . . first learn some biology, then come back and ask.
> / Richard Norman /
> ======.
> I swear, I am not biologist.
> I swear, I am not physicist, not chemist, not . . . etc.
> I swear, I have not PhD, MD, . . . etc.
> I am a peasant who knows that 1+1=2 and . . . etc.
> For example:
> 1.
> Our body made up of perhaps 100 trillion different cells.
> 2.
> A single human cell contains as much information as
> a library with a thousand volumes.
> 3.
> I don’t need to learn biology in order to ask peasant question:
> How can 100 trillion different cells (100 trillion libraries with a
> thousand volumes in each) create a child ( by the chance )
If I have one cell with (say) 10e9 bits (that's a 1 followed by 9 zeros- a billion) and it divides do I have 2 x 10e9 bits? Everytime i use a photocopier do I increase the number of bits in the universe?
> during 9 months if according to the probability theory
> it is impossible?
> And if in spate of probability theory the child was boren
> doesn’t it mean that somebody /something manage this process?
jillery
Apr 19, 2012, 10:36:43 AM4/19/12
to
Richard Norman
Apr 19, 2012, 10:34:30 AM4/19/12
to
On Thu, 19 Apr 2012 01:22:58 -0400, jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>
I have heard of the sins of the fathers being visited on the children
unto the third and fourth generation. But the sins of the
grandchildren working backwards? God doesn't believe in cause and
effect? We are all lost!
unto the third and fourth generation. But the sins of the
grandchildren working backwards? God doesn't believe in cause and
effect? We are all lost!
Richard Norman
Apr 19, 2012, 10:37:58 AM4/19/12
to
On Thu, 19 Apr 2012 11:30:10 +0100, Arkalen <ark...@inbox.com> wrote:
>The DNA knows about as much about physics as the hot water bottle does
>when it keeps your drinks cold in summer and hot in winter.
>
>How do you think the bottle *knows* ?
>(hint : look at how the bottle *works*)
In Americanese, make that "Thermos" or in sciencese "Dewar flask".
>The DNA knows about as much about physics as the hot water bottle does
>when it keeps your drinks cold in summer and hot in winter.
>
>How do you think the bottle *knows* ?
>(hint : look at how the bottle *works*)
What we call a "hot water bottle" only works one way.
Richard Norman
Apr 19, 2012, 10:39:29 AM4/19/12
to
physiology course -- you would have learned all about the interaction
between cells and electric fields.
Arkalen
Apr 19, 2012, 12:10:18 PM4/19/12
to
those things.
jillery
Apr 19, 2012, 5:08:01 PM4/19/12
to
On Thu, 19 Apr 2012 07:34:30 -0700, Richard Norman
Mebbe it's the result of preincarnation mentioned elsetopic.
Martin
May 25, 2012, 9:55:03 PM5/25/12
to
On 15/04/2012 10:35, socr...@bezeqint.net wrote:
> My question :
> Is it possible to create a child from cell [ zygote] only in 280 days
> according to Probability theory?
I know, I know
> My question :
> Is it possible to create a child from cell [ zygote] only in 280 days
> according to Probability theory?
*jumps up and down* "let me miss - pleeeease"
My answer ....
"As it has happened the probability is exactly 1!"
"Do I get a gold-star miss?"
Martin
May 25, 2012, 9:56:38 PM5/25/12
to
On 15/04/2012 22:24, Kalkidas wrote:
> The Big Bang Singularity *is* a pregnant woman.
Can you tell us all just how big her belly was?
>
> The Big Bang Singularity *is* a pregnant woman.
Can you tell us all just how big her belly was?
>
John S. Wilkins
May 26, 2012, 12:15:04 AM5/26/12
to
--
John S. Wilkins, Associate, Philosophy, University of Sydney
http://evolvingthoughts.net
But al be that he was a philosophre,
Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre
Ron O
May 26, 2012, 7:13:31 AM5/26/12
to
On May 25, 11:15 pm, j...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:
> Martin <use...@etiqa.co.uk> wrote:
> > On 15/04/2012 22:24, Kalkidas wrote:
>
> > > The Big Bang Singularity *is* a pregnant woman.
>
> > Can you tell us all just how big her belly was?
>
> Size of a cosmic egg, wasn't it?
Scrambled or sunny side up?
> Martin <use...@etiqa.co.uk> wrote:
> > On 15/04/2012 22:24, Kalkidas wrote:
>
> > > The Big Bang Singularity *is* a pregnant woman.
>
> > Can you tell us all just how big her belly was?
>
> Size of a cosmic egg, wasn't it?
>
> --
> John S. Wilkins, Associate, Philosophy, University of Sydneyhttp://evolvingthoughts.net
Walter Bushell
May 27, 2012, 10:06:14 AM5/27/12
to
In article <016so7lmp58hegkpq...@4ax.com>,
Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> At the time, it was the best tool available since we had no useful drugs
> for the problems being treated. Yes, from our view today it was a
> horrible treatment, but, like democracy as a form of government, it was
> better than everything else.
I rather have taken a noodle in the head than a lobotomy. Either way I
am personally destroyed.
--
This space unintentionally left blank.
Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> At the time, it was the best tool available since we had no useful drugs
> for the problems being treated. Yes, from our view today it was a
> horrible treatment, but, like democracy as a form of government, it was
> better than everything else.
I rather have taken a noodle in the head than a lobotomy. Either way I
am personally destroyed.
--
This space unintentionally left blank.
Walter Bushell
May 27, 2012, 10:08:43 AM5/27/12
to
In article <jmmt36$s1n$1...@dont-email.me>, Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub>
wrote:
> The entire history of A.I research is full of empty boasts which never
> came true. And anyone who still falls for "5-year plans", "10-year
> plans", etc. is pretty much guaranteed to be disappointed.
Be fair, when AI succeeds it's no longer AI.
wrote:
> The entire history of A.I research is full of empty boasts which never
> came true. And anyone who still falls for "5-year plans", "10-year
> plans", etc. is pretty much guaranteed to be disappointed.
Ron O
May 28, 2012, 8:46:19 AM5/28/12
to
On May 25, 8:55 pm, Martin <use...@etiqa.co.uk> wrote:
The probablility that it can happen is 1. The probablility that it
does happen is less than one. Look up how many human fertilizations
fail.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Spontaneous_abortion_in_humans
It is sort of amazing that everything goes right so often. For
chickens you can get over 80% hatch of fertile eggs. Over 90% of the
fertile eggs can contain live chicks on hatch day, but some don't make
it out of the shell.
Ron Okimoto
does happen is less than one. Look up how many human fertilizations
fail.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Spontaneous_abortion_in_humans
It is sort of amazing that everything goes right so often. For
chickens you can get over 80% hatch of fertile eggs. Over 90% of the
fertile eggs can contain live chicks on hatch day, but some don't make
it out of the shell.
Ron Okimoto
gdgu...@gmail.com
May 28, 2012, 9:04:44 AM5/28/12
to
On Apr 15, 7:34 pm, Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
> On 4/15/2012 2:57 PM, g...@risky-biz.com wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 15, 5:28 pm, Kalkidas<e...@joes.pub> wrote:
> >> On 4/15/2012 1:19 PM, Richard Norman wrote:
>
> >>> On Sun, 15 Apr 2012 12:27:33 -0700 (PDT), "socra...@bezeqint.net"
> >>> <socra...@bezeqint.net> wrote:
>
>
> >>>>>http://bks3.books.google.ca/books?id=Y8AdzfU8E5sC&dq=related:ISBN0877...
>
> >>>>> seems to indicate that Carl wasn't that knowledgeable about biology.
>
> >>>>> To answer your questions would require teaching you quite a bit of background, and a commitment on your part to understand it.
>
> >>>>> Mark- Hide quoted text -
>
> >>>>> - Show quoted text -
>
> >>>> ==.
>
> >>>> Carl Friedrich von Weizsacker.
> >>>> #
> >>>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Friedrich_von_Weizs%C3%A4cker
> >>>> #
> >>>>http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/27789
>
> >>>> Did he have enough knowledge and information to speak about biology?
> >>>> I think, enough.
>
> >>> Nothing in either of those two articles indicates that he had any
> >>> knowledge of biology. But far more important, everything that you
> >>> originally wrote to start this post indicates that you know absolutely
> >>> nothing about biology. There is so much wrong in your questions and
> >>> your statements that one hardly knows where to begin except to repeat
> >>> what others have said: first learn some biology, then come back and
> >>> ask.
>
> >> Wait a minute. He basically asked how DNA "codes" for the morphology of
> >> an organism. Is that not a legitimate question? In fact, is that not a
> >> $64,000 question?
>
> > No, he asked the following:
>
> > Can you see the difference?
> English speaker, and that although his choice of metaphors is arguably
> poor, he nevertheless is also a person, and therefore really means
> something when he asks a question. So I took into account his
> idiosyncracies and put the best construction on his question, with the
> result that he meant to ask exactly what I said he meant to ask.
>
> You, on the other hand, simply reacted to his literal choice of words,
> without any benevolence, and without any real attempt to discern his
> meaning.
>
> Can you see the difference?
I hadn't noticed this until now. His choice of words has nothing to do
with my comment. His question:
"> > If the child was born intelligent then it means that DNA knows
> > physics,
> > mathematics, geometry and . . . etc."
...is perfectly clear from a language standpoint, but nearly perfectly
ignorant of biology as well. He proposes that to produce an organism
DNA must have "knowledge". This is simply a different question than
your rephrased one.
> On 4/15/2012 2:57 PM, g...@risky-biz.com wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 15, 5:28 pm, Kalkidas<e...@joes.pub> wrote:
> >> On 4/15/2012 1:19 PM, Richard Norman wrote:
>
> >>> On Sun, 15 Apr 2012 12:27:33 -0700 (PDT), "socra...@bezeqint.net"
> >>> <socra...@bezeqint.net> wrote:
>
> >>>> On Apr 15, 7:16 pm, Mark Buchanan<marklynn.bucha...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>> On Sunday, April 15, 2012 5:35:59 AM UTC-4, socr...@bezeqint.net wrote:
> >>>>> On Sunday, April 15, 2012 5:35:59 AM UTC-4, socr...@bezeqint.net wrote:
> >>>>>> DNA – Information - Evolution.
>
> >>>>>> Carl Friedrich von Weizsacker in his book:
> >>>>>> ‘ The unity of Nature ‘ tried to understand the interaction
> >>>>>> between information and DNA. He wrote:
> >>>>>> ‘ Organisms control their own growth by means of the genetic
> >>>>>> information stored in the DNA molecules, . . . ‘ / page 281 /
> >>>>>> ‘ . . . the amount of information contained in the DNA . . . . is
> >>>>>> the information corresponding to the concept ‘ genetic constitution’.
> >>>>>> / page 281 /
> >>>>>> DNA is indeed the carrier of the genetic constitution.
> >>>>>> / page 282 /
> >>>>>> #
> >>>>>> My question.
> >>>>>> How does DNA "draw" the shape of a human?
> >>>>>> To draw the shape of a child from zygote DNA must know physics,
> >>>>>> mathematics, geometry . . . etc.
> >>>>>> How is possible to understand that DNA knows all these subjects?
> >>>>>> If the child was born intelligent then it means that DNA knows
> >>>>>> physics,
> >>>>>> mathematics, geometry and . . . etc.
>
> >>>>>> Carl Friedrich von Weizsacker in his book:
> >>>>>> ‘ The unity of Nature ‘ tried to understand the interaction
> >>>>>> between information and DNA. He wrote:
> >>>>>> ‘ Organisms control their own growth by means of the genetic
> >>>>>> information stored in the DNA molecules, . . . ‘ / page 281 /
> >>>>>> ‘ . . . the amount of information contained in the DNA . . . . is
> >>>>>> the information corresponding to the concept ‘ genetic constitution’.
> >>>>>> / page 281 /
> >>>>>> DNA is indeed the carrier of the genetic constitution.
> >>>>>> / page 282 /
> >>>>>> #
> >>>>>> My question.
> >>>>>> How does DNA "draw" the shape of a human?
> >>>>>> To draw the shape of a child from zygote DNA must know physics,
> >>>>>> mathematics, geometry . . . etc.
> >>>>>> How is possible to understand that DNA knows all these subjects?
> >>>>>> If the child was born intelligent then it means that DNA knows
> >>>>>> physics,
> >>>>>> #
> >>>>>> My question.
> >>>>>> Where does DNA fit into the evolution debate?
> >>>>>> DNA information is not static information.
> >>>>>> DNA information is dealing with ‘ flow of information.’
> >>>>>> DNA information is dealing with ‘progressive information.’
> >>>>>> DNA information can evolve.
> >>>>>> DNA information evolves from zygote to the intelligent child.
> >>>>>> #
> >>>>>> Our body is a multi-cellular organism made up
> >>>>>> My question.
> >>>>>> Where does DNA fit into the evolution debate?
> >>>>>> DNA information is not static information.
> >>>>>> DNA information is dealing with ‘ flow of information.’
> >>>>>> DNA information is dealing with ‘progressive information.’
> >>>>>> DNA information can evolve.
> >>>>>> DNA information evolves from zygote to the intelligent child.
> >>>>>> #
> >>>>>> of perhaps 100 trillion different cells.
> >>>>>> ‘ The information content in the nucleus of a single human cell
> >>>>>> is comparable to that of a library containing a thousand volumes.’
> >>>>>> / The unity of Nature, page 40. /
> >>>>>> Question:
> >>>>>> is comparable to that of a library containing a thousand volumes.’
> >>>>>> / The unity of Nature, page 40. /
> >>>>>> Question:
> >>>>>> How can 100 trillion different cells (100 trillion libraries with a
> >>>>>> thousand volumes in each) create a child ( by the chance )
> >>>>>> thousand volumes in each) create a child ( by the chance )
> >>>>>> during 9 months if according to the probability theory
> >>>>>> it is impossible?
> >>>>>> it is impossible?
> >>>>>> #
> >>>>>> Today scientists think that everything begins from ‘Big Bang’.
> >>>>>> And according to ‘big bang’ our Universe exist 13 (+) billion years.
> >>>>>> Today scientists think that everything begins from ‘Big Bang’.
> >>>>>> And according to ‘big bang’ our Universe exist 13 (+) billion years.
> >>>>>> My question :
> >>>>>> Is it possible to create a child from cell [ zygote] only in 280 days
> >>>>>> according to Probability theory?
> >>>>>> Is it possible to create a child from cell [ zygote] only in 280 days
> >>>>>> according to Probability theory?
> >>>>>> If " yes "it will be take time not 280 days but it will be take
> >>>>>> time
> >>>>>> more than our Universe exist and then ,maybe, the pregnancy
> >>>>>> woman was before the ‘ big bang’.
> >>>>>> If ‘ no’ then the process must have aim.
> >>>>>> It means somebody /something must manage this process.
> >>>>>> ===.
> >>>>>> Best wishes.
> >>>>>> Israel Sadovnik. Socratus.
> >>>>>> ========.
>
> >>>>> The source of your information (The Unity of Nature) is from 1980 with few reviews. This review:
> >>>>>> time
> >>>>>> more than our Universe exist and then ,maybe, the pregnancy
> >>>>>> woman was before the ‘ big bang’.
> >>>>>> If ‘ no’ then the process must have aim.
> >>>>>> It means somebody /something must manage this process.
> >>>>>> ===.
> >>>>>> Best wishes.
> >>>>>> Israel Sadovnik. Socratus.
> >>>>>> ========.
>
>
> >>>>>http://bks3.books.google.ca/books?id=Y8AdzfU8E5sC&dq=related:ISBN0877...
>
> >>>>> seems to indicate that Carl wasn't that knowledgeable about biology.
>
> >>>>> To answer your questions would require teaching you quite a bit of background, and a commitment on your part to understand it.
>
> >>>>> Mark- Hide quoted text -
>
> >>>>> - Show quoted text -
>
> >>>> ==.
>
> >>>> Carl Friedrich von Weizsacker.
> >>>> #
> >>>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Friedrich_von_Weizs%C3%A4cker
> >>>> #
> >>>>http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/27789
>
> >>>> Did he have enough knowledge and information to speak about biology?
> >>>> I think, enough.
>
> >>> Nothing in either of those two articles indicates that he had any
> >>> knowledge of biology. But far more important, everything that you
> >>> originally wrote to start this post indicates that you know absolutely
> >>> nothing about biology. There is so much wrong in your questions and
> >>> your statements that one hardly knows where to begin except to repeat
> >>> what others have said: first learn some biology, then come back and
> >>> ask.
>
> >> Wait a minute. He basically asked how DNA "codes" for the morphology of
> >> an organism. Is that not a legitimate question? In fact, is that not a
> >> $64,000 question?
>
> > No, he asked the following:
>
> > "My question.
> > How does DNA "draw" the shape of a human?
> > To draw the shape of a child from zygote DNA must know physics,
> > mathematics, geometry . . . etc.
> > How is possible to understand that DNA knows all these subjects?
> > If the child was born intelligent then it means that DNA knows
> > physics,
> > mathematics, geometry and . . . etc."
> > "My question.
> > How does DNA "draw" the shape of a human?
> > To draw the shape of a child from zygote DNA must know physics,
> > mathematics, geometry . . . etc.
> > How is possible to understand that DNA knows all these subjects?
> > If the child was born intelligent then it means that DNA knows
> > physics,
>
> > Can you see the difference?
>
> Since I am actually a person and not a biochemical robot responding
> rigidly to my programming, I can see that Socratus is not a native
> Since I am actually a person and not a biochemical robot responding
> English speaker, and that although his choice of metaphors is arguably
> poor, he nevertheless is also a person, and therefore really means
> something when he asks a question. So I took into account his
> idiosyncracies and put the best construction on his question, with the
> result that he meant to ask exactly what I said he meant to ask.
>
> You, on the other hand, simply reacted to his literal choice of words,
> without any benevolence, and without any real attempt to discern his
> meaning.
>
> Can you see the difference?
I hadn't noticed this until now. His choice of words has nothing to do
with my comment. His question:
"> > If the child was born intelligent then it means that DNA knows
> > physics,
...is perfectly clear from a language standpoint, but nearly perfectly
ignorant of biology as well. He proposes that to produce an organism
DNA must have "knowledge". This is simply a different question than
your rephrased one.
nick_keigh...@hotmail.com
May 28, 2012, 9:31:48 AM5/28/12
to
On Sunday, April 15, 2012 10:35:59 AM UTC+1, socr...@bezeqint.net wrote:
<snip>
> My question.
> How does DNA "draw" the shape of a human?
> To draw the shape of a child from zygote DNA must know physics,
> mathematics, geometry . . . etc.
> How is possible to understand that DNA knows all these subjects?
> If the child was born intelligent then it means that DNA knows
> physics, mathematics, geometry and . . . etc.
the mistake is in your "know". If I throw a stone it follows a mathematical shape known as a parabola. To show this requires a moderate amount of trigonometry. Where does the stone learn this complicated mathematics from?
The growth and devlopment of an organism is a complex and still slightly myterious process but there is no need to assume intelligence on DNA's part. it's just (very complicated) biochemistry.
> My question.
> Where does DNA fit into the evolution debate?
DNA is what changes from generation to generation. This leads to diversity, which allows differential selection to operate, which is what we call evolution.
> DNA information is not static information.
in a particular individual it is. My DNA is the same today as it was yesterday (barring exposure to mutagens). This is how CSI works..
> DNA information is dealing with ‘ flow of information.’
no.
> DNA information is dealing with ‘progressive information.’
as above
> DNA information can evolve.
DNA evolves over generations, yes
> DNA information evolves from zygote to the intelligent child.
no. The zygote and child have identical DNA. This is how paternity testing works.
> #
> Our body is a multi-cellular organism made up
> of perhaps 100 trillion different cells.
> ‘ The information content in the nucleus of a single human cell
> is comparable to that of a library containing a thousand volumes.’
ok. I assume you have those numbers right
> Question:
> How can 100 trillion different cells (100 trillion libraries with a
> thousand volumes in each) create a child ( by the chance )
oops. Not chance. The DNA controls a complex series of biochemical changes.
> during 9 months if according to the probability theory
> it is impossible?
please indicate precisely which theorums from probability theory you used to come to this conclusion. Specifically state any assumptions about the data you made and show any logic or reasoning used.
Basically I think you made this up (or copied it from a fundamentalist web site).
<snip>
> My question :
> Is it possible to create a child from cell [ zygote] only in 280 days
yes. Happens every day.
> according to Probability theory?
if probability theory says otherwise then its wrong. but it doesn't does it?
> If " yes "it will be take time not 280 days but it will be take
> time
> more than our Universe exist and then ,maybe, the pregnancy
> woman was before the ‘ big bang’.
again simple observation would have shown this not to be the case
> If ‘ no’ then the process must have aim.
> It means somebody /something must manage this process.
he's awfully busy then. Not only does he have to hand build every baby but every cell and every bacterium. Surprised he has the time to teach trig to rocks as well!
What he should have done was developed a self sustaining system that was capable of adapting to its environment without constant intervention. Maybe next time.
<snip>
> My question.
> How does DNA "draw" the shape of a human?
> To draw the shape of a child from zygote DNA must know physics,
> mathematics, geometry . . . etc.
> How is possible to understand that DNA knows all these subjects?
> If the child was born intelligent then it means that DNA knows
> physics, mathematics, geometry and . . . etc.
The growth and devlopment of an organism is a complex and still slightly myterious process but there is no need to assume intelligence on DNA's part. it's just (very complicated) biochemistry.
> My question.
> Where does DNA fit into the evolution debate?
> DNA information is not static information.
> DNA information is dealing with ‘ flow of information.’
> DNA information is dealing with ‘progressive information.’
> DNA information can evolve.
DNA evolves over generations, yes
> DNA information evolves from zygote to the intelligent child.
> #
> Our body is a multi-cellular organism made up
> of perhaps 100 trillion different cells.
> ‘ The information content in the nucleus of a single human cell
> is comparable to that of a library containing a thousand volumes.’
> Question:
> How can 100 trillion different cells (100 trillion libraries with a
> thousand volumes in each) create a child ( by the chance )
> during 9 months if according to the probability theory
> it is impossible?
Basically I think you made this up (or copied it from a fundamentalist web site).
<snip>
> My question :
> Is it possible to create a child from cell [ zygote] only in 280 days
> according to Probability theory?
if probability theory says otherwise then its wrong. but it doesn't does it?
> If " yes "it will be take time not 280 days but it will be take
> time
> more than our Universe exist and then ,maybe, the pregnancy
> woman was before the ‘ big bang’.
> If ‘ no’ then the process must have aim.
> It means somebody /something must manage this process.
What he should have done was developed a self sustaining system that was capable of adapting to its environment without constant intervention. Maybe next time.
Earle Jones
May 28, 2012, 2:32:21 PM5/28/12
to
In article
<5e1659c2-2d31-4448...@v9g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
*
Ron: I had two parents and four grandparents. Eight great-grandparents
and 16 great-greats.
In only 20 generations (roughly 500 years) I had 2^20 (= about one
million) ancestors.
Here is the amazing thing: Of all of those million ancestors, not a
single one was infertile. Not a single one!
Don't you find that amazing!?
earle
*
<5e1659c2-2d31-4448...@v9g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
Ron: I had two parents and four grandparents. Eight great-grandparents
and 16 great-greats.
In only 20 generations (roughly 500 years) I had 2^20 (= about one
million) ancestors.
Here is the amazing thing: Of all of those million ancestors, not a
single one was infertile. Not a single one!
Don't you find that amazing!?
earle
*
0 new messages