Virgin Birth

[Samiya Illias]

For those interested in computationalism, and/or those with a Christian background may find this interesting:

Virgin Birth

Abstract

Virgin birth of Jesus is a matter of much debate. What we believe or not is a matter of faith, and depends on how we read and interpret the scripture(s). However, scientists have been studying parthenogenesis, the term used to describe virgin birth. Though virgin birth has been widely observed in nature, there are very few cases of experimental virgin birth in mammals, and no known cases yet in the wild. Combining observed phenomenon with emerging studies in Biophysics, and using analogies of known computing and communication technology, we can try to comprehend and appreciate the miracle of virgin birth. 

Full Text: http://signsandscience.blogspot.com/2015/10/virgin-birth.html 

Samiya 

[Russell Standish]

And this is interesting because?

On Sun, Nov 01, 2015 at 11:28:39AM +0500, Samiya Illias wrote:
> For those interested in computationalism, and/or those with a Christian
> background may find this interesting:
> Virgin Birth
>

> *Abstract*

> Virgin birth of Jesus is a matter of much debate. What we believe or not is
> a matter of faith, and depends on how we read and interpret the
> scripture(s). However, scientists have been studying parthenogenesis, the
> term used to describe virgin birth. Though virgin birth has been widely
> observed in nature, there are very few cases of experimental virgin birth
> in mammals, and no known cases yet in the wild. Combining observed
> phenomenon with emerging studies in Biophysics, and using analogies of
> known computing and communication technology, we can try to comprehend and
> appreciate the miracle of virgin birth.
>

> *Full Text*: http://signsandscience.blogspot.com/2015/10/virgin-birth.html
>
>
> Samiya
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders
Visiting Professor of Mathematics hpc...@hpcoders.com.au
University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Stathis Papaioannou]

I don't see what this has to do with computationalism. And isn't it by far the simpler and more likely explanation that despite claims it wasn't actually a virgin birth? 

--
Stathis Papaioannou

[PGC]

On Sunday, November 1, 2015 at 8:30:25 AM UTC+1, Russell Standish wrote:

And this is interesting because?

Duplication can be seen as a kind of asexual reproduction. That we see biological phenomena related to this is perhaps not surprising, but removing what we may hold to be the "sexual material level" from reproduction and succession of individuals and generations, weakly confirms a platonic intuition of things. And that is part of Jesus' PR machine.

When it comes to Samiya's page there is a mixing of scientific facts/observations from a wide variety of fields (which itself is already arguably problematic) with, as Samiya has indicated repeatedly, a perhaps overly literal interpretation of personal theology. My worry is the usual one concerning such mixing: that universally recognized facts are used improperly to justify theology, when most people on this list would recognize the common problem with that: it's how people are often manipulated. Milking of unrelated truths is perhaps better evidence for a lack of faith in the concerned areas and attitudes, rather than "sound theological proof" which is closer to misunderstanding theology.

Pairing scientific jargon and theology doesn't suffice: the scientist/mystic has to provide evidence of how the different areas of study can be reconciled, if they can be brought into the same framework of assumptions/hypothesis/definitions/theory. Then theology can be practiced with a critical, scientific mindset, without falling into ideological traps, but this isn't easy.

The questions are comp related. I don't know why you wouldn't find it interesting as somebody who has written on duplication in comp context, even if you don't buy Samiya's take. PGC

[Russell Standish]

On Sun, Nov 01, 2015 at 08:22:13AM -0800, PGC wrote:
>
> The questions are comp related. I don't know why you *wouldn't* find it

> interesting as somebody who has written on duplication in comp context,
> even if you don't buy Samiya's take. PGC
>

Samiya was referring to the well-known phenomena of parthenogenesis,
which can be understood as a natural form of cloning. Biologists get
excited about this, because sexual reproduction is still a rather
mysterious fact of the biological world, and there have been examples
of quite complex animals doing away with sex altogether (the classic
example is certain species of shark).

It has nothing to do with comp duplication, which are thought
experiments about duplicating conscious experiences, not genetic
cloning, which is as old as the hills - as any twin can attest.

Cheers

[Samiya Illias]

I'm glad you found it relevant. I was thinking in terms of a more physical basis for the mind-body problem. 

As regards my approach of trying to understand the scripture in terms of science, there are two primary reasons which drive my quest: 

1) Quran claims repeatedly that it is explained in detail [http://signsandscience.blogspot.com/2015/03/explained-in-detail.html ]

2) Quran 62:5 states that: 'The example of those who were entrusted with the Torah and then did not take it on is like that of a donkey who carries volumes [of books]. Wretched is the example of the people who deny the signs of Allah . And Allah does not guide the wrongdoing people.' [http://islamawakened.com/quran/62/5/ ] 

I am a Muslim and I have the Quran. I must study it earnestly, if I am to understand and benefit from it. If I do not study it, then it is my own loss. 

I know and have mentioned it on my blog that this is an initial exploratory study into the factual accuracy of the Quran. The reason I put it online is so that whoever can may benefit from it. As Quran 36:70 states the purpose of the Quran is: 'To warn whoever is alive and justify the word against the disbelievers.' [http://islamawakened.com/quran/36/70/ ] 

Samiya 

--

[PGC]

On Monday, November 2, 2015 at 1:14:28 AM UTC+1, Russell Standish wrote:

On Sun, Nov 01, 2015 at 08:22:13AM -0800, PGC wrote:
>
> The questions are comp related. I don't know why you *wouldn't* find it
> interesting as somebody who has written on duplication in comp context,
> even if you don't buy Samiya's take. PGC
>

Samiya was referring to the well-known phenomena of parthenogenesis,
which can be understood as a natural form of cloning. Biologists get
excited about this, because sexual reproduction is still a rather
mysterious fact of the biological world, and there have been examples
of quite complex animals doing away with sex altogether (the classic
example is certain species of shark).

It has nothing to do with comp duplication, which are thought
experiments about duplicating conscious experiences, not genetic
cloning, which is as old as the hills - as any twin can attest.

Your statement assumes no relation between what you see as "biology" and "duplicating conscious experience". But without stating the theoretical background and placing all terms one would logically or mathematically use on the table, it remains as unclear as many of your statements. This seems therefore closer to your personal preference rather than an argument. Mathematical Self-Reproduction is a fascinating and standard idea, e.g. in the Kleene sense. This may not interest you or be relevant to your approach, but some of us enjoy the technical side of clarifying duplication used in UDA with the appropriate background. 

Thankfully, Bruno sometimes permits the filming of his lectures and even though theology is not directly treated here, clarifying the terms necessary for such theological discussions, assuming comp, could serve perhaps as an example to Samiya and others that theological arguments should not be mixed with scientific facts without careful consideration of compatibility between arguments and statements, assuming different backgrounds/domains, as errors can be made rather quickly.

Thanks goes out to Bruno for making the effort to put some lectures out there in video form. I enjoy Bruno's posts and it is nice to have them complemented by video material from time to time:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ATl86jBfwqI

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=76iuXcVOAuc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5etar0vQYnI

And not yet shared with this list, the second part of these:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ibedqHdXCKU&feature=youtu.be&t=5

Please tell me if there are any problems with the links and hope you guys enjoy. PGC


 

[Brent Meeker]

Thanks for posting those links.

Brent

[Russell Standish]

On Tue, Nov 03, 2015 at 05:13:11AM -0800, PGC wrote:
>
>
> On Monday, November 2, 2015 at 1:14:28 AM UTC+1, Russell Standish wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, Nov 01, 2015 at 08:22:13AM -0800, PGC wrote:
> > >
> > > The questions are comp related. I don't know why you *wouldn't* find it
> > > interesting as somebody who has written on duplication in comp context,
> > > even if you don't buy Samiya's take. PGC
> > >
> >
> > Samiya was referring to the well-known phenomena of parthenogenesis,
> > which can be understood as a natural form of cloning. Biologists get
> > excited about this, because sexual reproduction is still a rather
> > mysterious fact of the biological world, and there have been examples
> > of quite complex animals doing away with sex altogether (the classic
> > example is certain species of shark).
> >
> > It has nothing to do with comp duplication, which are thought
> > experiments about duplicating conscious experiences, not genetic
> > cloning, which is as old as the hills - as any twin can attest.
> >
>
> Your statement assumes no relation between what you see as "biology" and
> "duplicating conscious experience". But without stating the theoretical
> background and placing all terms one would logically or mathematically use
> on the table, it remains as unclear as many of your statements. This seems
> therefore closer to your personal preference rather than an argument.
> Mathematical Self-Reproduction is a fascinating and standard idea, e.g. in
> the Kleene sense. This may not interest you or be relevant to your
> approach, but some of us enjoy the technical side of clarifying duplication
> used in UDA with the appropriate background.
>

Sorry Plato (may I call you Plato?), but parthenogenesis really has
nothing whatsoever to do with duplication as used in the UDA.

Parthenogenetic offspring are genetically identical to their parents,
just as identical twins are genetically identical to each other. They
are, however, completely different indviduals, unlike the poor sod to
have stepped into Bruno's teleporter in Brussels.

Biological theory says that sexual reproduction should halve the
fitness of the organism as compared with asexual (or parthenogenetic)
reproduction, so asexual reproduction should be the norm (as it is in
bacteria). It does not do so, for yet mysterious reasons. I quite
like Ridley's explanation given in his book "Mendel's Daemon", but to
date, the jury is still out.

Samiya, and Christians, like to make a big thing about virgin birth,
even though to biologists it is not a miraculous or interesting thing
- apart from the obvious fact that it is not commonplace.

[Brent Meeker]

But does it halve the reproductive chances of a gene; or does it give it
more chances of survival?

Brent

[Russell Standish]

On Tue, Nov 03, 2015 at 02:05:53PM -0800, Brent Meeker wrote:
> >
> >Biological theory says that sexual reproduction should halve the
> >fitness of the organism as compared with asexual (or parthenogenetic)
> >reproduction, so asexual reproduction should be the norm (as it is in
> >bacteria).
>
> But does it halve the reproductive chances of a gene; or does it
> give it more chances of survival?
>

Halves it, because its a 50/50 lottery whether the gene from the
female or the gene from the male is expressed in the offspring.

Of course, the same logic would indicate that incest should be very
evolutionary advantageous - which gives a potent clue as to what's
going on.

[Brent Meeker]

On 11/3/2015 2:30 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 03, 2015 at 02:05:53PM -0800, Brent Meeker wrote:
>>> Biological theory says that sexual reproduction should halve the
>>> fitness of the organism as compared with asexual (or parthenogenetic)
>>> reproduction, so asexual reproduction should be the norm (as it is in
>>> bacteria).
>> But does it halve the reproductive chances of a gene; or does it
>> give it more chances of survival?
>>
> Halves it, because its a 50/50 lottery whether the gene from the
> female or the gene from the male is expressed in the offspring.

But that's for one child. When sexual reproduction evolved the number
of offspring for most organisms was in the thousands, so a given gene
probably had many chances to combine with different genes from the other
gender.

Brent

[Russell Standish]

On Tue, Nov 03, 2015 at 02:51:35PM -0800, Brent Meeker wrote:
>
>
> On 11/3/2015 2:30 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
> >On Tue, Nov 03, 2015 at 02:05:53PM -0800, Brent Meeker wrote:
> >>>Biological theory says that sexual reproduction should halve the
> >>>fitness of the organism as compared with asexual (or parthenogenetic)
> >>>reproduction, so asexual reproduction should be the norm (as it is in
> >>>bacteria).
> >>But does it halve the reproductive chances of a gene; or does it
> >>give it more chances of survival?
> >>
> >Halves it, because its a 50/50 lottery whether the gene from the
> >female or the gene from the male is expressed in the offspring.
>
> But that's for one child. When sexual reproduction evolved the
> number of offspring for most organisms was in the thousands, so a
> given gene probably had many chances to combine with different genes
> from the other gender.
>

It still halves the fitness relative to asexual reproduction. What
matters is relative fitness anyway (or differential fitness, as Lewontin puts
it) - it doesn't matter if the absolute numbers are of order 1
or order thousands.

The point is that when confronted which such damning evidence, a
scientist will change er theory. A vast number of explanations for
why sexual reproduction wins over asexual have been proposed, such as
parasitism, such as the elimination of genetic errors due to operating
above the error threshold (Mendel daemon hypothesis).

These are being tested in ALife experiments, and in breeding
experiments. Just that at present, there is no concensus, other than
the original naive theory must be wrong.

[Bruno Marchal]

Thanks PGC.

So to sum up, the recursion theorem (for all F there is a e such that phi_e(x, y) = F(e, x, y)) explain conceptually and constructively that a machine can reproduce itself, with F the identity function for example, and this can be used for both the antic self-dividing amoeba, and classical teleportation. This is asexual. Sex possibility is justified by a crossed double recursion (phi_a(x,y) = F(b, x, y) and phi_b(x, y) = G(a, x, y)). Why sex? It seems to me it accelerates evolution by mixing the characters of parents, leading to some offspring adding (sometimes) the relative qualities of the parents (like how we select tomatoes, of hemp ...). 

Bruno

 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

[John Mikes]

About the biological makeup of reproducing Brent Maker wrote:

> >Biological theory says that sexual reproduction should halve the
> >fitness of the organism as compared with asexual (or parthenogenetic)
> >reproduction, so asexual reproduction should be the norm (as it is in
> >bacteria).
>
> But does it halve the reproductive chances of a gene; or does it
> give it more chances of survival?
>

And Russell replied.

Halves it, because its a 50/50 lottery whether the gene from the
female or the gene from the male is expressed in the offspring.

---------------------

The offspring is not a quantitative distribution of the (fe)-male genes. it is an unqualified mixture of those PLUS earlier generations' genetic effects. 

JM

[Bruno Marchal]

On 04 Nov 2015, at 22:38, John Mikes wrote:

About the biological makeup of reproducing Brent Maker wrote:

> >Biological theory says that sexual reproduction should halve the
> >fitness of the organism as compared with asexual (or parthenogenetic)
> >reproduction, so asexual reproduction should be the norm (as it is in
> >bacteria).
>
> But does it halve the reproductive chances of a gene; or does it
> give it more chances of survival?
>
And Russell replied.
Halves it, because its a 50/50 lottery whether the gene from the
female or the gene from the male is expressed in the offspring.

---------------------

The offspring is not a quantitative distribution of the (fe)-male genes. it is an unqualified mixture of those PLUS earlier generations' genetic effects. 

JM

I agree. It makes sex accelerating evolution a lot. Sex becomes an "intelligent" dialog made at the molecular level, and this without adding any non mechanist magic in the process. We can be sure that there is a complex hierarchy of meta and meta-meta-goals in the evolution of life. I think we do have evidence that with sex, the evolution of species has been accelerated.

Bruno

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

[Russell Standish]

On Thu, Nov 05, 2015 at 09:46:20AM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> evolution of life. I think we do have evidence that with sex, the
> evolution of species has been accelerated.
>

I don't think that is true, but even if it were, it doesn't explain
why sex accelerates the evolution of species. If anything, the reverse
is to be expected, because interchange of genetic material acts as a
brake on regular genetic drift due to mutation. Indeed, because of
sex, sympatric speciation was widely considered impossible, although
it appears that nobody told Nature that!

From what I see, the role and function of sex is still a mystery,
although there have been a number of plausible explanations that have
been put forward that have yet to be tested to the scientific
community's satisfaction.

[Terren Suydam]

The reason sex evolved seems so obvious to me that upon hearing that there is no consensus, I fear I must be missing something.

Asexual reproduction leads to organisms that can only adapt to changing environments as quickly as random mutation allows. And environments change much more quickly than that, I think.

Sexual reproduction leads to a much greater diversity of individuals, such that there is a much higher probability that at least a few members of a "species" (I use scare quotes because a species is just an arbitrary snapshot in time) will survive even if the  environment changes quickly.

[Brent Meeker]

That was my understanding too, Terren.

Brent

[Russell Standish]

Rather than keeping on trying to explain this, if you're interested,
take a look at Wikipedia's page:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_sexual_reproduction

It explains the problem, and various attempted solutions, including
the one Terren mentions below, and others I've mentioned.
Nevertheless, it is clear from that article that it is still an open
problem.

Cheers

On Thu, Nov 05, 2015 at 08:04:56PM -0800, Brent Meeker wrote:
> That was my understanding too, Terren.
>
> Brent
>
> On 11/5/2015 6:52 PM, Terren Suydam wrote:
> >
> >The reason sex evolved seems so obvious to me that upon hearing
> >that there is no consensus, I fear I must be missing something.
> >
> >Asexual reproduction leads to organisms that can only adapt to
> >changing environments as quickly as random mutation allows. And
> >environments change much more quickly than that, I think.
> >

[Bruno Marchal]

On 06 Nov 2015, at 05:26, Russell Standish wrote:

> Rather than keeping on trying to explain this, if you're interested,
> take a look at Wikipedia's page:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_sexual_reproduction

I find this very weird. They ask why sex given that there is 50% cost
(fitness disadvantage): the answer seems to me obvious, even with
99%cost, as long as we mate enough. Salmon have 999,9% cost, and
nature shows having no fear of lost of individuals, as long as there
are enough local benefits for few individuals. Why binary mating
system? I think that the reason is that unary/binary change is an
optimal one (in fact that is why I favor bipartite in democracy: sex
with three people would be too costly, given that the evolutionary
maximal change benefits appears with two.
It amazes me that this is seen as an open problem. especially that we
use sex (of tomato, hemp, flower) to make the selection ourselves.
Selection by simple mutation is possible on virus and bacteria, but
even them use most often sex in nature, and we do use also to
accelerate the change in bacterial genome.
That is also why I think amoeba do some sex, although I have not yet
find evidence for this.

Certainly the details on how this appeared and is maintained is not
known, by, as initially Weismann suggested at the end of the 19th
century, the variation among siblings explains the importance of sex
in evolution. The genetic algorithm exploits also this.

That such a simple explanation is not satisfactory is weird. It is
like saying that evolution does not explain everything, which is
trivial to me, but it gives the main base on which we can improve the
theory. Sex is really a sort of dialog at the molecular level.

Bruno

>
> It explains the problem, and various attempted solutions, including
> the one Terren mentions below, and others I've mentioned.
> Nevertheless, it is clear from that article that it is still an open
> problem.
>
> Cheers
>
> On Thu, Nov 05, 2015 at 08:04:56PM -0800, Brent Meeker wrote:
>> That was my understanding too, Terren.
>>
>> Brent
>>
>> On 11/5/2015 6:52 PM, Terren Suydam wrote:
>>>
>>> The reason sex evolved seems so obvious to me that upon hearing
>>> that there is no consensus, I fear I must be missing something.
>>>
>>> Asexual reproduction leads to organisms that can only adapt to
>>> changing environments as quickly as random mutation allows. And
>>> environments change much more quickly than that, I think.
>>>
>
>
> --
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
> Principal, High Performance Coders
> Visiting Professor of Mathematics hpc...@hpcoders.com.au
> University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>

> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
> send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

[Bruno Marchal]

Abstractly, they are the same: it is solved by the Dx => xx mechanism
(DD => DD), or variants.

>
> Biological theory says that sexual reproduction should halve the
> fitness of the organism as compared with asexual (or parthenogenetic)
> reproduction, so asexual reproduction should be the norm (as it is in
> bacteria). It does not do so, for yet mysterious reasons. I quite
> like Ridley's explanation given in his book "Mendel's Daemon", but to
> date, the jury is still out.

Which amazes me a lot. I guess I miss something. See my other post of
today.

>
> Samiya, and Christians, like to make a big thing about virgin birth,
> even though to biologists it is not a miraculous or interesting thing
> - apart from the obvious fact that it is not commonplace.

I guess it is the man obsession with Virgins, to given the best chance
of spreading their own genes. Male lion have solved the problem ... by
eating the offsprings of the female lion they will mate.

Cuttlefish females are the most sophisticate one, they can mate a lot
of male, and after, they select their favorite spermatozoids!

Best,

Bruno

>
> Cheers
> --
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
> Principal, High Performance Coders
> Visiting Professor of Mathematics hpc...@hpcoders.com.au
> University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>

> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
> send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/