Regulations

[Glenn]

Does the author of the below quote need to be regulated?

"Learning the rules of large-scale pattern regulation will enable the ability to specify biological pattern and control its remodeling. Current technology and conceptual schemes target the level of the biological "machine code" –they are all about proteins, genes, and cells. The observables and operational parameters at this level do not refer to large-scale shape and do not facilitate its manipulation.Thus, the field faces complexity barriers with respect to rational control of morphology (“what genes must be regulated, in what ways,to change the shape of the hand, or create a new eye?”)."

https://allencenter.tufts.edu/wp-content/uploads/Whitepaper.pdf

Would any evolutionist claim that genes "must be regulated" to evolve?

[RonO]

Look up Cell Theory. This notion is far from revolutionary. Biologist
were working around it before we knew that DNA was the genetic material.
Really, look up how long ago Cell Theory was proposed, and what Cell
theory means for the evolution of life forms. What do you think
biological evolution is? Biological evolution is what happens after we
have lifeforms that can evolve. This guy is not talking about
abiogenesis. They are talking about how biological evolution and
morphological change happens in existing lifeforms.

Ron Okimoto

[Bill]

It all has a kind of steampunk feel to it. Take current
technology, cobble it all together and miracles appear.

Bill

[Öö Tiib]

But commonly the biologists claim that genes are indeed rather often
regulated by regulator genes:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulator_gene
The term "evolutionists" is perhaps derogatory term of creationists
about biologists?

[RonO]

The guy has a very big lab with a lot of people working in it. He has
past results indicating that electrical currents in the cells can allow
proteins to track to where they should go. He thinks that if they can
figure out and understand what is producing these currents that they
might be able to not only understand development, but possibly regulate
manipulated systems to do different things.

Ron Okimoto

[Glenn]

On Sunday, July 19, 2020 at 12:09:58 PM UTC-7, Öö Tiib wrote:
> On Sunday, 19 July 2020 21:04:58 UTC+3, Glenn wrote:
> > Does the author of the below quote need to be regulated?
> >
> > "Learning the rules of large-scale pattern regulation will enable the ability to specify biological pattern and control its remodeling. Current technology and conceptual schemes target the level of the biological "machine code" –they are all about proteins, genes, and cells. The observables and operational parameters at this level do not refer to large-scale shape and do not facilitate its manipulation.Thus, the field faces complexity barriers with respect to rational control of morphology (“what genes must be regulated, in what ways,to change the shape of the hand, or create a new eye?”)."
> >
> > https://allencenter.tufts.edu/wp-content/uploads/Whitepaper.pdf
> >
> > Would any evolutionist claim that genes "must be regulated" to evolve?
>
> But commonly the biologists claim that genes are indeed rather often
> regulated by regulator genes:

This is about non-genetic regulation.

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulator_gene
> The term "evolutionists" is perhaps derogatory term of creationists
> about biologists?

So "creationist" is a derogatory term?

[Glenn]

The title of the paper is "Endogenous bioelectrical networks store non-genetic patterning information during development and regeneration."
>
Here's another interesting observation:

"we consider a possibility that the evolution of shape is determined by epigenetic information"

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2001037019301795

And from the prior reference, sounding like another "analogy" put into practice.

"However, we will also include new kinds of computational modeling, with techniques from statistical mechanics and AI."

[Öö Tiib]

On Sunday, 19 July 2020 22:29:58 UTC+3, Glenn wrote:
> On Sunday, July 19, 2020 at 12:09:58 PM UTC-7, Öö Tiib wrote:
> > On Sunday, 19 July 2020 21:04:58 UTC+3, Glenn wrote:
> > > Does the author of the below quote need to be regulated?
> > >
> > > "Learning the rules of large-scale pattern regulation will enable the ability to specify biological pattern and control its remodeling. Current technology and conceptual schemes target the level of the biological "machine code" –they are all about proteins, genes, and cells. The observables and operational parameters at this level do not refer to large-scale shape and do not facilitate its manipulation.Thus, the field faces complexity barriers with respect to rational control of morphology (“what genes must be regulated, in what ways,to change the shape of the hand, or create a new eye?”)."
> > >
> > > https://allencenter.tufts.edu/wp-content/uploads/Whitepaper.pdf
> > >
> > > Would any evolutionist claim that genes "must be regulated" to evolve?
> >
> > But commonly the biologists claim that genes are indeed rather often
> > regulated by regulator genes:
>
>
> This is about non-genetic regulation.

What kind of? Environment does not typically alter living cell's
genes directly in a needed way so gene-regulatory network has
evolved for it and that consists of regulatory genes and/or
molecules produced by regulatory genes like the epigenetic mechanisms.

Direct epigenetic changes can be of course caused by parasites
or symbionts that have such capability but the material
you cited did not seemingly talk about that.

>
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulator_gene
> > The term "evolutionists" is perhaps derogatory term of creationists
> > about biologists?
>
> So "creationist" is a derogatory term?

Creationists call themselves "creationists". Biologists do not call
themselves "evolutionists" but creationists do. So it appears to be
derogatory term of creationists about biologists.

[Bob Casanova]

On Sun, 19 Jul 2020 14:08:06 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Bill <fre...@gmail.com>:

You might have a point if you ever gave any indication that
you actually understand any technology beyond a pointed
digging stick or a log canoe; even moldboard plows and
birchbark are probably outside your knowledge set.
--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

[Glenn]

On Sunday, July 19, 2020 at 1:09:58 PM UTC-7, Öö Tiib wrote:
> On Sunday, 19 July 2020 22:29:58 UTC+3, Glenn wrote:
> > On Sunday, July 19, 2020 at 12:09:58 PM UTC-7, Öö Tiib wrote:
> > > On Sunday, 19 July 2020 21:04:58 UTC+3, Glenn wrote:
> > > > Does the author of the below quote need to be regulated?
> > > >
> > > > "Learning the rules of large-scale pattern regulation will enable the ability to specify biological pattern and control its remodeling. Current technology and conceptual schemes target the level of the biological "machine code" –they are all about proteins, genes, and cells. The observables and operational parameters at this level do not refer to large-scale shape and do not facilitate its manipulation.Thus, the field faces complexity barriers with respect to rational control of morphology (“what genes must be regulated, in what ways,to change the shape of the hand, or create a new eye?”)."
> > > >
> > > > https://allencenter.tufts.edu/wp-content/uploads/Whitepaper.pdf
> > > >
> > > > Would any evolutionist claim that genes "must be regulated" to evolve?
> > >
> > > But commonly the biologists claim that genes are indeed rather often
> > > regulated by regulator genes:
> >
> >
> > This is about non-genetic regulation.
>
> What kind of?

I can't help you learn to read and understand.

> Environment does not typically alter living cell's
> genes directly in a needed way so gene-regulatory network has
> evolved for it and that consists of regulatory genes and/or
> molecules produced by regulatory genes like the epigenetic mechanisms.

You make many claims, but never any support.

>
> Direct epigenetic changes can be of course caused by parasites
> or symbionts that have such capability but the material
> you cited did not seemingly talk about that.

You make many claims but never any support. When you do attempt it, it is meaningless.

>
> >
> > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulator_gene
> > > The term "evolutionists" is perhaps derogatory term of creationists
> > > about biologists?
> >
> > So "creationist" is a derogatory term?
>
> Creationists call themselves "creationists". Biologists do not call
> themselves "evolutionists" but creationists do. So it appears to be
> derogatory term of creationists about biologists.

"Biologists" call themselves many names. And evolutionists are not restricted to being biologists. Your claim is not apparent as you say it is, at all.

And whether creationists call themselves creationists or not does not make evolutionists reference to creationists not derogatory. You need to learn, if possible, a little logic before flinging feces.

You avoid the question, display irrational thought processes, and fail to provide any support for your claims.

You've ran out of chances to show you have any sense at all.

[Glenn]

Wow, you know stuff! Moldboard plows?? LOL!

[Glenn]

I'd expect this level of bullshit to be from pre-teens.

[Glenn]

Uh huh. Dinosaurs are right out, eh? You know, what you play with in the tub?

[Öö Tiib]

The only one flinging feces here are you and you yourself
provided amply evidence of it above so what other support
you need?

[Glenn]

You're like a spoiled child. And unlike most children, you don't even make sense.

[Glenn]

For those that can't comprehend the above, and to those that may fall for the "nothing to see here folks" arguments in whatever form, here's another take from another author Otangelo referenced:

"Science has yet to resolve the mystery of a living being’s self assembly into intricate patterns of form and function. Tissue patterns in developing flower buds implicate physical resonance as a mechanism through which positional information can be generated in biological development."

Read more at
https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Chapter-16-Electromagnetic-resonance-and-Pietak/430725e3c1835d587612bd53518adb797d68ead5

[RonO]

How sad can you get? Put the bottle away and sober up. It is only a
few hours till Monday.

Ron Okimoto

[Glenn]

But it is Sunday all day today.

[RonO]

Your input is noted as worthless. Do you know what type of electrical
stimulation that is under discussion? Think about nerve cells. If you
have no idea about what you post, why did you bother posting it? Did
you get this from some bogus creationist web site with some type of
denial of the current understanding of biology? It looks like this guy
is going to get a lot of money to continue this research. My bet is
that he is going to make a lot more progress and actually do some real
science with the money, and that science isn't going to make the
creationists very happy no matter how they might be misrepresenting it now.

Just put up your source for where you got your reference material.

Ron Okimoto

[Glenn]

You're an irrational and delusional one.

[RonO]

Projection is just a way of life for you.

REPOST of what you snipped out and just lied about:

Your input is noted as worthless. Do you know what type of electrical
stimulation that is under discussion? Think about nerve cells. If you
have no idea about what you post, why did you bother posting it? Did
you get this from some bogus creationist web site with some type of
denial of the current understanding of biology? It looks like this guy
is going to get a lot of money to continue this research. My bet is
that he is going to make a lot more progress and actually do some real
science with the money, and that science isn't going to make the
creationists very happy no matter how they might be misrepresenting it now.

Just put up your source for where you got your reference material.

END REPOST:

What kind of delusional person would post what you did in response to
the material that you snipped out and ran from?

Ron Okimoto

[Glenn]

I haven't used a projector in years.

[RonO]

You are the projector. That is how out of it you are.

Ron Okimoto

[Öö Tiib]

You are here having temper tantrums, answering no questions, throwing
feces and so I'm spoiled kid. :D
It is no surprise that you are incapable of understanding neither your
cited article nor Wikipedia. You have chosen to live in denial of
biology. Therefore biologists are just subset of "evolutionists" for
you and "evolutionists" are some kind of stupid and/or evil people.

[Glenn]

There you are.