evolution is...

[wiki trix]

Evolution is the intelligent designer.

[Robert Carnegie]

On Tuesday, 18 June 2013 01:25:25 UTC+1, wiki trix wrote:
> Evolution is the intelligent designer.

Evolution isn't intelligent. Just lucky.

[wiki trix]

Intelligent is just lucky. The mathematics of evolution is very close
to the mathematics of neural networks. Go figure.

[James Beck]

What's lucky about finding a few workable solutions in trillions of
trials?

[wiki trix]

On Jun 18, 12:35�am, James Beck <jdbeck11...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Jun 2013 19:58:24 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
>

> <rja.carne...@excite.com> wrote:
> >On Tuesday, 18 June 2013 01:25:25 UTC+1, wiki trix �wrote:
> >> Evolution is the intelligent designer.
>
> >Evolution isn't intelligent. �Just lucky.
>
> What's lucky about finding a few workable solutions in trillions of
> trials?

And how is intelligence unlucky?

[jillery]

On Mon, 17 Jun 2013 19:58:24 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie

Not even that. Evolution is inevitable.

[Rolf]

"James Beck" <jdbec...@yahoo.com> skrev i melding
news:6oovr8dlbn23tejso...@4ax.com...

Seriously, what do you actually know about the subject?

[wiki trix]

On Jun 18, 4:21�am, "Rolf" <rolf.aalb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "James Beck" <jdbeck11...@yahoo.com> skrev i meldingnews:6oovr8dlbn23tejso...@4ax.com...> On Mon, 17 Jun 2013 19:58:24 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie

> > <rja.carne...@excite.com> wrote:
>
> >>On Tuesday, 18 June 2013 01:25:25 UTC+1, wiki trix �wrote:
> >>> Evolution is the intelligent designer.
>
> >>Evolution isn't intelligent. �Just lucky.
>
> > What's lucky about finding a few workable solutions in trillions of
> > trials?
>
> Seriously, what do you actually know about the subject?

You do not have to know anything about the "subject" to know that
there is no such thing as "luck" over the long term.
If I go to a casino and win big on one or more of my first few bets,
that may be described as "lucky". If I spend a long enough time
gambling, I *will* loose.

[pnyikos]

But not at all close to the intelligence required to do mathematics.
The cognitive aspect of mathematical proofs is something the
philosophy of mind perennially sweeps under the rug. [Except in
amateur philosophizing, where some theists claim that the soul is
needed for recognition of the validity of a mathematical line of
reasoning, claiming that neural networks, a blind mechanical process,
cannot be the foundation for certifying the validity of reasoning.]

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics --standard disclaimer--
University of South Carolina
nyikos @ math.sc.edu

[wiki trix]

On Jun 18, 8:31 am, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> On Jun 17, 11:03 pm, wiki trix <wikit...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jun 17, 10:58 pm, Robert Carnegie <rja.carne...@excite.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Tuesday, 18 June 2013 01:25:25 UTC+1, wiki trix  wrote:
> > > > Evolution is the intelligent designer.
>
> > > Evolution isn't intelligent.  Just lucky.
>
> > Intelligent is just lucky. The mathematics of evolution is very close
> > to the mathematics of neural networks. Go figure.
>
> But not at all close to the intelligence required to do mathematics.

Is automated theorem proving intelligent?
Does a falling apple do calculus?
All "intelligence" is an illusion.

[pnyikos]

On Jun 18, 12:35�am, James Beck <jdbeck11...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On Mon, 17 Jun 2013 19:58:24 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
>

> <rja.carne...@excite.com> wrote:
> >On Tuesday, 18 June 2013 01:25:25 UTC+1, wiki trix �wrote:
> >> Evolution is the intelligent designer.

This piece of wordplay doesn't deserve to be promulgated; it is just a
stalling technique to make creationists work harder at explaining
something that requires no explanation.

On top of everything else, it uses the wrong word: sophisticated ID
theorists know that abiogenesis, not evolution, is where they can make
the best case for an intelligent designer in the non-obfuscatory sense
of the term "intelligent design."

> >Evolution isn't intelligent. �Just lucky.
>
> What's lucky about finding a few workable solutions in trillions of
> trials?

Try obtaining a highly specific enzyme that contains 200 or more amino
acid components in a mere trillion trials.

By highly specific, I don't mean those silly little ligases that the
abiogenesis FAQs rhapsodize over, the ligases that put together two
polypeptide strings that were fed to them in the lab, and which
produce copies of themselves thereby. I have in mind aminoacyl-tRNA
synthetases, the enzymes which attach just the right amino acid (out
of 20) to just the right tRNA molecule with astounding fidelity.

True Believers in Easy Abiogenesis [tm] know that 4^200 is way too big
a number for random production of such enzymes, and so they fall back
on one of two arguments:

The Nobody of the Gaps argument: "Nobody ever claimed that enzymes
evolved in a random way."

The Extrapolator of the Gaps argument: "Evolution of organisms has
been shown to produce amazing things such as ourselves in highly un-
random ways. Doubtless, biochemical evolution is capable of such
things by a similar process."

The Exaptor of the Gaps argument: "The enzyme you are skeptical about
was exapted from another, which was exapted from another, ..."

Here is one illustration of what is really behind this last argument,
talking about another very important kind of enzyme:



"A random protein A, catalyzing reactions z1, ...zn [don't ask me
what n is] whose nature I cannot begin to guess, was exapted via a
string of mutations, while still serving some of these functions
[don't ask me which ones it was still serving at the end of the
string],

"exapted, I say, to give us a protein B, catalyzing reactions y1, ...
y_m [don't ask me what m is] whose nature I cannot begin to guess,
which in turn was exapted, via a string of mutations...

...

"...which in turn was exapted to give us a protein Z, catalyzing the
replacement of U with C that corrects any ribozyme transcribing DNA
into mRNA but erroneously putting a U where C belongs."

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics --standard disclaimer--
University of South Carolina
nyikos @ math.sc.edu

http://www.math.sc.edu/~nyikos/

[pnyikos]

On Jun 18, 3:04�am, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Jun 2013 19:58:24 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
>

> <rja.carne...@excite.com> wrote:
> >On Tuesday, 18 June 2013 01:25:25 UTC+1, wiki trix �wrote:
> >> Evolution is the intelligent designer.
>
> >Evolution isn't intelligent. �Just lucky.
>
> Not even that. �Evolution is inevitable.

Do you also think abiogenesis is inevitable on a planet as favorably
disposed to it as earth?

Did any of the FAQs whose urls you posted on the thread where we have
clashed the most in this month do any better than the one I described
in my reply to James Beck? Here is part of what I wrote, with a
slight amendment [base pairs instead of amino acids]:

[amended excerpt:]

Try obtaining a highly specific enzyme whose coding mRNA contains 1000
or more base pairs in a mere trillion trials.

By highly specific, I don't mean those silly little ligases that the
abiogenesis FAQs rhapsodize over, the ligases that put together two
polypeptide strings that were fed to them in the lab, and which
produce copies of themselves thereby. I have in mind aminoacyl-tRNA
synthetases, the enzymes which attach just the right amino acid (out
of 20) to just the right tRNA molecule with astounding fidelity.

True Believers in Easy Abiogenesis [tm] know that 4^1000 is way too

big a number for random production of such enzymes, and so they fall

back on one of three arguments:

The Nobody of the Gaps argument: "Nobody ever claimed that enzymes
evolved in a random way."

The Extrapolator of the Gaps argument: "Evolution of organisms has
been shown to produce amazing things such as ourselves in highly un-
random ways. Doubtless, biochemical evolution is capable of such
things by a similar process."

The Exaptor of the Gaps argument: "The enzyme you are skeptical about
was exapted from another, which was exapted from another, ..."

[end of excerpt]

I won't repeat the concrete illustration of the third fallback that I
gave James Beck, because you are like a fish out of water when it
comes to indulging in anything except generalities.

[AFAIK your favorite generality is "Yeppers," tossed in whenever
someone posts something you think is way cool]

But if you think the Exaptor of the Gaps argument takes care of every
objection anyone can make to the abiogenesis FAQs, you had better read
that concrete example before pontificating on the bare bones outline I
gave up there.

[John Harshman]

On 6/18/13 5:52 AM, pnyikos wrote:
> On Jun 18, 12:35 am, James Beck<jdbeck11...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, 17 Jun 2013 19:58:24 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
>>
>> <rja.carne...@excite.com> wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, 18 June 2013 01:25:25 UTC+1, wiki trix wrote:
>>>> Evolution is the intelligent designer.
>
> This piece of wordplay doesn't deserve to be promulgated; it is just a
> stalling technique to make creationists work harder at explaining
> something that requires no explanation.
>
> On top of everything else, it uses the wrong word: sophisticated ID
> theorists know that abiogenesis, not evolution, is where they can make
> the best case for an intelligent designer in the non-obfuscatory sense
> of the term "intelligent design."

Who are these "sophisticated ID theorists"? A few names would be helpful.

[wiki trix]

On Jun 18, 8:52�am, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> On Jun 18, 12:35�am, James Beck <jdbeck11...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 17 Jun 2013 19:58:24 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
>
> > <rja.carne...@excite.com> wrote:
> > >On Tuesday, 18 June 2013 01:25:25 UTC+1, wiki trix �wrote:
> > >> Evolution is the intelligent designer.
>
> This piece of wordplay doesn't deserve to be promulgated; it is just a
> stalling technique to make creationists work harder at explaining
> something that requires no explanation.

Are you certain that god's intelligence is not the result of godly
evolution? Intelligence and evolution are both optimization
processes... both involve information storage, replication with
modification, trial and error, learning, and objective functions that
provides corrective feedback. This is not wordplay. The mathematics of
neural network learning and biological evolution are deeply similar.
If there is a god, are you sure it works on different principles? If
so, then "intelligence" and "design" are inappropriate for god, that
is if "intelligence" and "design" is what we humans do.

[Roger Shrubber]

pnyikos wrote:
> On Jun 18, 12:35 am, James Beck <jdbeck11...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, 17 Jun 2013 19:58:24 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
>>
>> <rja.carne...@excite.com> wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, 18 June 2013 01:25:25 UTC+1, wiki trix wrote:
>>>> Evolution is the intelligent designer.
>
> This piece of wordplay doesn't deserve to be promulgated; it is just a
> stalling technique to make creationists work harder at explaining
> something that requires no explanation.
>
> On top of everything else, it uses the wrong word: sophisticated ID
> theorists know that abiogenesis, not evolution, is where they can make
> the best case for an intelligent designer in the non-obfuscatory sense
> of the term "intelligent design."

Quit pretending you understand any of this.

>>> Evolution isn't intelligent. Just lucky.
>>
>> What's lucky about finding a few workable solutions in trillions of
>> trials?
>
> Try obtaining a highly specific enzyme that contains 200 or more amino
> acid components in a mere trillion trials.

Foolish comment.

> By highly specific, I don't mean those silly little ligases that the
> abiogenesis FAQs rhapsodize over, the ligases that put together two
> polypeptide strings that were fed to them in the lab, and which
> produce copies of themselves thereby. I have in mind aminoacyl-tRNA
> synthetases, the enzymes which attach just the right amino acid (out
> of 20) to just the right tRNA molecule with astounding fidelity.
>
> True Believers in Easy Abiogenesis [tm] know that 4^200 is way too big
> a number for random production of such enzymes, and so they fall back
> on one of two arguments:

You do it every time. 4^200 is you demonstrating how clueless
you actually. You of course want to refer to 20^200 which is
also an irrelevant model.

> The Nobody of the Gaps argument: "Nobody ever claimed that enzymes
> evolved in a random way."

People like you do. Serious biochemists don't.

> The Extrapolator of the Gaps argument: "Evolution of organisms has
> been shown to produce amazing things such as ourselves in highly un-
> random ways. Doubtless, biochemical evolution is capable of such
> things by a similar process."

We have examples of the natural history of enzymes that start
with modest specificity and develop higher specificity. The
same model of evolution would naturally be invoked for AA tRNA
synthetases. Ribozymes already can do the job of specifically
acylating specific tRNAs. We know that small peptides binding
to RNA provide it with alternative or more stable 3D structure
and thus enhanced enzymatic repertoires. A gradual takeover of
ribozymes with successively more polypeptide content is the
natural gradual model for development of AA tRNA synthetases
and that does not invoke anything like your missed invocation
of 20^200.

You attack the wrong models in your ignorance. Howard provided
you with some nice references and you've ignored them. You
were previously provided with better models. You never learn.

> The Exaptor of the Gaps argument: "The enzyme you are skeptical about
> was exapted from another, which was exapted from another, ..."

It's a fantasy of your own invention. You ignore the proper
models.

> Here is one illustration of what is really behind this last argument,
> talking about another very important kind of enzyme:
>
>
>
> "A random protein A, catalyzing reactions z1, ...zn [don't ask me
> what n is] whose nature I cannot begin to guess, was exapted via a
> string of mutations, while still serving some of these functions
> [don't ask me which ones it was still serving at the end of the
> string],
>
> "exapted, I say, to give us a protein B, catalyzing reactions y1, ...
> y_m [don't ask me what m is] whose nature I cannot begin to guess,
> which in turn was exapted, via a string of mutations...
>
> ...
>
> "...which in turn was exapted to give us a protein Z, catalyzing the
> replacement of U with C that corrects any ribozyme transcribing DNA
> into mRNA but erroneously putting a U where C belongs."

The above scenarios have been seen in practice so there are
contexts in which they make sense. Meanwhile, you repeatedly
show that you really don't know what you are talking about
on the most fundamental level, for example the way you went
on about oxygen in the sea versus the atmosphere and thinking
that O2 is polar. Just stop. You have no credibility on these
topics and it's too much work to chase after all your errors.
Have some dignity and stop.

[Harry K]

And therefore life arrived via panspermists who arose from other
panspermists who arose.... and way down at the end of the string there
was this thing we call a god. But we don't mention that.

Harry K

[jillery]

On Tue, 18 Jun 2013 06:06:14 -0700 (PDT), pnyikos
<nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

>On Jun 18, 3:04 am, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, 17 Jun 2013 19:58:24 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
>>
>> <rja.carne...@excite.com> wrote:
>> >On Tuesday, 18 June 2013 01:25:25 UTC+1, wiki trix  wrote:
>> >> Evolution is the intelligent designer.
>>
>> >Evolution isn't intelligent.  Just lucky.
>>
>> Not even that.  Evolution is inevitable.
>
>Do you also think abiogenesis is inevitable on a planet as favorably
>disposed to it as earth?

Stop with your stupid innuendos. There's no intelligent reason for
conflating evolution and abiogenesis.

<snip rockhead SPAM>

[James Beck]

On Tue, 18 Jun 2013 10:21:25 +0200, "Rolf" <rolf.a...@gmail.com>
wrote:

Hardly anything. It's all so exciting.

[Walter Bushell]

In article
<7a4ca80d-7839-4ad1...@f4g2000pbj.googlegroups.com>,P

Ah, but in the long term all of us are dead. It's possible one could
win over a lifetime, but, of course, not very. Of course, if one is
playing some games of skill or against players other than the casino,
one can win long term, but if one wins too big against the casino, one
gets escorted off the premises and told never to come back at best, if
they don't have you arrested for cheating.

--
Gambling with Other People's Money is the meth of the fiscal industry.
me -- in the spirit of Karl and Groucho Marx

[Robert Carnegie]

On Tuesday, 18 June 2013 15:52:36 UTC+1, Walter Bushell wrote:
> Of course, if one is playing some games of skill or
> against players other than the casino, one can win
> long term, but if one wins too big against the casino,
> one gets escorted off the premises and told never to
> come back at best, if they don't have you arrested
> for cheating.

But we're talking about the metaphorical evolution
casino, where it's the players who /don't/ win -
playing against each other or playing for the bank -
that are, so to speak, escorted off the premises.
That only leaves players who have already been lucky -
or, anyway, who have won last time around, either
because they are fitter than their neighbour, or
because a rock fell on their neighbour. Either works.

The point is that natural selection picks winners by,
uh, picking the players that won. It isn't an
intelligent selection, and it isn't intelligent design.

[wiki trix]

When you develop a new technology, the "design" process is actually
the same as it is for biological RM+NS. The only additional part is
the neural neo-cortex network that provides abstraction, memory, and
simulation services. That may seem like a cheat, but it can only
accelerate what could have been done the hard way (unintelligent dumb-
luck way). No magic sauce.

[Mark Isaak]

On 6/18/13 5:52 AM, pnyikos wrote:

> On Jun 18, 12:35 am, James Beck <jdbeck11...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, 17 Jun 2013 19:58:24 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie

> [...]

>>> Evolution isn't intelligent. Just lucky.
>>
>> What's lucky about finding a few workable solutions in trillions of
>> trials?
>
> Try obtaining a highly specific enzyme that contains 200 or more amino
> acid components in a mere trillion trials.

I do not know a lot about directed evolution, but I believe there are
companies making money now by doing just that (except with fewer trials).

--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"It is certain, from experience, that the smallest grain of natural
honesty and benevolence has more effect on men's conduct, than the most
pompous views suggested by theological theories and systems." - D. Hume

[Mark Isaak]

Peter Nyikos, perhaps?

[James Beck]

On Tue, 18 Jun 2013 10:52:36 -0400, Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com>
wrote:

Wiki hasn't understood that there's no such thing as 'luck' in the
short term, either. There is only an idiosyncratic frontier of
predictability. Within their individual frontiers people refer to
their choices as 'commonsense.' Beyond their frontiers they describe
their realizations as variably lucky or unlucky.

On the other hand, the illusion of luck doesn't explain casino
gambling very well. People appear to get their fix whether they win or
lose. Maybe if they expect to lose and do, they are perversely 'right
enough' to get a squirt of dopamine as a reward.

[Glenn]

"Harry K" <tur...@q.com> wrote in message news:f3fece6f-5412-4301...@qn4g2000pbc.googlegroups.com...

You just did.

[John Stockwell]

On Monday, June 17, 2013 6:25:25 PM UTC-6, wiki trix wrote:
> Evolution is the intelligent designer.

Common descent trough descent with modification and natural
selection.

It isn't intelligent, but it is smarter than you are.

-John

[John Harshman]

On 6/18/13 9:31 AM, Mark Isaak wrote:
> On 6/18/13 6:12 AM, John Harshman wrote:
>> On 6/18/13 5:52 AM, pnyikos wrote:
>>> On Jun 18, 12:35 am, James Beck<jdbeck11...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 17 Jun 2013 19:58:24 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
>>>>
>>>> <rja.carne...@excite.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Tuesday, 18 June 2013 01:25:25 UTC+1, wiki trix wrote:
>>>>>> Evolution is the intelligent designer.
>>>
>>> This piece of wordplay doesn't deserve to be promulgated; it is just a
>>> stalling technique to make creationists work harder at explaining
>>> something that requires no explanation.
>>>
>>> On top of everything else, it uses the wrong word: sophisticated ID
>>> theorists know that abiogenesis, not evolution, is where they can make
>>> the best case for an intelligent designer in the non-obfuscatory sense
>>> of the term "intelligent design."
>>
>> Who are these "sophisticated ID theorists"? A few names would be helpful.
>
> Peter Nyikos, perhaps?
>

He used the plural, which is what makes me curious.

[John Harshman]

On 6/18/13 9:29 AM, Mark Isaak wrote:
> On 6/18/13 5:52 AM, pnyikos wrote:
>> On Jun 18, 12:35 am, James Beck <jdbeck11...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> On Mon, 17 Jun 2013 19:58:24 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
>> [...]
>>>> Evolution isn't intelligent. Just lucky.
>>>
>>> What's lucky about finding a few workable solutions in trillions of
>>> trials?
>>
>> Try obtaining a highly specific enzyme that contains 200 or more amino
>> acid components in a mere trillion trials.
>
> I do not know a lot about directed evolution, but I believe there are
> companies making money now by doing just that (except with fewer trials).
>

Well, of course you start out with an enzyme that isn't very specific
and not very active, which you can fairly easily get by looking at
random sequences. As long as it's a little bit specific and a little bit
active, improvements can be selected for.

[Paul J Gans]

Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
>On Tuesday, 18 June 2013 01:25:25 UTC+1, wiki trix wrote:
>> Evolution is the intelligent designer.

>Evolution isn't intelligent. Just lucky.

Selection makes an organism generally more fit for their
environment. One can attribute that to luck or intelligent
design. On the other hand, the intelligent design must
then allow for continuous modification, generation after
generation since that is what happens in nature.

And so continuous intelligent design becomes indistiguishable
from miracle, since the designer is invisible to us.

--
--- Paul J. Gans

[Glenn]

"Paul J Gans" <gan...@panix.com> wrote in message news:kpqffp$kj2$2...@reader1.panix.com...

> Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
> >On Tuesday, 18 June 2013 01:25:25 UTC+1, wiki trix wrote:
> >> Evolution is the intelligent designer.
>
> >Evolution isn't intelligent. Just lucky.
>
> Selection makes an organism generally more fit for their
> environment.

Is that a fact?

[Paul J Gans]

>Try obtaining a highly specific enzyme that contains 200 or more amino
>acid components in a mere trillion trials.

This argument comes up over and over again. I assume that
the author implies "starting from very simple beginnings".

It is too bad that enzymes are not produced in this way.

[Robert Carnegie]

On Tuesday, 18 June 2013 21:43:40 UTC+1, Glenn wrote:
> "Paul J Gans" <gan...@panix.com> wrote in message news:kpqffp$kj2$2...@reader1.panix.com...
> > Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
> > >On Tuesday, 18 June 2013 01:25:25 UTC+1, wiki trix wrote:
> > >> Evolution is the intelligent designer.
> >
> > >Evolution isn't intelligent. Just lucky.
> >
> > Selection makes an organism generally more fit for their
> > environment.
>
> Is that a fact?

No, it isn't, except in this sense of "organism":
selection makes the descendants of a population of
a species generally more fit for their environment
than their ancestors were, because the less fit
ancestors tend not to survive and reproduce as
prolifically as their fitter neighbours.

And I'm sure that that's what Paul meant, really.

[Paul J Gans]

If you are looking for fun, here's an interesting game.

We model something like an enzyme or a strand of DNA by
English language words. We select words at random from
a decent dictionary and append them to what we already
have. To model the environment we remove the new word
if it makes no possible sense when attached to what we
have. We stop when we have an acceptable sentence.

Say we start with the word "model". We try to add
the word "sentence". Since "model sentence" works,
we keep it.

Now say we attempt to add "them". Since "model sentence
them" makes little sense, we remove "them" and try again.

It is curious how few choices one needs to make in order
to turn out an acceptable sentence. The "environment"
is a marvelous creator.

[Glenn]

"Robert Carnegie" <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote in message news:c9618807-9071-40a1...@googlegroups.com...

I assumed that is what he meant. Your circular argument
is probably no worse than what he would make.

[shane]

ISTM that you don't have to even concede that much.

If you accept that selection pressure acting on a given organisms
descendants increases their general fitness for an environment (which
you do), then the same is true of that given organisms ancestors, so the
statement still stands, as Paul did not say that selection pressure on a
given organism increases that particular organisms fitness.

[Robert Carnegie]

On Wednesday, 19 June 2013 10:02:26 UTC+1, Shane wrote:
> ISTM that you don't have to even concede that much.
>
> If you accept that selection pressure acting on a given organisms
> descendants increases their general fitness for an environment (which
> you do), then the same is true of that given organisms ancestors, so the
> statement still stands, as Paul did not say that selection pressure on a
> given organism increases that particular organisms fitness.

No, that's not quite right, I think. It's the selection
pressure on the /ancestors/ that determines which of them
will /have/ descendants.

But if you want to take genetic mutation into account
as the source of novel variation in the species, then
we need another generation: one set of initial ancestors,
then their descendants, which are mutants (sometimes),
and the descendants of the mutants.

In the short term, though, mutation isn't as important
as the variation that already exists in the species -
such as in that business with dark-coloured moths and
light-coloured moths.

At least, I think so. I'm not actually a scientist;
I just come here to sneer at creationists. Generally
they aren't scientists either.

[J. J. Lodder]

Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:

> On Tuesday, 18 June 2013 01:25:25 UTC+1, wiki trix wrote:
> > Evolution is the intelligent designer.
>
> Evolution isn't intelligent. Just lucky.

Not even that.
Are you lucky when the outcome is the most probable?

Jan

[Robert Carnegie]

Well, I'm thinking of "luck" as something like a fictitious
force. You survive by being lucky; which is to say, you
survived and others didn't. But, except in the case of
extinction, it is expected that there are some survivors.

Also, I thought that a short and piquant statement was
called for.
In another newsgroup there is - well, call him an enemy;
a prankster whose goal appears to be to make his victim
do more typing than he does. I do not accept his definition
of winning and losing - but I believe that winning
encourages him to keep playing the game, so I prefer that
he doesn't win.

I think this may be the same game, so I play my move accordingly.

[jillery]

On Wed, 19 Jun 2013 03:42:32 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
<rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:

>On Wednesday, 19 June 2013 10:02:26 UTC+1, Shane wrote:
>> ISTM that you don't have to even concede that much.
>>
>> If you accept that selection pressure acting on a given organisms
>> descendants increases their general fitness for an environment (which
>> you do), then the same is true of that given organisms ancestors, so the
>> statement still stands, as Paul did not say that selection pressure on a
>> given organism increases that particular organisms fitness.
>
>No, that's not quite right, I think. It's the selection
>pressure on the /ancestors/ that determines which of them
>will /have/ descendants.

To be more precise about it, ISTM that selection pressure determines
which ancestors will *not* have as many descendants. Selection
pressure acts to remove organisms from the gene pool. That's one of
the complaints some Creationists have against natural selection, that
it's a destructive force, unlike the creative forces God uses.

>But if you want to take genetic mutation into account
>as the source of novel variation in the species, then
>we need another generation: one set of initial ancestors,
>then their descendants, which are mutants (sometimes),
>and the descendants of the mutants.
>
>In the short term, though, mutation isn't as important
>as the variation that already exists in the species -
>such as in that business with dark-coloured moths and
>light-coloured moths.

Good point, but keep in mind that the variation that already exists
came from mutations in previous generations.

[shane]

On 19/06/2013 20:42, Robert Carnegie wrote:
> On Wednesday, 19 June 2013 10:02:26 UTC+1, Shane wrote:
>> ISTM that you don't have to even concede that much.
>>
>> If you accept that selection pressure acting on a given organisms
>> descendants increases their general fitness for an environment (which
>> you do), then the same is true of that given organisms ancestors, so the
>> statement still stands, as Paul did not say that selection pressure on a
>> given organism increases that particular organisms fitness.
>
> No, that's not quite right, I think. It's the selection
> pressure on the /ancestors/ that determines which of them
> will /have/ descendants.

I think we are in violent agreement then, as that was basically my
point. Pauls statement which you--for want of a better
word--interpreted, was compatible with that explanation, thus needed no
interpretation.

> But if you want to take genetic mutation into account
> as the source of novel variation in the species, then
> we need another generation: one set of initial ancestors,
> then their descendants, which are mutants (sometimes),
> and the descendants of the mutants.
>
> In the short term, though, mutation isn't as important
> as the variation that already exists in the species -
> such as in that business with dark-coloured moths and
> light-coloured moths.
>
> At least, I think so. I'm not actually a scientist;
> I just come here to sneer at creationists. Generally
> they aren't scientists either.

Ditto on the scientist bit for me also.

[Robert Carnegie]

On Wednesday, 19 June 2013 13:39:24 UTC+1, Shane wrote:
> On 19/06/2013 20:42, Robert Carnegie wrote:
> > On Wednesday, 19 June 2013 10:02:26 UTC+1, Shane wrote:
> >> ISTM that you don't have to even concede that much.
> >>
> >> If you accept that selection pressure acting on a given organisms
> >> descendants increases their general fitness for an environment (which
> >> you do), then the same is true of that given organisms ancestors, so the
> >> statement still stands, as Paul did not say that selection pressure on a
> >> given organism increases that particular organisms fitness.
> >
> > No, that's not quite right, I think. It's the selection
> > pressure on the /ancestors/ that determines which of them
> > will /have/ descendants.
>
> I think we are in violent agreement then, as that was basically my
> point. Pauls statement which you--for want of a better
> word--interpreted, was compatible with that explanation, thus needed no
> interpretation.

Well - applied to us, it depends on whether Paul J. Gans
is an organism, or humankind is an organism. The second
interpretation is uncommon, albeit perhaps less so with
species other than ourselves, such as if you discuss
the natural history of "The Kangaroo", meaning all kangaroos,
instead of talking about any one particular kangaroo.

And of course there's Lamarck's error of supposing that
the business of everyday living /does/ cause one particular
kangaroo to evolve during its lifetime and then pass on
its enhanced kangaroo-ness to its offspring. I may be wrong,
but I think this still has to be guarded against as a
possible renewed misunderstanding by the general population -
and a mistake that dissidents will pounce on.

Also, I enjoyed saying "That's wrong" - so, thank you for the
pleasure, Paul and Glenn.

[Roger Shrubber]

The problem is that people have this annoying habit
of describing evolution as a process. It isn't.

It is a result. That changes everything.
The process is competition (regards natural selection).
The other process is mutation (regards generating
novelty). It is only sloppy language/thinking that
conflates evolution with a process.

[Glenn]

"Roger Shrubber" <rog.sh...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:fNWdnU8SA5irkF_M...@giganews.com...

Actually there is no "result"; evolution is an ongoing process.
You seem to want to change the definition and usage of the word to suit your argument, whatever
that is.

"Evolution is the process by which modern organisms have descended from ancient ancestors."
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_14

"four primary mechanisms explain the process"
http://uts.cc.utexas.edu/~bramblet/ant301/four.html

"Evolution by natural selection is a process"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution

Your turn. Google "evolution is not a process".

[J. J. Lodder]

Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:

> On Wednesday, 19 June 2013 12:06:37 UTC+1, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, 18 June 2013 01:25:25 UTC+1, wiki trix wrote:
> > > > Evolution is the intelligent designer.
> > >
> > > Evolution isn't intelligent. Just lucky.
> >
> > Not even that.
> > Are you lucky when the outcome is the most probable?
>
> Well, I'm thinking of "luck" as something like a fictitious
> force. You survive by being lucky; which is to say, you
> survived and others didn't. But, except in the case of
> extinction, it is expected that there are some survivors.

Correct.
It really is survival of the lucky.
Some being a little more lucky than others
(on very long term average) is what it does,

Jan

[Roger Shrubber]

Evolution A change in allele frequency in a population
over time. That is a result, not a process. I grant
you that the word is (unfortunately) also used to
wrap the processes that lead to the result. This of
course leads to confusion as people don't even realize
that they are using syntactically distinct words
that just happen to have the same spelling and pronunciation.

[Paul J Gans]

Many of us rank amateurs (or even unranked amateurs)
consider both processes together as "evolution".

My trivial way of explaining evolution is to couple
two ideas, one being the fact that chemical reproduction
reactions are never totally exact; the other being
that the environment provides selective survival.

But I'd think that Robert's point of survival to
reproduction is accidental, not planned, is important.
What it basically says is that even if one started with
a bunch of designed self-reproducing organisms, they'd
quickly (as these things go) evolve via the two steps
we've discussed above, and soon enough there'd be
little trace of the design left.

In harsher words, intelligent design doesn't solve
a damned thing.

[Glenn]

"Roger Shrubber" <rog.sh...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:M6Odnbedz-b5rV_M...@giganews.com...

Interesting. Not one supporting reference. Seems everyone
is wrong but you. Did you happen to notice "over time"?

[Glenn]

"Roger Shrubber" <rog.sh...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:M6Odnbedz-b5rV_M...@giganews.com...

You may want to take that up with talkorigins:

"It is important to note that biological evolution refers to populations and not to individuals and that the changes must be passed on to the next generation. In practice this means that, Evolution is a process that results in heritable changes in a population spread over many generations."

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-definition.html

[Roger Shrubber]

On Jun 20, 8:02�am, Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:

We're familiar with the difficulty of _The Theory_ versus
_The Fact_ of evolution. There's a great deal of
confusion caused by the casual and unwitting conflation
of the two.

When one speaks of the result, that allele frequencies
change over time, you have something rather tangible
and clear even if it requires familiarity with what
alleles are and what populations are for that clarity.
But when you talk about "the process" of evolution,
you always have controversy even among experts. That's
because there are lots of processes and inevitably
some are ignored for convenience. It's like writing
an unbalanced chemical equation that leaves out a
few reactants and products that are not "interesting".

Mutation itself changes allele frequencies.
Lethal selection changes allele frequencies.
Differential fecundity changes allele frequencies
long term, and short term any reproduction does.
Random drift changes allele frequencies.
And of course the effects compound and interact
and feedback into the environment to change it
even while it is being changed by external factors
as well. Wrapping all that up into a neat package
is demonstrably difficult.

There's also the nasty tendencies to endow processes
with teleological properties. That gets even worse
when you have a fuzzy definition of what is and
isn't part of the process. People imagine Natural
Selection to be a 'driving force' but drift is
just random. Yuk.

I know I'm mostly alone on this but I happen to
be right. There should be different words to describe
evolution (the effect) and the processes that
lead to that effect.

But English is just terrible so I guess there's no point.
Honey, turn up the heat, I want to heat the house
so we get a little heat in here.

[Paul J Gans]

Roger Shrubber <rog.sh...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Jun 20, 8:02?am, Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
>> Roger Shrubber <rog.shrub...@gmail.com> wrote:

[snip of older stuff]

Old timers here will recall that in the 1990's I
frequently ranted about the difference between the
theory of evolution and the fact of evolution. I
defined them slightly differently than you do but
no matter.

Another gripe from back then is that if one wants to
talk to non-specialists, talking about alleles is worse
than useless.

Since t.o. folks are frequently talking to non-specialists,
we need a word grockable by non-specialists to replace
"allele".

Last, you are never alone because in the end, the last
extremity, the CABAL will ride to your assistance. That
is, those of us still left standing after being flayed
by the jawbone of an ass.

[Glenn]

"Roger Shrubber" <rog.sh...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:cff8a246-474c-40d4...@q10g2000pbc.googlegroups.com...

Change is "the process of becoming different".
Evolution is not static, it never stops. It is not "a"
result or an effect. You may have confused yourself
with the "a" in the definition you gave for evolution.
But that definition uses "change" as a verb, which signifies
a process.

[Roger Shrubber]

Paul J Gans wrote:
> Roger Shrubber <rog.sh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Jun 20, 8:02?am, Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
>>> Roger Shrubber <rog.shrub...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> [snip of older stuff]

<begin shameless pontification>

</dismount>

> Old timers here will recall that in the 1990's I
> frequently ranted about the difference between the
> theory of evolution and the fact of evolution. I
> defined them slightly differently than you do but
> no matter.

I recall rather clearly and choose the example
with malice aforethought.

> Another gripe from back then is that if one wants to
> talk to non-specialists, talking about alleles is worse
> than useless.
>
> Since t.o. folks are frequently talking to non-specialists,
> we need a word grockable by non-specialists to replace
> "allele".
>
> Last, you are never alone because in the end, the last
> extremity, the CABAL will ride to your assistance. That
> is, those of us still left standing after being flayed
> by the jawbone of an ass.

Of course this is where The CABAL disintegrates into
ruthless infighting, protestants v catholics, sunni v
shia, arrows in eyes and tapestries. Rather than support,
I expect remarkable betrayals from those who had
previously been so rational but somehow fail to see
the compelling virtue of _my way_.

[Robert Carnegie]

On Thursday, 20 June 2013 02:42:27 UTC+1, Glenn wrote:
> Change is "the process of becoming different".
> Evolution is not static, it never stops. It is not "a"
> result or an effect. You may have confused yourself
> with the "a" in the definition you gave for evolution.
> But that definition uses "change" as a verb, which signifies
> a process.

If something evolves until it's as good as it can be,
evolution in that direction stops, pretty much.
Unless the need changes in the meantime.

I forget what exactly was the point of the business
%f the beaks of birds of the Galapagos, but wasn't it
something like, some seasons, smaller beaks are best,
and some seasons, larger beaks are better?

But otherwise, the birds would develop the best beak
that there is, and then keep it that way.

Also, crocodilians (I've been to Wikipedia) haven't
changed much in a long long time, outwardly. They got to
be bloody good at what they do and then they just stuck
with what was working. But they probably evolved in
way that you can't tell from their fossils, such as,
disease resistance.

I think that a result can also be a process. Let's
consider falling, again, such as off a high cliff;
falling is the result of gravity, but it's also a process.

[Rolf]

"pnyikos" <nyi...@bellsouth.net> skrev i melding
news:64f52bd2-6b59-41d3...@eo3g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...
> On Jun 17, 11:03 pm, wiki trix <wikit...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> On Jun 17, 10:58 pm, Robert Carnegie <rja.carne...@excite.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On Tuesday, 18 June 2013 01:25:25 UTC+1, wiki trix wrote:
>> > > Evolution is the intelligent designer.
>>
>> > Evolution isn't intelligent. Just lucky.
>>

>> Intelligent is just lucky. The mathematics of evolution is very close
>> to the mathematics of neural networks. Go figure.
>
> But not at all close to the intelligence required to do mathematics.
> The cognitive aspect of mathematical proofs is something the
> philosophy of mind perennially sweeps under the rug. [Except in
> amateur philosophizing, where some theists claim that the soul is
> needed for recognition of the validity of a mathematical line of
> reasoning, claiming that neural networks, a blind mechanical process,
> cannot be the foundation for certifying the validity of reasoning.]

Funny reasoning, a directed process would only find what it is directed
towards.
How would we know whether the direction was wrong or not?
Ought not a theist be able to tell us some facts about the soul? I don't
know any - except that there is a ghost in the machine, but hidden from our
perception. That's how it's gotta be. According to me.
Although it makes itself heard, if we have awareness.

>
> Peter Nyikos
> Professor, Dept. of Mathematics --standard disclaimer--
> University of South Carolina
> nyikos @ math.sc.edu
>

[Walter Bushell]

In article
<cff8a246-474c-40d4...@q10g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,

Roger Shrubber <rog.sh...@gmail.com> wrote:

> But English is just terrible so I guess there's no point.

All natural languages have properties that do not correspond to
reality. And even unnatural languages evolve in the mouths of humans
toward that state. Remember humans are apes that almost can't reason.

--
Gambling with Other People's Money is the meth of the fiscal industry.
me -- in the spirit of Karl and Groucho Marx

[wiki trix]

On Jun 19, 5:25�pm, nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) wrote:

> Robert Carnegie <rja.carne...@excite.com> wrote:
> > On Wednesday, 19 June 2013 12:06:37 UTC+1, J. J. Lodder �wrote:

> > > Robert Carnegie <rja.carne...@excite.com> wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday, 18 June 2013 01:25:25 UTC+1, wiki trix �wrote:
> > > > > Evolution is the intelligent designer.
>
> > > > Evolution isn't intelligent. �Just lucky.
>
> > > Not even that.
> > > Are you lucky when the outcome is the most probable?
>
> > Well, I'm thinking of "luck" as something like a fictitious
> > force. �You survive by being lucky; which is to say, you
> > survived and others didn't. �But, except in the case of
> > extinction, it is expected that there are some survivors.
>
> Correct.
> It really is survival of the lucky.
> Some being a little more lucky than others
> (on very long term average) is what it does,

Nope. If it is really is survival of the luckiest, then after a couple
of billion years we would have all become extremely lucky. We know
that is not true. The big problem is that luck does not mean anything,
especially in the long run. But lets pretend that it means something
measurable... then is luck an inheritable characteristic? I don't mean
wealth or good looks... or other trappings of luck, but luck itself...
is that intrinsically inheritable?

[James Beck]

On Thu, 20 Jun 2013 10:21:08 -0400, Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com>
wrote:

>In article
><cff8a246-474c-40d4...@q10g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,
> Roger Shrubber <rog.sh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> But English is just terrible so I guess there's no point.
>
>All natural languages have properties that do not correspond to
>reality. And even unnatural languages evolve in the mouths of humans
>toward that state. Remember humans are apes that almost can't reason.

Reason is an illusion.

[Dana Tweedy]

Lunchtime doubly so...

DJT

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ne...@netfront.net ---

[Paul J Gans]

There is that. But the secret Cabal leaders are cracking
down. Deviation will be kept within limits. Medians and
modes will be monitored. Kurtosis will be avoided at all
costs. Wayward ways will be weighed. A crackdown will
make little endians and big endians work together and peas
in our time will litter the world.

[shane]

You sounded pretty confident that it is/was in your opening comment, and
end by, perhaps quite rightly, suggesting otherwise. In any case I
believe that a Dr. H Lanstrom, is the authority on this issue and she
can be googled by those interested.

[*Hemidactylus*]

On 06/18/2013 01:34 PM, John Stockwell wrote:

> On Monday, June 17, 2013 6:25:25 PM UTC-6, wiki trix wrote:
>> Evolution is the intelligent designer.
>

> Common descent trough descent with modification and natural
> selection.

And occasions of drift? I think, at the risk of pissing off a Toronto
based biochemist, we are conflating evolution with one of its known
mechanisms.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIIDGeneticdrift.shtml

> It isn't intelligent, but it is smarter than you are.

I would like to sue it for my back problems. What else would cobble a
pulpy nucleus from a frickin notocord? I call that negligence if not
malice aforethought. Evo devo my f'in backbone!

Otherwise evolution, if intelligent, is rather shortsighted, like Mr. Magoo.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mr._Magoo

Who could blame that lovable fellow for back pain? Not me. He's so sweet
and adorable. I kinda like evolution. Reminds me of an *absentminded*
grandpa.


--
*Hemidactylus*- Hey, let's be careful out there (HSB):
http://siteinspector.comodo.com/
http://csi.websense.com/
http://safeweb.norton.com/
http://www.virustotal.com/en/#url

[Robert Carnegie]

Hildegarde Lanstrom thought it was a virus (a good one) and
she's fictional... also <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teela_Brown>

I'm arguing that all modern living things have indeed been
fantastically lucky to have all of their ancestors survive,
but that also uses up most of the luck, it cancels out.
But this isn't a very seriou�s idea.

However, our genes also survived by making our ancestors
better at living than their neighbours. That's not luck,
it is evolution. But I think luck still comes into it,
a bit.

[shane]

On 22/06/2013 12:16, Robert Carnegie wrote:
> On Saturday, 22 June 2013 00:34:20 UTC+1, Shane wrote:
>> On 21/06/2013 01:00, wiki trix wrote:
>>> Nope. If it is really is survival of the luckiest, then after a couple
>>> of billion years we would have all become extremely lucky. We know
>>> that is not true. The big problem is that luck does not mean anything,
>>> especially in the long run. But lets pretend that it means something
>>> measurable... then is luck an inheritable characteristic? I don't mean
>>> wealth or good looks... or other trappings of luck, but luck itself...
>>> is that intrinsically inheritable?
>>
>> You sounded pretty confident that it is/was in your opening comment, and
>> end by, perhaps quite rightly, suggesting otherwise. In any case I
>> believe that a Dr. H Lanstrom, is the authority on this issue and she
>> can be googled by those interested.
>
> Hildegarde Lanstrom thought it was a virus (a good one) and
> she's fictional... also <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teela_Brown>
>
> I'm arguing that all modern living things have indeed been
> fantastically lucky to have all of their ancestors survive,
> but that also uses up most of the luck, it cancels out.

> But this isn't a very seriou�s idea.

>
> However, our genes also survived by making our ancestors
> better at living than their neighbours. That's not luck,
> it is evolution. But I think luck still comes into it,
> a bit.
>

I agree wholeheartedly. My pet peeve with 'survival of the fittest' is
it implies that the most suitable organism always wins, whereas in
reality I suspect that any number of the fittest did not survive due to
luck, and the less fit, but luckier, did survive.

I usually characterise evolution as 'survival of the adequate', as that
is all you can say about the survivors, they were adequate, and can make
no judgement on whether they were actually the fittest amongst all their
compatriots.

[J. J. Lodder]

wiki trix <wiki...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Jun 19, 5:25 pm, nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) wrote:
> > Robert Carnegie <rja.carne...@excite.com> wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, 19 June 2013 12:06:37 UTC+1, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > > > Robert Carnegie <rja.carne...@excite.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Tuesday, 18 June 2013 01:25:25 UTC+1, wiki trix wrote:
> > > > > > Evolution is the intelligent designer.
> >
> > > > > Evolution isn't intelligent. Just lucky.
> >
> > > > Not even that.
> > > > Are you lucky when the outcome is the most probable?
> >
> > > Well, I'm thinking of "luck" as something like a fictitious
> > > force. You survive by being lucky; which is to say, you
> > > survived and others didn't. But, except in the case of
> > > extinction, it is expected that there are some survivors.
> >
> > Correct.
> > It really is survival of the lucky.
> > Some being a little more lucky than others
> > (on very long term average) is what it does,
>
> Nope. If it is really is survival of the luckiest, then after a couple
> of billion years we would have all become extremely lucky. We know
> that is not true.

Of course it is true.
The a priori chance of your existence is so small
that there are no ways to express it.
The chance of all oxygen molecules conspiring to kill you
by moving to a corner of your room is huge in comparison.

> The big problem is that luck does not mean anything,
> especially in the long run. But lets pretend that it means something
> measurable... then is luck an inheritable characteristic? I don't mean
> wealth or good looks... or other trappings of luck, but luck itself...
> is that intrinsically inheritable?

You missed the point,
which is that fitness is not a property of individuals,
and that it wouldn't be measurable even if it was.

The survival of the fittest describes a statistical proces.
Individuals who survive are just lucky,

Jan

[jillery]

On Sat, 22 Jun 2013 12:36:34 +1000, shane <rema...@netscape.net>
wrote:

>On 22/06/2013 12:16, Robert Carnegie wrote:
>> On Saturday, 22 June 2013 00:34:20 UTC+1, Shane wrote:
>>> On 21/06/2013 01:00, wiki trix wrote:
>>>> Nope. If it is really is survival of the luckiest, then after a couple
>>>> of billion years we would have all become extremely lucky. We know
>>>> that is not true. The big problem is that luck does not mean anything,
>>>> especially in the long run. But lets pretend that it means something
>>>> measurable... then is luck an inheritable characteristic? I don't mean
>>>> wealth or good looks... or other trappings of luck, but luck itself...
>>>> is that intrinsically inheritable?
>>>
>>> You sounded pretty confident that it is/was in your opening comment, and
>>> end by, perhaps quite rightly, suggesting otherwise. In any case I
>>> believe that a Dr. H Lanstrom, is the authority on this issue and she
>>> can be googled by those interested.
>>
>> Hildegarde Lanstrom thought it was a virus (a good one) and
>> she's fictional... also <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teela_Brown>
>>
>> I'm arguing that all modern living things have indeed been
>> fantastically lucky to have all of their ancestors survive,
>> but that also uses up most of the luck, it cancels out.

>> But this isn't a very seriou�s idea.

>>
>> However, our genes also survived by making our ancestors
>> better at living than their neighbours. That's not luck,
>> it is evolution. But I think luck still comes into it,
>> a bit.
>>
>I agree wholeheartedly. My pet peeve with 'survival of the fittest' is
>it implies that the most suitable organism always wins, whereas in
>reality I suspect that any number of the fittest did not survive due to
>luck, and the less fit, but luckier, did survive.
>
>I usually characterise evolution as 'survival of the adequate', as that
>is all you can say about the survivors, they were adequate, and can make
>no judgement on whether they were actually the fittest amongst all their
>compatriots.

ISTM that's not quite right. I can say that those who survived are
collectively more fit than those who did not.

[J. J. Lodder]

At best with probability one,
and usually not even that,

Jan

[jillery]

On Sat, 22 Jun 2013 13:51:48 +0200, nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
Lodder) wrote:

>jillery <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 22 Jun 2013 12:36:34 +1000, shane <rema...@netscape.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On 22/06/2013 12:16, Robert Carnegie wrote:
>> >> On Saturday, 22 June 2013 00:34:20 UTC+1, Shane wrote:
>> >>> On 21/06/2013 01:00, wiki trix wrote:
>> >>>> Nope. If it is really is survival of the luckiest, then after a couple
>> >>>> of billion years we would have all become extremely lucky. We know
>> >>>> that is not true. The big problem is that luck does not mean anything,
>> >>>> especially in the long run. But lets pretend that it means something
>> >>>> measurable... then is luck an inheritable characteristic? I don't mean
>> >>>> wealth or good looks... or other trappings of luck, but luck itself...
>> >>>> is that intrinsically inheritable?
>> >>>
>> >>> You sounded pretty confident that it is/was in your opening comment, and
>> >>> end by, perhaps quite rightly, suggesting otherwise. In any case I
>> >>> believe that a Dr. H Lanstrom, is the authority on this issue and she
>> >>> can be googled by those interested.
>> >>
>> >> Hildegarde Lanstrom thought it was a virus (a good one) and
>> >> she's fictional... also <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teela_Brown>
>> >>
>> >> I'm arguing that all modern living things have indeed been
>> >> fantastically lucky to have all of their ancestors survive,
>> >> but that also uses up most of the luck, it cancels out.

>> >> But this isn't a very seriou?s idea.

>> >>
>> >> However, our genes also survived by making our ancestors
>> >> better at living than their neighbours. That's not luck,
>> >> it is evolution. But I think luck still comes into it,
>> >> a bit.
>> >>
>> >I agree wholeheartedly. My pet peeve with 'survival of the fittest' is
>> >it implies that the most suitable organism always wins, whereas in
>> >reality I suspect that any number of the fittest did not survive due to
>> >luck, and the less fit, but luckier, did survive.
>> >
>> >I usually characterise evolution as 'survival of the adequate', as that
>> >is all you can say about the survivors, they were adequate, and can make
>> >no judgement on whether they were actually the fittest amongst all their
>> >compatriots.
>>
>>
>> ISTM that's not quite right. I can say that those who survived are
>> collectively more fit than those who did not.
>
>At best with probability one,
>and usually not even that,

Since you put it that way, it seems so uncertain, but I can live with
it.

[J. J. Lodder]

For human history people generally have no problem accepting
that things could have turned out very differently.
When it comes to evolution some seem to feel
that all that happens is inevitable and necessary,
and couldn't have been different.

So radiating out from KT we must have striped zebras,
long-necked giraffes, and extinct mammoths.

I don't think so.
Evolution could also have turned out very differently.

It really is a historical theory,

Jan

[shane]

I still disagree, unless you want to include not falling victim to time
and chance as part of fitness. If the fastest runner turns right into a
blind ally and gets caught and the second fastest runs turns left into
an open ally and escapes, in what way was the arbitrary left/right
decision a matter of fitness for the environment?

[Robert Carnegie]

1. In that particular environment, an instinct to turn
left is a case of greater fitness.

2. It balances out in the long run.

3. I would expect the wolf to continue following the
second fastest runner anyway, unless the wolf knows
about the blind alley.

There is a convention that you don't need to run
faster than the wolf, you just need to run faster
than your brother.

[jillery]

Yeppers. It's true that random factors can override selective
advantages for specific individuals, but that doesn't negate SoF as it
applies to populations as a whole. Selective advantages don't
guarantee success any more than college degrees, they just improve
one's odds.

[shane]

On 24/06/2013 20:39, Robert Carnegie wrote:
> On Monday, 24 June 2013 10:43:08 UTC+1, Shane wrote:
>> On 22/06/2013 19:58, jillery wrote:
>>> On Sat, 22 Jun 2013 12:36:34 +1000,
>>> shane <rema...@netscape.net> wrote:
>>>> I usually characterise evolution as 'survival of
>>>> the adequate', as that is all you can say about
>>>> the survivors, they were adequate, and can make
>>>> no judgement on whether they were actually the
>>>> fittest amongst all their compatriots.
>>>
>>> ISTM that's not quite right. I can say that those
>>> who survived are collectively more fit than those
>>> who did not.
>>
>> I still disagree, unless you want to include not falling
>> victim to time and chance as part of fitness. If the
>> fastest runner turns right into a blind ally and gets
>> caught and the second fastest runs turns left into
>> an open ally and escapes, in what way was the arbitrary
>> left/right decision a matter of fitness for the
>> environment?
>
> 1. In that particular environment, an instinct to turn
> left is a case of greater fitness.

Or it's just luck, time and chance, call it what you will--a
non-hereditary aspect that has the potential to influence an
evolutionary outcome.

> 2. It balances out in the long run.

Balance may not the the best word, ultimately it doesn't matter that
such an event occurred, survivors survive whether they were the fittest
or not, and in surviving they extended the opportunity for their genes
to affect the population for one more generation.

> 3. I would expect the wolf to continue following the
> second fastest runner anyway, unless the wolf knows
> about the blind alley.
>
> There is a convention that you don't need to run
> faster than the wolf, you just need to run faster
> than your brother.

Which is just another way of saying survival of the adequate rather than
survival of the fittest.

[Paul J Gans]

Just to confuse things here, I think that there is a
serious random component to the survival (or lack
thereof) of any individual. I think that while evolution
acts on individuals, it shows up in the behaviors of groups.

If one repeats the left-right runner experiment over and over
again with random choice of which way to turn, one quickly
finds that the survivors chose the left turn. If this is the
basic death mechanism for that species, I would expect that
it is likely that a preference for left turns would develop.
If it doesn't, and that's possible too, extinction can only
be avoided by awesum fecundity, which would be aother
evolutionary development.

[jillery]

IIUC that's not correct. Individuals can't evolve genetically.
Natural selection acts on individuals, which alters the genetic
composition of groups over time.

>If one repeats the left-right runner experiment over and over
>again with random choice of which way to turn, one quickly
>finds that the survivors chose the left turn. If this is the
>basic death mechanism for that species, I would expect that
>it is likely that a preference for left turns would develop.
>If it doesn't, and that's possible too, extinction can only
>be avoided by awesum fecundity, which would be aother
>evolutionary development.

You're skating very close to saying that genetic developments are
teleological. Genes don't change because there's a need to change.
Only if random chance just happens to produce a genetic change that
just happens to alter the behavior of individuals to select left-hand
turns, would there be anything for natural selection to work with.

Individuals may also learn to prefer left-hand turns, without any
genetic changes required.

[Robert Carnegie]

Polar bears are all left handed. This must be because
they live close to the North Pole on territory that rotates
in a horizontal plane.

The main catch with this interpretation is that somebody
went to look and apparently polar bears aren't left handed
(or left pawed) at all.

The idea that they were seems to have arisen in claimed
observations of which paw they use to cover their nose with
so that you cannot see them sneaking up on you on the plain
of ice and snow.

Apparently they don't do that either.

Or, if they do, it works and nobody saw them.

But, since scientists survived and returned home to tell
their tale, ...

Anyway, would you cover your nose with your left or
your right paw - if you're left-handed? It's probably
harder to /walk/ with the wrong paw.

[jillery]

On Tue, 25 Jun 2013 03:19:56 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
<rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:

[...]

>Polar bears are all left handed. This must be because
>they live close to the North Pole on territory that rotates
>in a horizontal plane.
>
>The main catch with this interpretation is that somebody
>went to look and apparently polar bears aren't left handed
>(or left pawed) at all.
>
>The idea that they were seems to have arisen in claimed
>observations of which paw they use to cover their nose with
>so that you cannot see them sneaking up on you on the plain
>of ice and snow.
>
>Apparently they don't do that either.
>
>Or, if they do, it works and nobody saw them.
>
>But, since scientists survived and returned home to tell
>their tale, ...
>
>Anyway, would you cover your nose with your left or
>your right paw - if you're left-handed? It's probably
>harder to /walk/ with the wrong paw.

Technically, I don't have a paw, so your question is of the "if a
rooster lays an egg on a rooftop, which way does it roll?" kind.

[nyi...@bellsouth.net]

On Tuesday, June 18, 2013 9:26:49 AM UTC-4, Roger Shrubber wrote:

> pnyikos wrote:
>
> > On Jun 18, 12:35 am, James Beck <jdbeck11...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> On Mon, 17 Jun 2013 19:58:24 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie

> >> <rja.carne...@excite.com> wrote:
>
> >>> On Tuesday, 18 June 2013 01:25:25 UTC+1, wiki trix wrote:
>
> >>>> Evolution is the intelligent designer.

> > This piece of wordplay doesn't deserve to be promulgated; it is just a
> > stalling technique to make creationists work harder at explaining
> > something that requires no explanation.

> > On top of everything else, it uses the wrong word: sophisticated ID
> > theorists know that abiogenesis, not evolution, is where they can make
> > the best case for an intelligent designer in the non-obfuscatory sense
> > of the term "intelligent design."
>
> Quit pretending you understand any of this.

Quit defaming me. Why weren't you spouting your knowledge during my brief but intense discussion/debate with el cid on the biochemical aspects of abiogenesis? Could it be that you were afraid he would accuse you of nitpicking?

> >>> Evolution isn't intelligent. Just lucky.
>
> >>
>

> >> What's lucky about finding a few workable solutions in trillions of
> >> trials?
>
> >
>
> > Try obtaining a highly specific enzyme that contains 200 or more amino
> > acid components in a mere trillion trials.

> Foolish comment.

I tailor my comments to the level of understanding of the people I reply to. If wiki trix, Robert Carnegie Fnord, or James Beck shows some awareness of arguments that go beyond "Nobody of the Gaps," "Extrapolator of the Gaps," and "Exaptor of the Gaps" arguments [explained below], he can display that awareness in reply to me.

> > By highly specific, I don't mean those silly little ligases that the
> > abiogenesis FAQs rhapsodize over, the ligases that put together two
> > polypeptide strings that were fed to them in the lab, and which
> > produce copies of themselves thereby. I have in mind aminoacyl-tRNA
> > synthetases, the enzymes which attach just the right amino acid (out
> > of 20) to just the right tRNA molecule with astounding fidelity.

Funny how you wrote "Quit pretending" in the face of comments like the above.

I note also that both you and Harshman had nothing to say when I fought "el cid" to a draw (and that's being generous to him) over his claim that if he were given 5 years and umpteen million dollars, he could design a protein ribosome. My arguments were similar to the above--it would take a team of Nobel Laureates to have any chance at duplicating the fidelity of ribosomes, and I seriously doubt that 5 or even 25 years would be enough.

> > True Believers in Easy Abiogenesis [tm] know that 4^200 is way too big
> > a number for random production of such enzymes, and so they fall back
> > on one of [three] arguments:

> You do it every time. 4^200 is you demonstrating how clueless
> you actually. You of course want to refer to 20^200

Stop trying to read my mind. You are far worse at it than I, even if one were to believe innumerable blatant assertions by Harshman.

I was making it easy on Beck, et al. by harking back to what some guess might be the original state of the genetic code.

> which is
> also an irrelevant model.

Sure, but has anyone improved on any of the "...of the Gaps" ploys as far as getting a better model is concerned? I doubt that any of the three people I was dealing with before you came along was aware of them.

> > The Nobody of the Gaps argument: "Nobody ever claimed that enzymes
> > evolved in a random way."

> People like you do.

False.

> Serious biochemists don't.

My point was, do serious biochemists ever get beyond the "...of the Gaps" arguments? You do make an attempt of sorts below, but it's just a bunch of theorizing at the crucial step.

> > The Extrapolator of the Gaps argument: "Evolution of organisms has
> > been shown to produce amazing things such as ourselves in highly un-
> > random ways. Doubtless, biochemical evolution is capable of such
> > things by a similar process."

> We have examples of the natural history of enzymes that start
> with modest specificity and develop higher specificity. The
> same model of evolution would naturally be invoked for AA tRNA
> synthetases.

Can you think of a biological analogue of what you describe below?

> Ribozymes already can do the job of specifically
> acylating specific tRNAs.

And so, a less specific protein acylator would wreak havoc with the process, perhaps being destroyed by the feedback loop it engenders.

This isn't the first time I said this, nor the second, nor...

Anyway, your proposed alternative is purely hypothetical at our stage of knowledge:


> We know that small peptides binding
> to RNA provide it with alternative or more stable 3D structure
> and thus enhanced enzymatic repertoires.
>A gradual takeover of
> ribozymes with successively more polypeptide content is the
> natural gradual model for development of AA tRNA synthetases

Has anyone actually tried to work out such a model? If so, Behe would be absolutely astounded. He's been continually harping on how biochemists don't even start trying to do this.

Has anyone even MENTIONED this kind of model in the way you do it here? in a peer-reviewed paper?

> You attack the wrong models in your ignorance. Howard provided
> you with some nice references and you've ignored them.

Did I even see those posts? What hint did he give as to the content of those references?

Remainder deleted, to be dealt with later.

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of South Carolina
http://www.math.sc.edu/~nyikos/
nyikos @ math.sc.edu

[nyi...@bellsouth.net]

On Tuesday, June 18, 2013 9:38:16 AM UTC-4, Harry K wrote:

..what he ignorantly thinks is a put-down of me:

> And therefore life arrived via panspermists who arose from other
> panspermists

Stop right there. If you weren't so busy listening to people who misrepresent me and started listening to me, you would know that I hypothesize the panspermists to have arisen the way you reflexively assume we arose--by evolution, starting with abiogenesis on their home planet.

> who arose.... and way down at the end of the string there
> was this thing we call a god. But we don't mention that.

You really don't know anything about me, do you? I'm an agnostic.

I'd love to know the names of the people who have conned you about me.

Peter Nyikos

[nyi...@bellsouth.net]

On Tuesday, June 18, 2013 9:56:14 AM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Jun 2013 06:06:14 -0700 (PDT), pnyikos
>
> <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

>
>
>
> >On Jun 18, 3:04 am, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> On Mon, 17 Jun 2013 19:58:24 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
>
> >>
>
> >> <rja.carne...@excite.com> wrote:
>
> >> >On Tuesday, 18 June 2013 01:25:25 UTC+1, wiki trix  wrote:
>
> >> >> Evolution is the intelligent designer.
>
> >>
>

> >> >Evolution isn't intelligent.  Just lucky.
>
> >>
>

> >> Not even that.  Evolution is inevitable.
>
> >
>
> >Do you also think abiogenesis is inevitable on a planet as favorably
> >disposed to it as earth?
>
>

Jillery is so anxious to score debating points against me, she feigns amnesia about the meaning of the word "also":

>
>
> Stop with your stupid innuendos. There's no intelligent reason for
> conflating evolution and abiogenesis.

The Bugs Bunny response, "What a maroon!" is all that this debating trick of yours deserves.

Peter Nyikos

[nyi...@bellsouth.net]

On Tuesday, June 18, 2013 12:29:07 PM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote:
> On 6/18/13 5:52 AM, pnyikos wrote:

>
> > On Jun 18, 12:35 am, James Beck <jdbeck11...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> On Mon, 17 Jun 2013 19:58:24 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
>

> > [...]

>
> >>> Evolution isn't intelligent. Just lucky.
>
> >>
>

> >> What's lucky about finding a few workable solutions in trillions of
>
> >> trials?
>
> >
>
> > Try obtaining a highly specific enzyme that contains 200 or more amino
> > acid components in a mere trillion trials.
>
>
>

> I do not know a lot about directed evolution, but I believe there are
> companies making money now by doing just that (except with fewer trials).

Intelligent design.

I rest my case.

Peter Nyikos

[Glenn]

<nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message news:72ea6d52-3669-4827...@googlegroups.com...

You're asking another of Larry, Moe and Curly's pals. You're as likely to get a straight, honest and concise
answer as a dog chasing it's tail.

[John Harshman]

No, they do it using natural selection, or perhaps you might call it
artificial selection. At any rate, they don't design the enzyme. They
pick the most active enzyme from among random variants, then use that
one as the starting point for more random variants, through many
generations. So whatever you call it, it's a good analog for what
happens in nature.

[Roger Shrubber]

nyi...@bellsouth.net wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 18, 2013 9:26:49 AM UTC-4, Roger Shrubber wrote:
>> pnyikos wrote:
>>> On Jun 18, 12:35 am, James Beck <jdbeck11...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 17 Jun 2013 19:58:24 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
>>>> <rja.carne...@excite.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Tuesday, 18 June 2013 01:25:25 UTC+1, wiki trix wrote:

>>>>>> Evolution is the intelligent designer.

>>> This piece of wordplay doesn't deserve to be promulgated; it is just a
>>> stalling technique to make creationists work harder at explaining
>>> something that requires no explanation.

>>> On top of everything else, it uses the wrong word: sophisticated ID
>>> theorists know that abiogenesis, not evolution, is where they can make
>>> the best case for an intelligent designer in the non-obfuscatory sense
>>> of the term "intelligent design."

>> Quit pretending you understand any of this.

> Quit defaming me. Why weren't you spouting your knowledge during
> my brief but intense discussion/debate with el cid on the biochemical
> aspects of abiogenesis? Could it be that you were afraid he would
> accuse you of nitpicking?

Deflect much? I was not posting at the time. I did read some of
the exchanges. My input was not required.

>>>>> Evolution isn't intelligent. Just lucky.

>>>> What's lucky about finding a few workable solutions in trillions of
>>>> trials?


>>> Try obtaining a highly specific enzyme that contains 200 or more amino
>>> acid components in a mere trillion trials.

>> Foolish comment.

> I tailor my comments to the level of understanding of the people I
> reply to. If wiki trix, Robert Carnegie Fnord, or James Beck shows
> some awareness of arguments that go beyond "Nobody of the Gaps,"
> "Extrapolator of the Gaps," and "Exaptor of the Gaps" arguments
> [explained below], he can display that awareness in reply to me.

You fantasy about what people believe is tired and unevidenced.
You presume this exaptor of the gaps, and repeat your assertion,
convincing yourself and probably nobody else. Meanwhile, the
implied model in your comment remains foolish. It does not matter
who you address it to, it is simply foolish.

>>> By highly specific, I don't mean those silly little ligases that the
>>> abiogenesis FAQs rhapsodize over, the ligases that put together two
>>> polypeptide strings that were fed to them in the lab, and which
>>> produce copies of themselves thereby. I have in mind aminoacyl-tRNA
>>> synthetases, the enzymes which attach just the right amino acid (out
>>> of 20) to just the right tRNA molecule with astounding fidelity.

> Funny how you wrote "Quit pretending" in the face of comments like the above.
>
> I note also that both you and Harshman had nothing to say when I fought
> "el cid" to a draw (and that's being generous to him) over his claim that
> if he were given 5 years and umpteen million dollars, he could design a
> protein ribosome. My arguments were similar to the above--it would take
> a team of Nobel Laureates to have any chance at duplicating the fidelity
> of ribosomes, and I seriously doubt that 5 or even 25 years would be enough.

Your fantasy assertion that you "fought to a draw" is unreliable.
You were defeated, repeatedly in what I saw. Creating a protein ribosome
is a fools errand. Why? It probably could be done buy why do it?

The major players to be handled are RNA molecules and ribozymes are
probably better candidates for that job. There are many ribozymes
that remain in cells and they generally manipulate RNA or DNA.
You don't understand this but you pretend to be able to comment on
what to expect. You are foolish because you fail to grasp the
consequences of your ignorance.

>>> True Believers in Easy Abiogenesis [tm] know that 4^200 is way too big
>>> a number for random production of such enzymes, and so they fall back
>>> on one of [three] arguments:

>> You do it every time. 4^200 is you demonstrating how clueless
>> you actually. You of course want to refer to 20^200

> Stop trying to read my mind. You are far worse at it than I,
> even if one were to believe innumerable blatant assertions by Harshman.
> I was making it easy on Beck, et al. by harking back to what
> some guess might be the original state of the genetic code.

If you think that a primitive genetic code of 4 amino acids was
coding for enzymes, then your foolishness is expanded.

>> which is
>> also an irrelevant model.

> Sure, but has anyone improved on any of the "...of the Gaps"
> ploys as far as getting a better model is concerned? I doubt
> that any of the three people I was dealing with before you
> came along was aware of them.

Your doubts are irrelevant. You were provided references. You
claim to care but did not follow up on them.

>>> The Nobody of the Gaps argument: "Nobody ever claimed that enzymes
>>> evolved in a random way."

>> People like you do.

> False.

You did. The model implied by your 4^200 is exactly that.

>> Serious biochemists don't.

> My point was, do serious biochemists ever get beyond the
> "...of the Gaps" arguments? You do make an attempt of sorts
> below, but it's just a bunch of theorizing at the crucial step.

You don't know and yet you pontificate. Foolish.
You were recently provided with an excellent set of references
by Howard that answer the question. You would rather post
garbage than read. Fools like you are not worth the time.

>>> The Extrapolator of the Gaps argument: "Evolution of organisms has
>>> been shown to produce amazing things such as ourselves in highly un-
>>> random ways. Doubtless, biochemical evolution is capable of such
>>> things by a similar process."

>> We have examples of the natural history of enzymes that start
>> with modest specificity and develop higher specificity. The
>> same model of evolution would naturally be invoked for AA tRNA
>> synthetases.

> Can you think of a biological analogue of what you describe below?

The question makes no sense.

>> Ribozymes already can do the job of specifically
>> acylating specific tRNAs.

> And so, a less specific protein acylator would wreak havoc with the process, perhaps being destroyed by the feedback loop it engenders.
>
> This isn't the first time I said this, nor the second, nor...
>
> Anyway, your proposed alternative is purely hypothetical at our stage of knowledge:

Another foolish comment. Peptides increasing the conformational
specificity of RNA folding is not hypothetical. And the model is
takeover by the peptidyl ribozyme, with more and more peptide
and less and less RNA, not substitution for an independent
entity. And the obvious reason for this is because polypeptides
are better at interacting with small molecules like amino acids.
Meanwhile things like the ribosome remain RNA because they mostly
deal with RNA. The actual condensation reaction of the ribosome
is not the challenge, the specifity of the tRNA to mRNA matching
is. That's distinct from the activation of tRNAs where the chemical
challenges are very different. You have no instinct for this.
And yet you continue to pontificate about it. Foolish.

>> We know that small peptides binding
>> to RNA provide it with alternative or more stable 3D structure
>> and thus enhanced enzymatic repertoires.
>> A gradual takeover of
>> ribozymes with successively more polypeptide content is the
>> natural gradual model for development of AA tRNA synthetases

> Has anyone actually tried to work out such a model? If so,
> Behe would be absolutely astounded. He's been continually
> harping on how biochemists don't even start trying to do this.

Why would they? Biochemists are generally not as deluded as
is Behe. He is a special sort of polemicist. He makes obvious
things seem complicated and fools people like you. He has an
axe to grind. Meanwhile, the experiments required to run from
a ribozyme to a full enzyme would take many years with uncertain
success. You would have to really dislike the grad student or
post-doc that you saddled with such a project. They could easily
spend many years on it and not get a publishable result.
And even if they did, what's the practical value? There are
far more useful things for talented scientists to be doing.

Reproving the Earth is not flat, or that the Earth circles the
Sun is a poor use of a geologists or an astrophysicists time.
The same is true of addressing ID apologists.

> Has anyone even MENTIONED this kind of model in the way you
> do it here? in a peer-reviewed paper?

Howard recently provided you references.

>> You attack the wrong models in your ignorance. Howard provided
>> you with some nice references and you've ignored them.

> Did I even see those posts? What hint did he give as
> to the content of those references?
>
> Remainder deleted, to be dealt with later.

If you were serious, and if you cared, you would put in
the effort and find the references. You would spend more
effort reading them than in otherwise worthless banter.
Unless you redeem yourself by finding them and finding
the models I cite, you are not worth my time.

[Mark Isaak]

On 7/10/13 2:27 PM, nyi...@bellsouth.net wrote:

Please clarify. Do you mean that darwinian evolution is intelligently
designed? Or do you mean that darwinian evolution *is* intelligent design?

--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"It is certain, from experience, that the smallest grain of natural
honesty and benevolence has more effect on men's conduct, than the most
pompous views suggested by theological theories and systems." - D. Hume

[jillery]

Yet another moronic reply. "Also" is irrelevant to your innuendo.

[Burkhard]

On Thursday, 11 July 2013 01:21:18 UTC+1, Roger Shrubber wrote:
<snip>

>
> > Funny how you wrote "Quit pretending" in the face of comments like the above.
>
> >
>
> > I note also that both you and Harshman had nothing to say when I fought
>
> > "el cid" to a draw (and that's being generous to him) over his claim that
>
> > if he were given 5 years and umpteen million dollars, he could design a
>
> > protein ribosome. My arguments were similar to the above--it would take
>
> > a team of Nobel Laureates to have any chance at duplicating the fidelity
>
> > of ribosomes, and I seriously doubt that 5 or even 25 years would be enough.
>
>
>
> Your fantasy assertion that you "fought to a draw" is unreliable.
>
> You were defeated, repeatedly in what I saw. Creating a protein ribosome
>
> is a fools errand. Why? It probably could be done buy why do it?
>

Peter said he fought el Cid to a draw? oh yes, now that you mention it, I quite distinctly remember that - it was right after he got his backside paddled (again) that Peter came up with the cunning ploy of donning wings made from feathers and wax and fly riiight up to the sun where none of the disputants could reach him...

[Glenn]

"Burkhard" <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk> wrote in message news:953402b2-0cb8-40e7...@googlegroups.com...

You don't even realize that what both Roger and you said makes no sense.

[Burkhard]

On Thursday, 11 July 2013 12:41:13 UTC+1, Glenn wrote:

> > > > Funny how you wrote "Quit pretending" in the face of comments like the above.
>
> > >
>
> > > >
>
> > >
>
> > > > I note also that both you and Harshman had nothing to say when I fought
>
> > >
>
> > > > "el cid" to a draw (and that's being generous to him) over his claim that
>
> > >
>
> > > > if he were given 5 years and umpteen million dollars, he could design a
>
> > >
>
> > > > protein ribosome. My arguments were similar to the above--it would take
>
> > >
>
> > > > a team of Nobel Laureates to have any chance at duplicating the fidelity
>
> > >
>
> > > > of ribosomes, and I seriously doubt that 5 or even 25 years would be enough.
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
> > > Your fantasy assertion that you "fought to a draw" is unreliable.
>
> > >
>
> > > You were defeated, repeatedly in what I saw. Creating a protein ribosome
>
> > >
>
> > > is a fools errand. Why? It probably could be done buy why do it?
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > Peter said he fought el Cid to a draw? oh yes, now that you mention it, I quite distinctly remember that - it was right after he got his backside paddled (again) that Peter came up with the cunning ploy of donning wings made from feathers and wax and fly riiight up to the sun where none of the disputants could reach him...
>
> >
>
> You don't even realize that what both Roger and you said makes no sense.

If something "makes sense" to a person is in the majority of cases a function of that person's previous knowledge, linguistic skills + natural intelligence. So I appreciate that it does not make sense to you.

[nyi...@bellsouth.net]

On Wednesday, July 10, 2013 6:21:54 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> On 7/10/13 2:27 PM, nyi...@bellsouth.net wrote:
>
> > On Tuesday, June 18, 2013 12:29:07 PM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote:
>
> >> On 6/18/13 5:52 AM, pnyikos wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >>> On Jun 18, 12:35 am, James Beck<jdbeck11...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >>>> On Mon, 17 Jun 2013 19:58:24 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
>
> >>
>
> >>> [...]
>
> >>
>
> >>>>> Evolution isn't intelligent. Just lucky.
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>> What's lucky about finding a few workable solutions in trillions of
>
> >>
>
> >>>> trials?
>
> >>
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >>> Try obtaining a highly specific enzyme that contains 200 or more amino
> >>> acid components in a mere trillion trials.
>

> >> I do not know a lot about directed evolution, but I believe there are
> >> companies making money now by doing just that (except with fewer trials).
>
> >
>
> > Intelligent design.
>
> >
>
> > I rest my case.

Lest it be misunderstood: the case I am resting is that the playing field is still level between abiogenesis on earth and intelligent design by panspermists arising elsewhere.

>
>
> No, they do it using natural selection, or perhaps you might call it
>
> artificial selection. At any rate, they don't design the enzyme. They
>
> pick the most active enzyme from among random variants, then use that
>
> one as the starting point for more random variants, through many
>
> generations. So whatever you call it, it's a good analog for what
>
> happens in nature.

Your last sentence shows you have learned nothing since Dawkins did his silly "simulation" of natural selection in _The Blind Watchmaker_.
It was critiqued so effectively that about a decade and a half ago, when Dennett gave a talk here at my university, he devoted almost half the talk to showing us how various researchers got around the numerous criticisms with their own simulations, only the last of which was a really good analogue for what happens in nature.

Don't get me wrong -- I *am* interested in details of those experiments, and would appreciate references. It's just that the way you describe them, intelligent [of an IQ more like yours than mine] design still plays an essential role.

[nyi...@bellsouth.net]

Short on time, I only address the main thing Shrubber seems to care about, and one piece of illogic by him, and leave the rest for next week.

On Wednesday, July 10, 2013 8:21:18 PM UTC-4, Roger Shrubber wrote:
> nyi...@bellsouth.net wrote:
>
> > On Tuesday, June 18, 2013 9:26:49 AM UTC-4, Roger Shrubber wrote:
>
> You were recently provided with an excellent set of references
> by Howard that answer the question.

Where? You give no hint whatsoever, and now that I've been permanently exiled from Old Google Groups, finding them is even more of a needle-in-a-haystack endeavor than it would have been before.

>You would rather post
> garbage than read.

Read what? innumerable examples of exaptation in biology, as opposed to biochemistry?

> Fools like you are not worth the time.

Actions -- or in your case, inactions -- speak much louder than words.

Inaction in point: you give me absolutely no clues as to where I might find Howard's references. One might almost think that they do NOTHING to advance your case, and that want to eat your cake and have it too --leave me completely in the dark about them, yet have the luxury of defaming me for not looking them up.

>
>
> >>> The Extrapolator of the Gaps argument: "Evolution of organisms has
> >>> been shown to produce amazing things such as ourselves in highly un-
> >>> random ways. Doubtless, biochemical evolution is capable of such
> >>> things by a similar process."
>
>
>
> >> We have examples of the natural history of enzymes that start
> >> with modest specificity and develop higher specificity. The
> >> same model of evolution would naturally be invoked for AA tRNA
> >> synthetases.
>
>
>
> > Can you think of a biological analogue of what you describe below?
>
>
> The question makes no sense.

You are being illogical: re-read the words "similar process" in the description of "Extrapolator of the Gaps" and note the word "ornanisms" in reference to the word "similar".

[cut to the chase]

> >> You attack the wrong models in your ignorance. Howard provided
> >> you with some nice references and you've ignored them.

> > Did I even see those posts? What hint did he give as
> > to the content of those references?

You do not answer these questions. Could it be that you don't even know the answers? If so, how can you presume to call me a fool for not looking in a huge haystack for needles that might turn out to be noodles?

> > Remainder deleted, to be dealt with later.

> If you were serious, and if you cared, you would put in
> the effort and find the references.

Bullshit, given your performance so far.

Give me one good reason for not thinking that you are behaving like a shameless four-flusher.

Peter Nyikos

[nyi...@bellsouth.net]

On Wednesday, July 10, 2013 10:43:31 PM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote:
> On 7/10/13 2:27 PM, nyi...@bellsouth.net wrote:
>
> > On Tuesday, June 18, 2013 12:29:07 PM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote:
>
> >> On 6/18/13 5:52 AM, pnyikos wrote:
>
> >>> On Jun 18, 12:35 am, James Beck <jdbeck11...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >>>> On Mon, 17 Jun 2013 19:58:24 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
>
> >>
>
> >>> [...]
>
> >>
>
> >>>>> Evolution isn't intelligent. Just lucky.
>
> >>
>
> >>>> What's lucky about finding a few workable solutions in trillions of
>
> >>>> trials?
>
> >>
>
> >>> Try obtaining a highly specific enzyme that contains 200 or more amino
>
> >>> acid components in a mere trillion trials.
>
> >>
>
> >> I do not know a lot about directed evolution, but I believe there are
>
> >> companies making money now by doing just that (except with fewer trials).
>
> >
>
> > Intelligent design.
>
> >
>
> > I rest my case.
>
>
>
> Please clarify. Do you mean that darwinian evolution is intelligently
>
> designed? Or do you mean that darwinian evolution *is* intelligent design?

I won't answer these clueless questions, but merely refer you to my reply to John Harshman on this thread a short while ago.

Any denunciation of me for referring you to a post in reply to someone else will be taken by me to be whining by you.

Peter Nyikos

[John Harshman]

On 7/11/13 12:48 PM, nyi...@bellsouth.net wrote:
> On Wednesday, July 10, 2013 6:21:54 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
>> On 7/10/13 2:27 PM, nyi...@bellsouth.net wrote:
>>
>>> On Tuesday, June 18, 2013 12:29:07 PM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote:
>>
>>>> On 6/18/13 5:52 AM, pnyikos wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>> On Jun 18, 12:35 am, James Beck<jdbeck11...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>> On Mon, 17 Jun 2013 19:58:24 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>> [...]
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>>> Evolution isn't intelligent. Just lucky.
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>> What's lucky about finding a few workable solutions in trillions of
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>> trials?
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>> Try obtaining a highly specific enzyme that contains 200 or more amino
>>>>> acid components in a mere trillion trials.
>>
>
>>>> I do not know a lot about directed evolution, but I believe there are
>>>> companies making money now by doing just that (except with fewer trials).
>>
>>>
>>
>>> Intelligent design.
>>
>>>
>>
>>> I rest my case.
>
> Lest it be misunderstood: the case I am resting is that the playing field is still level between abiogenesis on earth and intelligent design by panspermists arising elsewhere.

It hardly matters what case you are resting if you haven't made a case
at all. And the words "Intelligent design" aren't any sort of case for
anything.

>> No, they do it using natural selection, or perhaps you might call it
>>
>> artificial selection. At any rate, they don't design the enzyme. They
>>
>> pick the most active enzyme from among random variants, then use that
>>
>> one as the starting point for more random variants, through many
>>
>> generations. So whatever you call it, it's a good analog for what
>>
>> happens in nature.
>
> Your last sentence shows you have learned nothing since Dawkins did
> his silly "simulation" of natural selection in _The Blind
> Watchmaker_. It was critiqued so effectively that about a decade and
> a half ago, when Dennett gave a talk here at my university, he
> devoted almost half the talk to showing us how various researchers
> got around the numerous criticisms with their own simulations, only
> the last of which was a really good analogue for what happens in
> nature.

I have no idea what critiques you're referring to, or how Dawkins'
simulation of natural selection is relevant. Nor did I attend Dennett's
talk at your university, or know who various researchers are or what
their simulations were. Rather than hint that an argument exists, why
not just make that argument?

> Don't get me wrong -- I *am* interested in details of those
> experiments, and would appreciate references. It's just that the way
> you describe them, intelligent [of an IQ more like yours than mine]
> design still plays an essential role.

I'm unable to determine if that part in brackets is intended as an
insult. But I deny that intelligence plays any real role except as a
proxy for what any inanimate selective force would also do. You try a
bunch of random sequences, assay them for activity, pick the one with
the greatest activity, vary it randomly, assay the new sequences for
activity, pick the one with the greatest activity, and repeat. You could
easily automate that if you wanted to. So in what way does that resemble
intelligent design?

As for references, this is the only one I have handy, but it should
work: Hayashi, Y., H. Sakata, Y. Makino, I. Urabe, and T. Yomo. 2003.
Can an arbitrary sequence evolve towards acquiring a biological
function? Journal of Molecular Evolution 56:162-168.

[John Harshman]

....which annoyingly doesn't answer Mark's questions. It might hint that
some answer exists somewhere, possibly in a lecture by Daniel Dennett
some years ago. But nobody can even look that one up. At any rate,
multiple layers of reference to references is confusing and serves no
purpose.

> Any denunciation of me for referring you to a post in reply to someone else will be taken by me to be whining by you.

What you take as whining is not all that relevant. Simply referring to
another post is not a response. That goes double if the post you refer
to doesn't serve as a response to Mark.

[nyi...@bellsouth.net]

On Thursday, July 11, 2013 7:41:13 AM UTC-4, Glenn wrote:

> "Burkhard" <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk> wrote in message news:953402b2-0cb8-40e7...@googlegroups.com...

> - hide quoted text -

> > On Thursday, 11 July 2013 01:21:18 UTC+1, Roger Shrubber wrote:
> > <snip>

[nyikos wrote:]

> > > > I note also that both you and Harshman had nothing to say when I fought
> > >
> > > > "el cid" to a draw (and that's being generous to him) over his claim that
> > >
> > > > if he were given 5 years and umpteen million dollars, he could design a
> > >
> > > > protein ribosome. My arguments were similar to the above--it would take
> > >
> > > > a team of Nobel Laureates to have any chance at duplicating the fidelity
> > >
> > > > of ribosomes, and I seriously doubt that 5 or even 25 years would be enough.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Your fantasy assertion that you "fought to a draw" is unreliable.
> > >
> > > You were defeated, repeatedly in what I saw. Creating a protein ribosome
> > >
> > > is a fools errand. Why? It probably could be done buy why do it?
> > >
> >
> > Peter said he fought el Cid to a draw? oh yes, now that you mention it, I quite distinctly remember that - it was right after he got his backside paddled (again) that Peter came up with the cunning ploy of donning wings made from feathers and wax and fly riiight up to the sun where none of the disputants could reach him...
> >
> You don't even realize that what both Roger and you said makes no sense.

Burkhard, who killfiled me supposedly for getting too involved in personal disputes, took you to task for the choice of words "makes no sense" but you are on the right track and he is off in la-la-land, apparently knowing nothing of what went on back then.

And Roger indulges in pure truth by blatant assertion, saying NOTHING about how el cid allegedly countered my "fidelity" argument. I think the record will show that el cid had nothing effective to counter that. If you are curious, you can start reading here:

http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/be5b341179935ceb?dmode=source

Besides, Roger has let a huge thing go down his memory hole: when the debate between me and el cid was mentioned again, long after the death of el cid, Harshman voiced the conviction that el cid was wrong.

More importantly, Harshman blustered that if he had known el cid made that foolish claim, he (Harshman) would have corrected him.

I documented for Harshman how, in the process of a mean-spirited put-down of me, he had told el cid that he would probably have to make a protein substitute for the ribosome before I would concede anything to him.

Even Harshman realized just how suspicious this made his bluster look, so he made up a plausible, but documentably false, excuse for why he had said to el cid what he did.

That was the only fully documentable lie I ever saw Harshman make, and my reply to it was "Keep digging yourself in deeper, boyo.":

http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/e7f6a149018b067b?dmode=source

I wonder--if I had kept mum about this whole incident on this thread, would Harshman have gone along with Roger's Truth by Blatant Assertion, and not breathed a word about how he had blustered with skepticism of el cid's claim a while back?

Peter Nyikos

[nyi...@bellsouth.net]

On Thursday, July 11, 2013 4:57:52 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> On 7/11/13 12:48 PM, nyi...@bellsouth.net wrote:
>
> > On Wednesday, July 10, 2013 6:21:54 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
>
> >> On 7/10/13 2:27 PM, nyi...@bellsouth.net wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >>> On Tuesday, June 18, 2013 12:29:07 PM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote:

> >>>> I do not know a lot about directed evolution, but I believe there are
> >>>> companies making money now by doing just that (except with fewer trials).

>
> >>> Intelligent design.
>

> >>> I rest my case.
>
> >
>
> > Lest it be misunderstood: the case I am resting is that the playing field is still level between abiogenesis on earth and intelligent design by panspermists arising elsewhere.
>
>
>
> It hardly matters what case you are resting if you haven't made a case
> at all. And the words "Intelligent design" aren't any sort of case for
> anything.

Your denial in the wake of my explanation of the case below is noted.

>
>
> >> No, they do it using natural selection, or perhaps you might call it
> >> artificial selection. At any rate, they don't design the enzyme. They
> >> pick the most active enzyme from among random variants, then use that
> >> one as the starting point for more random variants, through many
> >> generations. So whatever you call it, it's a good analog for what
> >> happens in nature.
>
> > Your last sentence shows you have learned nothing since Dawkins did
> > his silly "simulation" of natural selection in _The Blind
> > Watchmaker_. It was critiqued so effectively that about a decade and
> > a half ago, when Dennett gave a talk here at my university, he
> > devoted almost half the talk to showing us how various researchers
> > got around the numerous criticisms with their own simulations, only
> > the last of which was a really good analogue for what happens in
> > nature.
>
>
>
> I have no idea what critiques you're referring to,

I'm going to pull a Roger Shrubber on you, Rip van Harshman. Go read the _The Blind Watchmaker_ where Dawkins describes his computer "simulations" which resulted, after many generations, in evolving "flowers" into "insects."

You should be able to figure out SEVERAL ways in which his simulation is unreallistic. And then, I leave it up to you to do a Google search for criticisms of that simulation, in case you missed something.

But before you do that, take note of how the things you described are no closer to being analogues of natural selection than Dawkins's experiment.


Hey, don't look at me like that. :-) I've given you a lot better start on figuring things out than Shrubber gave me.

Besides, you deserve it. Look at the reply I gave Glenn a few minutes ago for a clue as to why you don't deserve any better from me at this point.

> Rather than hint that an argument exists, why
>
> not just make that argument?

Because that is not the way I am treated by Shrubber. And the two of you are just hunky-dory with each other, and until he cleans up his act, you can expect me to do unto you as Shrubber does unto me.

>
>
> > Don't get me wrong -- I *am* interested in details of those
>
> > experiments, and would appreciate references. It's just that the way
>
> > you describe them, intelligent [of an IQ more like yours than mine]
>
> > design still plays an essential role.
>
>
>
> I'm unable to determine if that part in brackets is intended as an
>
> insult.

It is. You have simulated someone with a low IQ more times than I care to count, and if those were not simulations, the insult applies.

> But I deny that intelligence plays any real role except as a
> proxy for what any inanimate selective force would also do. You try a
> bunch of random sequences, assay them for activity, pick the one with
> the greatest activity,

Hardly any less vague than "most interesting" which is what Dawkins used for his picking.

> vary it randomly, assay the new sequences for
> activity, pick the one with the greatest activity, and repeat.
> You could easily automate that if you wanted to.

So you allege. But take note of my closing words below.

[snip]

>
> As for references, this is the only one I have handy, but it should
> work: Hayashi, Y., H. Sakata, Y. Makino, I. Urabe, and T. Yomo. 2003.
>
> Can an arbitrary sequence evolve towards acquiring a biological
>
> function? Journal of Molecular Evolution 56:162-168.

Thanks, I'll try to find it. But the words "biological function" already make me suspicious. Just how do the authors define the term, which hardly looks like it could be automated?

Peter Nyikos

[jillery]

On Thu, 11 Jul 2013 12:48:27 -0700 (PDT), nyi...@bellsouth.net wrote:

<mercy snip>

> Lest it be misunderstood: the case I am resting is that the playing field is still level between abiogenesis on earth and intelligent design by panspermists arising elsewhere.

You're sort of correct. Nobody can disprove DP any more than you can
disprove the existence of a flying spaghetti monster, and for the same
reasons.

As for abiogenesis on Earth, your denial of the evidence is equivalent
to YEC Creationists.

[nyi...@bellsouth.net]

On Thursday, July 11, 2013 5:01:34 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> On 7/11/13 1:10 PM, nyi...@bellsouth.net wrote:
>
> > On Wednesday, July 10, 2013 10:43:31 PM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote:
>
> >> On 7/10/13 2:27 PM, nyi...@bellsouth.net wrote:

> >>>> I do not know a lot about directed evolution, but I believe there are
> >>>> companies making money now by doing just that (except with fewer trials).

> >>> Intelligent design.

> >>> I rest my case.

> >> Please clarify. Do you mean that darwinian evolution is intelligently
> >> designed?

No.

>>>Or do you mean that darwinian evolution *is* intelligent design?

No.

> >
>
> > I won't answer these clueless questions, but merely refer you to my reply to John Harshman on this thread a short while ago.
>
>
>
> ....which annoyingly doesn't answer Mark's questions.

Done this time around. Mark's questions are so far off base, and so bloody general and loaded, that I thought they were frivolous and insincere, but I answered them now just to humor you.

> It might hint that
> some answer exists somewhere, possibly in a lecture by Daniel Dennett
> some years ago. But nobody can even look that one up. At any rate,
> multiple layers of reference to references is confusing and serves no
> purpose.

Feigning the 'tard? I would think that a person of average intelligence would figure out that my part beginning with "Lest there be any misunderstanding, ..."
is the relevant bit. After all, I wrote it immediately after the words "I rest my case"

That should explain why Mark's questions were so clueless. And even without that explanation, I think only an abiogenesis-on-earth zealot would miss out on just how LIMITED the discussion was before Mark brought in his two questions from way out in left field.

Peter Nyikos

[nyi...@bellsouth.net]

On Thursday, July 11, 2013 5:54:59 PM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Jul 2013 12:48:27 -0700 (PDT), nyi...@bellsouth.net wrote:
>
>
>

> < [self-serving] snip>
>
Fixed it for you.

>
> > Lest it be misunderstood: the case I am resting is that the playing field is still level between abiogenesis on earth and intelligent design by panspermists arising elsewhere.

> You're sort of correct. Nobody can disprove DP any more than you can
> disprove the existence of a flying spaghetti monster, and for the same
> reasons.

False if "nobody" means "nobody who ever will live". In that form it has been refuted many times by me, but I'll only repost it if someone else wants to see the refutation, because you have shown by your actions that you will just continue your broken record routine above.

> As for abiogenesis on Earth, your denial of the evidence

...that it happened ON EARTH is easy, because it is next to nonexistent.

> is equivalent
>
> to YEC Creationists.

No, it is equivalent to the insistence by "Mother Earth did it" zealots like you that there is no "scientific" (meaning solid empirical) evidence that earh life is the result of DP.

Similarly, there is no solid empirical evidence for it having taken place on earth. We've found no life on earth that is simpler than the incredibly complicated free-living prokaryotes we now have, nor have fossils been found that have been claimed, with solid empirical evidence, to be of far simpler forms of life.

I am saying all this for the benefit of open-minded readers, which leaves you out. Your post is just a convenient place for me to say it in reply.


Peter Nyikos

[John Harshman]

This is a sterling example of several of your most repellent features.

[John Harshman]

On 7/11/13 2:31 PM, nyi...@bellsouth.net wrote:
> On Thursday, July 11, 2013 4:57:52 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
>> On 7/11/13 12:48 PM, nyi...@bellsouth.net wrote:
>>
>>> On Wednesday, July 10, 2013 6:21:54 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
>>
>>>> On 7/10/13 2:27 PM, nyi...@bellsouth.net wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>> On Tuesday, June 18, 2013 12:29:07 PM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote:
>
>>>>>> I do not know a lot about directed evolution, but I believe there are
>>>>>> companies making money now by doing just that (except with fewer trials).
>
>>
>>>>> Intelligent design.
>>
>
>>>>> I rest my case.
>>
>>>
>>
>>> Lest it be misunderstood: the case I am resting is that the playing field is still level between abiogenesis on earth and intelligent design by panspermists arising elsewhere.
>>
>>
>>
>> It hardly matters what case you are resting if you haven't made a case
>> at all. And the words "Intelligent design" aren't any sort of case for
>> anything.
>
> Your denial in the wake of my explanation of the case below is noted.

You don't explain below. You allude to the existence of an explanation,
no more. And that's after you rested your case, so it's irrelevant anyway.

>>>> No, they do it using natural selection, or perhaps you might call it
>>>> artificial selection. At any rate, they don't design the enzyme. They
>>>> pick the most active enzyme from among random variants, then use that
>>>> one as the starting point for more random variants, through many
>>>> generations. So whatever you call it, it's a good analog for what
>>>> happens in nature.
>>
>>> Your last sentence shows you have learned nothing since Dawkins did
>>> his silly "simulation" of natural selection in _The Blind
>>> Watchmaker_. It was critiqued so effectively that about a decade and
>>> a half ago, when Dennett gave a talk here at my university, he
>>> devoted almost half the talk to showing us how various researchers
>>> got around the numerous criticisms with their own simulations, only
>>> the last of which was a really good analogue for what happens in
>>> nature.
>>
>>
>>
>> I have no idea what critiques you're referring to,
>
> I'm going to pull a Roger Shrubber on you, Rip van Harshman. Go read the _The Blind Watchmaker_ where Dawkins describes his computer "simulations" which resulted, after many generations, in evolving "flowers" into "insects."
>
> You should be able to figure out SEVERAL ways in which his simulation is unreallistic. And then, I leave it up to you to do a Google search for criticisms of that simulation, in case you missed something.

I have no interest in doing so. You do the work. Please explain what you
are talking about. Fully.

> But before you do that, take note of how the things you described are no closer to being analogues of natural selection than Dawkins's experiment.

How am I to take note of the similarities of two things, one of which
you ask me not to look up first?

> Hey, don't look at me like that. :-) I've given you a lot better start on figuring things out than Shrubber gave me.
>
> Besides, you deserve it. Look at the reply I gave Glenn a few minutes ago for a clue as to why you don't deserve any better from me at this point.

Please stop using Google Groups. It makes for unreadable text. I have no
interest in searching for your replies to other people. It sure would be
simpler if you would just make any point you want to make rather than
announcing that you have made it elsewhere. And do you intend Roger
Shrubber to be the standard of proper behavior against which to measure
you? Have you considered the possibility of treating others in the way
you would like to be treated?

>> Rather than hint that an argument exists, why
>>
>> not just make that argument?
>
> Because that is not the way I am treated by Shrubber. And the two of you are just hunky-dory with each other, and until he cleans up his act, you can expect me to do unto you as Shrubber does unto me.

Why should the way you are treated by Shrubber dictate your behavior?
Especially to me. I can't even see why it should dictate your behavior
toward Shrubber. Is "an eye for an eye" your motto?

>>> Don't get me wrong -- I *am* interested in details of those
>>
>>> experiments, and would appreciate references. It's just that the way
>>
>>> you describe them, intelligent [of an IQ more like yours than mine]
>>
>>> design still plays an essential role.
>>
>>
>>
>> I'm unable to determine if that part in brackets is intended as an
>>
>> insult.
>
> It is. You have simulated someone with a low IQ more times than I care to count, and if those were not simulations, the insult applies.

See, here's a case of you being an asshole for no discernible reason. I
have never, ever simulated someone with a low IQ. Make of that what you
probably will.

>> But I deny that intelligence plays any real role except as a
>> proxy for what any inanimate selective force would also do. You try a
>> bunch of random sequences, assay them for activity, pick the one with
>> the greatest activity,
>
> Hardly any less vague than "most interesting" which is what Dawkins used for his picking.

Nonsense. It's an objective, numerical test. In enzyme chemistry,
"activity" has a specific, quantifiable meaning.

>> vary it randomly, assay the new sequences for
>> activity, pick the one with the greatest activity, and repeat.
>> You could easily automate that if you wanted to.
>
> So you allege. But take note of my closing words below.

I took note. They are wrong. Read the paper.

>>
>> As for references, this is the only one I have handy, but it should
>> work: Hayashi, Y., H. Sakata, Y. Makino, I. Urabe, and T. Yomo. 2003.
>>
>> Can an arbitrary sequence evolve towards acquiring a biological
>>
>> function? Journal of Molecular Evolution 56:162-168.
>
> Thanks, I'll try to find it. But the words "biological function" already make me suspicious. Just how do the authors define the term, which hardly looks like it could be automated?

They don't. The paper is highly specific about what function they are
assaying. At least try the abstract before you try to criticize the paper.