Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Living things are designed to evolve. (mission impossible)

Expand Messages
  • Charles Palm
    Charles P: http://www.livescience.com/24147-doomsday-mayan-apocalpyse.html The scientific evidence is the same for everyone. We only differ in our
    Message 1 of 38 , Oct 22, 2012
      Charles P: http://www.livescience.com/24147-doomsday-mayan-apocalpyse.html
      The scientific evidence is the same for everyone. We only differ in our
      interpretations of that evidence.


      Charles P: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/OriginsTalk/message/29246 More
      than two months ago I provided to Origins Talk the evidence that I found in
      a recent book by James A Shapiro, "Evolution: A View From The 21st Century".

      Charles P: It is OK to dispute these conclusions. Please provide some
      Internet links or some scientific observations that would support your
      interpretations of the evidence provided. To be scientific, your
      interpretations must include evidence that can be reproduced empirically
      and verifiably by others. All scientific evidence is the same for
      everyone. We only differ in our interpretations of that evidence.

      Charles P: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N1ySXrmPrsU For example,
      Science Writer #1 could document these video observations at Chichen Itza
      and interpret the facts as: the sun rises and sets according to
      mathematical predictions of the calendar each year at the same time. This
      is evidence that the sun revolves about the earth. It is "anti-science" to
      disagree with a consensus of scientists.

      Charles P: Science Writer #2 could interpret the same video evidence as:
      The earth revolves about the sun. This different interpretation of the
      initial facts requires additional evidence to support the "anti-science"
      claims. This scientific method helped us to change our interpretations
      from a geocentric conclusion to a heliocentric conclusion about our solar

      Charles P: My point is: the initial evidence is the same for everyone. I
      still see the sun rise and set everyday. It still looks like the sun
      revolves around the earth. But now I have a different conclusion about our
      solar system. Additional evidence leads scientists to different
      interpretations of all of the evidence. This is the way science
      progresses... one funeral at a time. We can appreciate what the 20th
      Century version of The Theory of Evolution gave us.

      Max Planck: http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Max_Planck Die Wahrheit
      triumphiert nie, ihre Gegner sterben nur aus. Truth never triumphs � its
      opponents just die out. Science advances one funeral at a time.

      Gluadys: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/OriginsTalk/message/29859 ... stop
      dissing poor Charles Darwin...

      Charles P: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/OriginsTalk/message/29246 The
      nine basic principles of natural genetic engineering are available for
      scrutiny by everyone. This 21st Century version of The Theory of Evolution
      includes 1,162 references that provide new information that should be
      considered by everyone. It is OK to disagree with the conclusions of James
      A Shapiro and other science writers. If you believe that Dr. Shapiro is
      not correct in his conclusions, then please provide us with scientific
      evidence that contradicts The Nine Basis Principles Of Natural Genetic

      Science: http://www.geosociety.org/positions/position1.htm Science, by
      definition, is a method of learning about the natural universe by asking
      questions in such a way that they can be answered empirically and
      verifiably. If a question cannot be framed so that the answer can be
      tested, and the test results can be reproduced by others, then it is not

      Characteristics of science:
      http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/nature_06 To ask someone
      to accept ideas purely on faith, even when these ideas are expressed by
      "experts," is unscientific.

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Charles Palm
      Tia Ghose: http://www.livescience.com/25190-genetic-roots-vertebrate-intelligence.html Cognitive Big Bang Discovered in Tiny Sea Worm. Several brainy
      Message 38 of 38 , Dec 5, 2012
        Tia Ghose:
        'Cognitive Big Bang' Discovered in Tiny Sea Worm. Several "brainy"
        that were duplicated in a tiny sea creature nearly 550 million years ago
        may have led to the massive expansion in intelligence in vertebrate
        species, two new studies have found.

        James A Shapiro: References #40, #41: Life requires cognition at all

        James A Shapiro: References #93 - #95: We can think of this two-level
        proofreading process as equivalent to a quality-control system in human
        manufacturing. Like human quality-control systems, it is based on
        surveillance and correction (cognitive processes) rather than mechanical
        precision. The multistep nature of proofreading is typical of many control
        processes in cells,
        where final precision is achieved by a sequence of two or more interactions
        that are each themselves inherently less precise. In this regard, the most
        applicable cybernetic models are fuzzy logic control systems. In such
        systems, accurate regulation occurs by overlaying multiple imprecise
        (“fuzzy”) feedback controls arranged so that each successive event results
        in greater precision.

        James A Shapiro: In other words, we have numerous precise molecular
        descriptions of cell cognition, which range all the way from bacterial
        nutrition to mammalian cell biology and development. The cognitive,
        informatic view of how living cells operate and utilize their genomes is
        radically different from the genetic determinism perspective articulated
        most succinctly, in the
        last century, by Francis Crick’s famous “Central Dogma of Molecular
        Biology.” So it is appropriate to direct our attention to evaluating the
        validity of Crick’s formulation in light of 21st Century knowledge.

        James A Shapiro: A shift from thinking about gradual selection of
        localized random changes to sudden genome restructuring by sensory
        network-influenced cell systems is a major conceptual change. It replaces
        the “invisible hands” of geological time and natural selection with
        cognitive networks and cellular functions for self-modification. The
        emphasis is systemic rather than atomistic and information-based rather
        than stochastic.

        Stochastic: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/stochastic Involving chance
        or probability.

        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.