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

Re: Living things are designed to evolve. (mission impossible)

Expand Messages
  • gluadys
    ... And in that case Science Writer #2 would be very wrong, because the phenomenon of the sun rising and setting has nothing to do with the earth revolving
    Message 1 of 38 , Oct 23, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com, Charles Palm <palmcharlesUU@...> wrote:
      >

      > 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.
      >
      >

      And in that case Science Writer #2 would be very wrong, because the phenomenon of the sun rising and setting has nothing to do with the earth revolving around the sun. After all, it takes a year for the earth to revolve around the sun, but the sun rises and sets everyday. If the two were connected, the sun would only rise and set once each year.

      I am sure, if you think about it, you can come up with the correct second alternative.





      > 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
      > Engineering.
      >


      I have never claimed that Dr. Shapiro is not correct in his conclusions. I have insufficient expertise in the field to make such a judgment call.

      What I question is your interpretation of his work as anti-Darwin. I have seen nothing from Shapiro which would support that perception.
    • 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
      • 0 Attachment
        Tia Ghose:
        http://www.livescience.com/25190-genetic-roots-vertebrate-intelligence.html
        'Cognitive Big Bang' Discovered in Tiny Sea Worm. Several "brainy"
        genes
        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
        levels.

        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.