Re: [OriginsTalk] Living things are designed to evolve. (mission impossible)
From: Charles Palm <palmcharlesUU@...>
Sent: Saturday, October 20, 2012 8:54 PM
Subject: [OriginsTalk] Living things are designed to evolve. (mission impossible)
Kamran: I am sorry but for all the insinuations you make, you really need
to take responsibility for what you post here and defend your postings
rather than abandon the defence in midcourse on grounds that you are a
messenger. Living things are not desiged to evolve. I have posted many
times on how it is literally impossible for even the Creator to design an
evolvable "living thing." To settle this once an for all, can you isolate
any part of the above example according to which you or Mr. Shapiro believe
living things are desigend to evolve??? This is a chance for you to
elaborately explain why you have come to the conclusion that living things
are designed to evolve, and then I will explain to you how they are not.
Then ou can write back to Mr. Shapiro so that he can know that there are no
ligitimate versions of "evolution." Of course don't bother with an reply to
this if in the middle of the debate (or as you like, discussion) you are
going to say that you are just a messenger and not in a position to firmly
discuss the claims you make in person or as proxy.
Charles P: The book by James A Shapiro, Evolution: A View From The 21st
Century, is only 147 pages long but has 1,162 references to support the
conclusions that "Cells are built to evolve; they have the ability to alter
their hereditary characteristics rapidly through well-described natural
genetic engineering and epigenetic processes as well as by cell mergers".
Kamran: This is a fantasy. A lot has also been written on random mutation and natural selection, that was also a fantasy. If you direct me to a book about open air irrigation farming on the moon, I would not go to read it on the premise that you either don't know what mooon is or haven't a clue about farming. All I can say that you are accepting evidence for cells property to evolve solely due to your lack of independent appreciation for what a cell is.
Charles P: He wrote the book. If it were not for my messages, you would
never have had the opportunity to discover what is being learned from
molecular biology and other scientific disciplines.
Kamran: By this statement you have successfully crowned your own postings as being important and having substnace. Anyway moving on from your usual self-flattery, and assuming you value your own discoveryy of what is being learned from molecular biology, can you briefly define what the discipline of molecular biology is? Forgive me for being harsh on you but I have this aversion for your particular style of drive-by assertions without any effort to explain them except for claiming all supporting evidence and references are written somewhere. In this you have a lot in common with mainstream evolutionists.
Charles P: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-a-shapiro/ It is OK to
disagree. At the bottom of his Huffington Post, there are several people
who disagree with him. Please show us here on Origins Talk which
scientific evidence you have to support your ideas.
Kamran: What ideas are you talking about? Weren't you supposed to first defend the idea that living things are designed to evolve? Once you do that, then you'll get a chance to comment on whether my response to it lacks scientific evidence or not. You haven't even started and keep referring me to links and books. We have to keep the postings brief here (especially to avoind those dreaded word counts!!) so how in the world do you want me to write a critical commenary about a book here. This is a discussion group; "read this book" "look at that link" is sometime accepted within a discussion stream, but doesn't substitute a discussion. Where is your explanation about natural genetic engineering and the imbedded design in living things to evolve? Why are you always talking about Dr. Shapiro when you should be presenting your case for an idea, where of course you are free to say that your explanation is based on what you have learned from Dr.
Shapiro. But it won't always work if you keep telling us: "go learn from Dr. Shapiro."
Kamran: I have posted many times on how it is literally impossible for
even the Creator to design an evolvable "living thing." To settle this once
an for all, can you isolate any part of the above example according to
which you or Mr. Shapiro believe living things are desigend to evolve???
This is a chance for you to elaborately explain why you have come to the
conclusion that living things are designed to evolve, and then I will
explain to you how they are not.
Charles P: The book explains it better than I can. Please repeat the part
that you posted that is "answered empirically and verifiably". I am sure
that you have done your homework and can find some Internet links to
support your ideas. Kamran, your ideas are valuable and if Dr. Shapiro is
incorrect, then there must exist somewhere on the Internet some scientific
evidence to support your ideas.
Kamran: No one is responsible for another person's ability to grasp the imbedded empiricism and veracity within an explanation built on evidentiary references and logical arguments. As I mentioned, if you post your defense of natural genetic engineering here, I will once again explain to you that there is no such thing as natural genetic engineering and furthermore that living things are not designed to (physically) evolve, if by evolution you mean man can be the end product of bacteria+evolution through the alleged process of natural genetic engineering. As for evidence for the arguments that I will be making, suggest you start with your explanation about how living things are designed to evolve, and then you'll see whether my counter argument needs external supportive links or is pretty much self-explanatory.
(Charles P posts)
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
Kamran: Yes I am sure when someone wants to establish a different third party in the US, the two dominant parties will do everything they can to help him/her get on the ballot in all the states.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
- 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
Stochastic: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/stochastic Involving chance
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]