Living things are designed to evolve.
- Charles P: Stewart, there is no reason to be afraid of the 21st Century
version of The Theory of Evolution. The scientific evidence can
be embraced by everyone regardless of their religious beliefs or
non-beliefs. You are partially correct in stating that "The Theory of
Evolution doesn't now, nor has it ever considered life to be a deliberate
Charles P: Some scientists do now consider life to be a deliberate design.
Some scientists have always considered life to be a deliberate design.
The stumbling block for some other scientists seems to be the assumption
that if we accept as axiomatic that "living things are designed", it means
that we must also describe The Designer. Accepting something as axiomatic
would imply moving on to find scientific answers to "why" and "how" this
Charles P: Those questions about The Designer can't be answered
empirically and verifiably, so some scientists in the 20th Century rejected
the idea of design in nature. This problem is very similar to the problems
that The Catholic Church had with their dogmas about the earth being the
center of the universe.
David C. Lindberg and Ronald L. Numbers:
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1987/PSCF9-87Lindberg.html#17 Some of the
bloodiest battles, White believed, had been fought during the sixteenth and
seventeenth centuries, the period of the so-called Scientific Revolution,
when powerful church leaders repeatedly tried to silence the pioneers of
modern science. Nicolaus Copernicus, who dared to locate the sun at the
center of the planetary system, risked his very life to publish his
heretical views and escaped "persecution only by death. " Many of his
disciples met a less happy fate: Bruno was "burned alive as a monster of
impiety; Galileo tortured and humiliated as the worst of unbelievers;
Kepler hunted alike by Protestants and Catholics." Andreas Vesalius, the
sixteenth-century physician who laid the foundations of modern anatomy by
insisting on careful first-hand dissection of the human body, paid for his
temerity by being "hunted to death."
Charles P: Stewart, the choice is yours. You can continue to reject every
idea that you disagree with. However, you can't change the fact that more
and more scientists are recognizing that living things are designed to
evolve. You know that you are wrong in assuming that the 20th Century
version of The Theory of Evolution is a complete description for the
diversity of life. That kind of dogma should never be taught in science
classes and is a waste of time here on Origins Talk.
Stewart: What is it called if you continue to make the same mistakes over
and over again, without ever showing any sign of recognising your errors?
Charles P: Stewart is numpty if he continues to make the same mistakes
over and over again, without ever showing any sign of recognizing his
Charles P: The mistake I have made over and over again is to insist that
you consider as axiomatic what James A Shapiro has written. It is my
mistake to assume that you would do your homework before commenting on my
messages. A reasonable person would accept the concept of "living things
are designed to evolve" as being axiomatic. Then, it would be reasonable
to ask questions like "why" and "how" in order to discover something new.
After a thorough discussion of the empirical evidence that has been tested
and verified in 1,162 references, it would be reasonable to agree to
disagree. However, there is the possibility that you might learn something
new instead of wasting your time by repeating the same old 20th Century
dogmas of The Theory of Evolution.
Charles P: The 21st Century version of The Theory of Evolution is showing
us that biology is an information science. The nine basic principles of
natural genetic engineering described by James A Shapiro will help all of
us here on Origins Talk to understand the empirical and verifiable
processes that direct all living things to interact purposefully to ensure
survival, growth, and proliferation.
[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]