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

How Do Living Things Morph Over Time?

Expand Messages
  • Charles Palm
    Spiders Have Eight (Well-Designed) Eyes: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/10/halloween_creat065551.html No matter how cool or well-designed the adaption,
    Message 1 of 7 , Nov 7, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      Spiders Have Eight (Well-Designed) Eyes:
      http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/10/halloween_creat065551.html No matter
      how cool or well-designed the adaption, just say it evolved. It's a "really
      cool step in evolution." It's a "different pathway evolution has taken."
      The blind, aimless, purposeless process of natural selection gave spiders a
      "very extensive visual system." Turn in your paper and get an A.

      The Optical Society:
      http://www.osa.org/en-us/about_osa/newsroom/newsreleases/2012/eco-friendly_optics_spider_silks_hidden/
      ECO-FRIENDLY
      OPTICS: SPIDER SILK�S HIDDEN TALENTS BROUGHT TO LIGHT FOR APPLICATIONS IN
      BIOSENSORS, LASERS, MICROCHIPS. (Source used capital letters).

      Silk, the ancient material of the future:
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vqqWw3xkMzA Fiorenzo Omenetto shares 20+
      astonishing new uses for silk, one of nature's most elegant materials -- in
      transmitting light, improving sustainability, adding strength and making
      medical leaps and bounds. On stage, he shows a few intriguing items made of
      the versatile stuff.

      Evolution News And Views: Fiorenzo Omenetto presented his work in a superb
      TED Talk that raised the audience to their feet without him once mentioning
      evolution. And he is getting grants from the NSF!


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Charles Palm
      High altitude adaptations: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/huertasanchez_01 In this research profile, we will explore these key questions: 1
      Message 2 of 7 , Nov 8, 2012
      • 0 Attachment
        High altitude adaptations:
        http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/huertasanchez_01 In this
        research profile, we will explore these key questions:

        1 What is the difference between acclimatization and adaptation?

        2 How are allele frequencies used to identify cases of recent natural
        selection?

        3 How can mathematical modeling be used to learn about evolutionary
        history?

        4 How can changes in non-coding DNA lead to evolutionary change?

        The Mysteries Of Tibet:
        http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/huertasanchez_02

        A Gene First Approach:
        http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/huertasanchez_03

        Close Genetic Ties:
        http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/huertasanchez_04

        Narrowing Down The Candidates:
        http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/huertasanchez_05

        Evolution Is An Equation:
        http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/huertasanchez_06

        A Gene In Control:
        http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/huertasanchez_07

        Intron Intrigue:
        http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/huertasanchez_08

        Pinpointing The Target Of Selection:
        http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/huertasanchez_09

        Digging Deep Into High Altitude Living:
        http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/huertasanchez_10

        James A Shapiro: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/OriginsTalk/message/29246 The
        role of selection is to eliminate evolutionary novelties that prove
        to be non-functional and interfere with adaptive needs. Selection
        operates as a purifying but not creative force. Evolutionary inventions
        that survive purifying selection and prove useful are subject to
        microevolutionary refinement, perhaps by the kind of processes envisaged in
        conventional theories.

        Charles P: How Do Living Things Morph Over Time? "Living cells and
        organisms are cognitive (sentient) entities that act and interact
        purposefully to ensure survival, growth, and proliferation. They possess
        corresponding sensory, communication, information-processing, and
        decision-making capabilities", "Evolution: A View From The 21st Century",
        p.143.

        1 We can accept the above scientific writing about high altitude
        adaptations as axiomatic. "How" does any empirical and verifiable evidence
        from the above scientific writing support the idea that natural selection
        is a creative process?

        2 Which of the nine basic principles of natural genetic engineering are
        contradicted by the empirical and verifiable evidence from the above
        scientific writing?

        3 "Why" would anyone think that natural genetic engineering requires
        living cells and organisms to have a brain to be cognizant (sentient)?

        Bonnie Bassler: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TVfmUfr8VPA The secret
        social lives of bacteria. This video shows us that the bacteria, Vibrio
        fischeri, are able to know when they are alone and they create no light.
        When they reach a certain population number, they act together to produce
        light. The bacteria know how to assemble the right chemicals from their
        environment for the purpose of creating bioluminescence. The bacteria
        "talk" to each other without having a brain. Bonnie Bassler discovered
        that bacteria "talk" to each other, using a chemical language that lets
        them coordinate defense and mount attacks. The find has stunning
        implications for medicine, industry -- and our understanding of ourselves.

        James A Shapiro: Living cells and organisms are cognitive (sentient)
        entities that act and interact purposefully to ensure survival, growth, and
        proliferation. They possess corresponding sensory, communication,
        information-processing,and decision-making capabilities.


        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • stewart8724
        High altitude adaptations: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/huertasanchez_01 In this research profile, we will explore these key questions: 1
        Message 3 of 7 , Nov 9, 2012
        • 0 Attachment
          High altitude adaptations:
          http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/huertasanchez_01 In this
          research profile, we will explore these key questions:

          1 What is the difference between acclimatization and adaptation?
          (The first can be achieved by individuals and the second is acquired by the evolution of a population. An example would be that humans can acclimatise to live more comfortably in the desert by adjusting their activity and in turn their body temperature, thereby reducing water loss. Camels have evolved (adapted) to recycle water from their urine directly into their blood stream, eliminating water loss almost completely).

          2 How are allele frequencies used to identify cases of recent natural
          selection?
          (I don't know)

          3 How can mathematical modeling be used to learn about evolutionary
          history?
          (I don't know)

          4 How can changes in non-coding DNA lead to evolutionary change?
          (I don't know)

          James A Shapiro: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/OriginsTalk/message/29246 The
          role of selection is to eliminate evolutionary novelties that prove
          to be non-functional and interfere with adaptive needs. Selection
          operates as a purifying but not creative force. Evolutionary inventions
          that survive purifying selection and prove useful are subject to
          microevolutionary refinement, perhaps by the kind of processes envisaged in
          conventional theories.

          Charles P: How Do Living Things Morph Over Time?

          Stewart: Caterpillars pupate and become Butterflies. Silk worms use this method too as do various other insects. Is this what you meant?

          Cha:"Living cells and organisms are cognitive (sentient) entities that act and interact
          purposefully to ensure survival, growth, and proliferation. They possess
          corresponding sensory, communication, information-processing, and
          decision-making capabilities", "Evolution: A View From The 21st Century",
          p.143.

          Stewart: Where is the evidence that they make decisions? You wouldn't want to write something that wasn't verifiable or scientific would you Charlie boy?

          Cha:
          1 We can accept the above scientific writing about high altitude
          adaptations as axiomatic. "How" does any empirical and verifiable evidence
          from the above scientific writing support the idea that natural selection
          is a creative process?

          Stewart: The above writing claims that it is 'not' a creative process so this would seem to be a loaded question.
          Screen directors, writers, actors and production companies make films. They are all part of the creative process. Audiences are not part of the creative process, audiences pay to see the films and producers finance the production on the strength of public preferences.
          Although we have not included the audience in the creative process, it is without doubt the audience that determines the nature of vast amount of 'flicks' that are made. Audiences are the natural selection element in cinema, what is consumed is reproduced because consumption equals success. In this analogy the audience represent the environment. Natural selection in Evolution operates on the same principle, no one apart from you claims that natural selection is creative in any way other than this.
          Sometimes films are made that change the public's tastes, these seminal creations tend to spawn other productions of the same ilk. Sometimes a species can change its environment just as dramatically, and round and round we go.


          2 Which of the nine basic principles of natural genetic engineering are
          contradicted by the empirical and verifiable evidence from the above
          scientific writing?

          Stewart: If you're talking about the 'High altitude adaptations' article, one has nothing to do with the other. Adaptations for living at altitude are genetic modifications in a population. Shapiro's musings on the capabilities of individual cells (within an individual) to intelligently modify themselves at will, is a completely different issue.


          3 "Why" would anyone think that natural genetic engineering requires
          living cells and organisms to have a brain to be cognizant (sentient)?

          Stewart: Because cognisant means (conscious, awake, aware etc.) In order to be these things one must have the hardware, cells lack this hardware and so must be considered unconscious, unaware, unfeeling, senseless. They may well be able to detect other elements but this is not sentience it is chemistry. Similarly a magnet can attract a nail without 'knowing' it's there, so effect does not indicate purpose.

          Cha:
          Bonnie Bassler: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TVfmUfr8VPA The secret
          social lives of bacteria. This video shows us that the bacteria, Vibrio
          fischeri, are able to know when they are alone and they create no light.
          When they reach a certain population number, they act together to produce
          light. The bacteria know how to assemble the right chemicals from their
          environment for the purpose of creating bioluminescence. The bacteria
          "talk" to each other without having a brain. Bonnie Bassler discovered
          that bacteria "talk" to each other, using a chemical language that lets
          them coordinate defense and mount attacks. The find has stunning
          implications for medicine, industry -- and our understanding of ourselves.

          Stewart: There are anti-bodies inside us which perform similarly useful functions, do you propose that the anti-bodies 'know' what they're doing? Do you propose that they speak to each other to say that they've detected a threat? Or is it possibly an unconscious, automatic chemical reaction?


          James A Shapiro: Living cells and organisms are cognitive (sentient)
          entities that act and interact purposefully to ensure survival, growth, and
          proliferation. They possess corresponding sensory, communication,
          information-processing,and decision-making capabilities.

          Stewart: Is your theory that if you repeat this claim often enough, it will by some osmosis become the truth?


          Gluadys: Thank you. For the first time you have admitted that you do not
          understand the basic theory of evolution and how it works through time. How
          othen can you possibly identify what evidence supports the theory and what
          evidence would not support it?

          Charles P: No ad hominem fallacy statements, please. You are jumping to
          vast conclusions with half-vast data. I probably understand the basic
          theory of evolution better than you do, (WHAT!!!) but that is not important. We can
          all learn something from each other. The empirical and verifiable evidence
          is the same for all of us; we only differ in our interpretations of that
          evidence.

          Stewart: Only you differ in your interpretations which is why you understand so little.

          Cha: The description for the origin and diversity of life is about
          empirical and verifiable evidence. You have not presented any empirical
          and verifiable evidence that contradicts natural genetic engineering.

          Stewart: You haven't provided any evidence that supports it. You provided opinions that it happens, you've shown that chemistry is real, but nothing to show that cells are operating independently and intelligently.


          Gluadys: Tell me if you agree that these are observed events.
          DNA is contained in every living cell.
          DNA is replicated in a
          parent cell and inherited by a daughter cell.
          DNA is not always replicated with absolute faithfulness. Therefore, replication sometimes produces
          alternate versions of a DNA sequence. Therefore, as a population of cells
          reproduces, the DNA sequences in the population of daughter cells vary from
          one individual to another.

          Charles P: I agree that these are observed events. The discussion is
          supposed to be about natural genetic engineering. My guess is that you
          have not bothered to read the book. That's OK. You have a lot of other
          more important things to do, I am sure.

          Stewart: Don't we all?


          Charles P: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/OriginsTalk/message/29246 My
          Message #29,246 explains the nine basic principles of natural genetic
          engineering. Here are some important conclusions reached from 1,162
          references clearly documented in his book.

          1 Organisms behave purposefully. (But not intelligently)

          2 Organisms evolve themselves. (But not intentionally)

          3 Selection acts as a purifying but not a creative force. (But it determines the course of evolution)

          4 Organisms evolve by intentionally modifying their own DNA in response to
          environmental pressure. (No they don't matey)

          5 The genome is a read-write (RW) storage system with the organism itself
          deciding when and where to modify its DNA.
          (No actual scientifically verifiable or empirical evidence to support this view)

          That's only five, where are the other four basic principles? I think we're being short changed here.


          Charles P: I suggest that you find a copy of Shapiro's book in your local
          library and read it before we continue our discussions about natural
          genetic engineering.

          Stewart: When I joined this forum Charles was arguing for the great flood of Biblical creationism, he then flirted with the concept of ID creationism. Since then he has misinterpreted geological stratification, dallied in apophenia, championed the contention that apes and humans have no common ancestry, ridiculed the very concept of transitional forms, questioned the scientific estimates of the age of the Earth, struggled to understand the process of fossilisation and scoffed at the scarcity of fossil evidence. He has also recently posited the notion that dinosaurs could still have been around a few thousand years ago, while seeing no reason to associate them biologically with birds.
          During all this he has defended absolutely none of these flights of fancy with any measure of conviction or success. Now we have Natural Genetic Engineering, something which is neither creationism nor evolution (in that it plays no part in speciation). This is the latest in a long line of desperate attempts to find some way to discredit evolutionary theory. I have to say I'm always interested to see what he'll come up with next, if only out of a sense of morbid curiosity. Call me perverse, but there you go.
          It's fair to say that Charles would give mental sanctuary to any idea at all, as long as it's not the screamingly obvious scientific truth of Evolution. This is the guy who so proudly (and quite wrongly) describes himself as open minded.

          ..

          --- In OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com, Charles Palm <palmcharlesUU@...> wrote:
          >
          > High altitude adaptations:
          > http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/huertasanchez_01 In this
          > research profile, we will explore these key questions:
          >
          > 1 What is the difference between acclimatization and adaptation?
          >
          > 2 How are allele frequencies used to identify cases of recent natural
          > selection?
          >
          > 3 How can mathematical modeling be used to learn about evolutionary
          > history?
          >
          > 4 How can changes in non-coding DNA lead to evolutionary change?
          >
          > The Mysteries Of Tibet:
          > http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/huertasanchez_02
          >
          > A Gene First Approach:
          > http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/huertasanchez_03
          >
          > Close Genetic Ties:
          > http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/huertasanchez_04
          >
          > Narrowing Down The Candidates:
          > http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/huertasanchez_05
          >
          > Evolution Is An Equation:
          > http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/huertasanchez_06
          >
          > A Gene In Control:
          > http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/huertasanchez_07
          >
          > Intron Intrigue:
          > http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/huertasanchez_08
          >
          > Pinpointing The Target Of Selection:
          > http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/huertasanchez_09
          >
          > Digging Deep Into High Altitude Living:
          > http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/huertasanchez_10
          >
          > James A Shapiro: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/OriginsTalk/message/29246 The
          > role of selection is to eliminate evolutionary novelties that prove
          > to be non-functional and interfere with adaptive needs. Selection
          > operates as a purifying but not creative force. Evolutionary inventions
          > that survive purifying selection and prove useful are subject to
          > microevolutionary refinement, perhaps by the kind of processes envisaged in
          > conventional theories.
          >
          > Charles P: How Do Living Things Morph Over Time? "Living cells and
          > organisms are cognitive (sentient) entities that act and interact
          > purposefully to ensure survival, growth, and proliferation. They possess
          > corresponding sensory, communication, information-processing, and
          > decision-making capabilities", "Evolution: A View From The 21st Century",
          > p.143.
          >
          > 1 We can accept the above scientific writing about high altitude
          > adaptations as axiomatic. "How" does any empirical and verifiable evidence
          > from the above scientific writing support the idea that natural selection
          > is a creative process?
          >
          > 2 Which of the nine basic principles of natural genetic engineering are
          > contradicted by the empirical and verifiable evidence from the above
          > scientific writing?
          >
          > 3 "Why" would anyone think that natural genetic engineering requires
          > living cells and organisms to have a brain to be cognizant (sentient)?
          >
          > Bonnie Bassler: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TVfmUfr8VPA The secret
          > social lives of bacteria. This video shows us that the bacteria, Vibrio
          > fischeri, are able to know when they are alone and they create no light.
          > When they reach a certain population number, they act together to produce
          > light. The bacteria know how to assemble the right chemicals from their
          > environment for the purpose of creating bioluminescence. The bacteria
          > "talk" to each other without having a brain. Bonnie Bassler discovered
          > that bacteria "talk" to each other, using a chemical language that lets
          > them coordinate defense and mount attacks. The find has stunning
          > implications for medicine, industry -- and our understanding of ourselves.
          >
          > James A Shapiro: Living cells and organisms are cognitive (sentient)
          > entities that act and interact purposefully to ensure survival, growth, and
          > proliferation. They possess corresponding sensory, communication,
          > information-processing,and decision-making capabilities.
          >
          >
          > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          >
        • Charles Palm
          Stewart: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/OriginsTalk/message/29952 Evolution is the process that results from the interaction of genetic strains over many
          Message 4 of 7 , Nov 10, 2012
          • 0 Attachment
            Stewart: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/OriginsTalk/message/29952 Evolution
            is the process that results from the interaction of genetic strains over
            many generations. It does not submit that creatures metamorphose from one
            species into another.

            Charles P: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/lines_03
            Stewart is correct. There is no empirical and verifiable evidence
            that a
            gray whale of today is the descendant of Pakicetus.

            Charles P: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Pakicetus_BW.jpg Stewart is
            correct. There is no empirical and verifiable evidence that a gray whale
            of today is the descendant of Pakicetus.

            Charles P: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WrHpLEUo0lI Stewart is correct.
            There is no empirical and verifiable evidence that a featherless chicken
            is the descendant of a dinosaur.

            Jack Horner: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0QVXdEOiCw8 Time 9:00 to
            10:40. Birds are living dinosaurs. We actually classify them as
            dinosaurs. We now call them non-avian dinosaurs and avian dinosaurs.
            Avian dinosaurs are our modern birds. So, we don't have to make a
            dinosaur. We already have them. The chicken is a dinosaur. You can't
            argue with it because we are the classifiers and we classified it that way.

            Charles P: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/OriginsTalk/message/28565 The
            20th Century version of The Theory of Evolution can't be falsified. It is
            based on definitions that are not supported by empirical and verifiable
            evidence that has been tested and reproduced by others.

            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
            science.

            http://www.amazon.com/Evolution-View-Century-Press-Science/dp/0132780933
            James A. Shapiro's Evolution: A View from the 21st Century proposes an
            important new paradigm for understanding biological evolution. Shapiro
            demonstrates why traditional views of evolution are inadequate to explain
            the latest evidence, and presents a compelling alternative. His
            information- and systems-based approach integrates advances in
            symbiogenesis, epigenetics, and mobile genetic elements, and points toward
            an emerging synthesis of physical, information, and biological sciences.

            James A Shapiro:
            http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-a-shapiro/bob-dylan-encode-and-evol_b_1873935.html
            Thinking of the genome informatically and of mobile DNA as a potent
            force
            for genome organization are central to the arguments presented on this blog
            and in my book.


            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • stewart8724
            Stewart: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/OriginsTalk/message/29952 Evolution is the process that results from the interaction of genetic strains over many
            Message 5 of 7 , Nov 11, 2012
            • 0 Attachment
              Stewart: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/OriginsTalk/message/29952 Evolution
              is the process that results from the interaction of genetic strains over
              many generations. It does not submit that creatures metamorphose from one
              species into another.

              Charles P: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/lines_03
              Stewart is correct. There is no empirical and verifiable evidence
              that a
              gray whale of today is the descendant of Pakicetus.

              Charles P: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Pakicetus_BW.jpg Stewart is
              correct. There is no empirical and verifiable evidence that a gray whale
              of today is the descendant of Pakicetus.

              Charles P: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WrHpLEUo0lI Stewart is correct.
              There is no empirical and verifiable evidence that a featherless chicken
              is the descendant of a dinosaur.

              Stewart: Charles you're embarrassing yourself, you have shown that you fail to understand not only what I tried to tell you, but that you also have no appreciation of how evolution works.
              The examples you mention are not of the metamorphosis of individuals, but of the evolution of species.


              Charles P: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/OriginsTalk/message/28565 The
              20th Century version of The Theory of Evolution can't be falsified. It is
              based on definitions that are not supported by empirical and verifiable
              evidence that has been tested and reproduced by others.

              Stewart: The 19th century Darwinian Theory of Evolution could be falsified simply by showing that a species that evolved from another lived before it. The 19th century theory is based on observable evidence on a broad range of sciences including geology, biology and zoology. It is testable and verified and has not been successfully challenged in 153 years. The biological mechanisms of evolution have also been used by individuals to reproduce the effects of natural selection for many generations, this is known as selective breeding.
              Everything you have posted here is false and without any scientific evidence to suppose that it's true. Do you consider yourself exempt from the rules you set out for the rest of us?


              ..

              --- In OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com, Charles Palm <palmcharlesUU@...> wrote:
              >
              > Stewart: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/OriginsTalk/message/29952 Evolution
              > is the process that results from the interaction of genetic strains over
              > many generations. It does not submit that creatures metamorphose from one
              > species into another.
              >
              > Charles P: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/lines_03
              > Stewart is correct. There is no empirical and verifiable evidence
              > that a
              > gray whale of today is the descendant of Pakicetus.
              >
              > Charles P: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Pakicetus_BW.jpg Stewart is
              > correct. There is no empirical and verifiable evidence that a gray whale
              > of today is the descendant of Pakicetus.
              >
              > Charles P: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WrHpLEUo0lI Stewart is correct.
              > There is no empirical and verifiable evidence that a featherless chicken
              > is the descendant of a dinosaur.
              >
              > Jack Horner: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0QVXdEOiCw8 Time 9:00 to
              > 10:40. Birds are living dinosaurs. We actually classify them as
              > dinosaurs. We now call them non-avian dinosaurs and avian dinosaurs.
              > Avian dinosaurs are our modern birds. So, we don't have to make a
              > dinosaur. We already have them. The chicken is a dinosaur. You can't
              > argue with it because we are the classifiers and we classified it that way.
              >
              > Charles P: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/OriginsTalk/message/28565 The
              > 20th Century version of The Theory of Evolution can't be falsified. It is
              > based on definitions that are not supported by empirical and verifiable
              > evidence that has been tested and reproduced by others.
              >
              > 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
              > science.
              >
              > http://www.amazon.com/Evolution-View-Century-Press-Science/dp/0132780933
              > James A. Shapiro's Evolution: A View from the 21st Century proposes an
              > important new paradigm for understanding biological evolution. Shapiro
              > demonstrates why traditional views of evolution are inadequate to explain
              > the latest evidence, and presents a compelling alternative. His
              > information- and systems-based approach integrates advances in
              > symbiogenesis, epigenetics, and mobile genetic elements, and points toward
              > an emerging synthesis of physical, information, and biological sciences.
              >
              > James A Shapiro:
              > http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-a-shapiro/bob-dylan-encode-and-evol_b_1873935.html
              > Thinking of the genome informatically and of mobile DNA as a potent
              > force
              > for genome organization are central to the arguments presented on this blog
              > and in my book.
              >
              >
              > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              >
            • Charles Palm
              Stewart: The examples you mention are not of the metamorphosis of individuals, but of the evolution of species. Charles P: Thank you, Stewart, for your
              Message 6 of 7 , Nov 11, 2012
              • 0 Attachment
                Stewart: The examples you mention are not of the metamorphosis of
                individuals, but of the evolution of species.

                Charles P: Thank you, Stewart, for your ideas.

                Kathryn Schulz:
                http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QleRgTBMX88&feature=relmfu Time
                10:00 to 15:55. You think that your beliefs perfectly reflect reality.
                How do you explain it to those who disagree with you? Most of us make a
                series of unfortunate assumptions.

                1 The Ignorance Assumption.

                2 The Idiocy Assumption.

                3 The Evil Assumption.

                Kathryn Schulz: We generate these incredible stories about the world
                around us and then the world turns around and astonishes us.


                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • stewart8724
                Stewart: The examples you mention are not of the metamorphosis of individuals, but of the evolution of species. Charles P: Thank you, Stewart, for your ideas.
                Message 7 of 7 , Nov 13, 2012
                • 0 Attachment
                  Stewart: The examples you mention are not of the metamorphosis of
                  individuals, but of the evolution of species.

                  Charles P: Thank you, Stewart, for your ideas.

                  Stewart: You're welcome.

                  Kathryn Schulz:
                  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QleRgTBMX88&feature=relmfu Time
                  10:00 to 15:55. You think that your beliefs perfectly reflect reality.
                  How do you explain it to those who disagree with you? Most of us make a
                  series of unfortunate assumptions.

                  1 The Ignorance Assumption.

                  2 The Idiocy Assumption.

                  3 The Evil Assumption.

                  Kathryn Schulz: We generate these incredible stories about the world
                  around us and then the world turns around and astonishes us.

                  Stewart: Exactly. Take heed of these words Charles and with hard work you need not continue making such mistakes in the future. You have succeeded in identifying that you are prone to these crazy assumptions, which is a good sign that you are capable of dealing with your problem. This is a big step forward, well done Charles. One day at a time mate, one day at a time.


                  ..

                  --- In OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com, Charles Palm <palmcharlesUU@...> wrote:
                  >
                  > Stewart: The examples you mention are not of the metamorphosis of
                  > individuals, but of the evolution of species.
                  >
                  > Charles P: Thank you, Stewart, for your ideas.
                  >
                  > Kathryn Schulz:
                  > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QleRgTBMX88&feature=relmfu Time
                  > 10:00 to 15:55. You think that your beliefs perfectly reflect reality.
                  > How do you explain it to those who disagree with you? Most of us make a
                  > series of unfortunate assumptions.
                  >
                  > 1 The Ignorance Assumption.
                  >
                  > 2 The Idiocy Assumption.
                  >
                  > 3 The Evil Assumption.
                  >
                  > Kathryn Schulz: We generate these incredible stories about the world
                  > around us and then the world turns around and astonishes us.
                  >
                  >
                  > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  >
                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.