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

No ad hominem fallacy, please.

Expand Messages
  • Charles Palm
    Gluadys: I don t know what he means by 21st Century scientific perspective . Does he define or describe what this is? Charles P: I suggest that you read his
    Message 1 of 41 , Nov 23, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      Gluadys: I don't know what he means by "21st Century scientific
      perspective". Does he define or describe what this is?

      Charles P: I suggest that you read his book. Then we can each give our
      opinions about his definitions and descriptions.

      Gluadys: What does he mean by "cognitive cellular operations"? I agree
      that evolving life has far exceeded human ingenuity (we have seen some
      small examples of that in genetic engineering, and I would certainly expect
      much more in natural biology.)

      Charles P: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TVfmUfr8VPA Shapiro commented
      on the Bonnie Bassler video as being a good example of evidence for natural
      genetic engineering. She shows that Vibrio fischeri microbes talk to each
      other. Vibrio fischeri communication occurs without their using a brain.

      Gluadys: What are the "selected cases"? Does he give any examples of how
      "cell cognition" works? Does he see this as a natural process? Does he see
      it as an outcome of evolution?

      Charles P: The book is only 147 pages long, but there are 1,162 references
      that you can scrutinize on the Internet.

      Gluadys: In what respect is it "radically different"?

      Charles P: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_dogma_of_molecular_biology
      Please compare this link to what Shapiro wrote about The Genome As A
      Read-Write (RW) Storage System. Crick*s dogma is that the genome is like a
      read-only (ROM) storage system.

      James A Shapiro: Stated in terms of an electronic metaphor, the view of
      traditional genetics and conventional evolutionary theory is that the
      genome is a read-only memory (ROM) system subject to change by
      stochastic damage and copying errors.

      Gluadys: According to Moran, Shapiro mistates Crick's formulation. If
      Moran is correct that would be a flaw in Shapiro's argument.

      Charles P: Please read the book and follow Shapiro*s blog.

      James A Shapiro blog: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-a-shapiro/

      James A Shapiro answer to Moran:
      http://shapiro.bsd.uchicago.edu/Reply%20to%20Larry%20Moran.pdf

      Gluadys: You seem to be citing a lot of empty narrative, but never citing
      the actual substance of his concepts. What cases? What new conceptual
      territory?

      Charles P: I am responsible if it seems to you to be *empty narrative*. I
      truly appreciate this opportunity to discuss natural genetic engineering
      with you, Gluadys. I learn from my mistakes and I will do my best to share
      what I have learned with you and others here on Origins Talk. It is all
      open to scrutiny. At the end of these discussions, we can agree to
      disagree but we will all be winners. In a debate filled with rhetoric,
      there is only one winner and a lot of losers.

      Gluadys: ok. The discovery of the structure of the DNA molecule and how it
      replicates itself, and how it is modified has certainly revealed a great
      deal. It is interesting that virtually all advances in the theory of
      evolution have focused on two topics: how is genetic information inherited
      and how is inherited genetic information modified. What hasn't changed is
      that both of these remain subject to selection. Darwin's original insight
      has hardly been modified at all, except to include neutral selection
      (=genetic drift).

      Charles P: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_drift We should be
      thankful that Darwin made a science out of biology that went far beyond
      just classifying living things in the same way scientist classify
      non-living things. Genetic drift shows us a lot of theory but no empirical
      and verifiable evidence to discuss.

      Gluadys: What is his definition or description of "conventional
      evolutionary theory"? What does he mean by "chance" or "accident"? The
      precise meaning used by most scientists is "random with respect to
      fitness". That is rather different than say "a fluke". What new mechanism
      is he proposing for the generation of novel genetic material that is not
      random with respect to fitness?

      Charles P: After you have read his book, we can discuss this in more
      detail.

      Gluadys: I don't know that sentience and cognition should be so blithely
      equated. An organism can be sentient and response to what it senses without
      having cognitive faculties. Yes, cells are built to evolve, but isn't that
      to be expected as an outcome of the evolution of the cell in the first
      place? What alternative, if any, is he proposing?

      Charles P: Are you searching for a reason not to read his book? Coyne and
      Moran tried that by assuming that Shapiro was just another scientist
      writing another book about the same old stuff. I have documented their
      negative comments in my previous messages that are open to scrutiny.

      Gluadys: Why this reference? It seems it does not come from Shapiro's
      book. Are you reading more into his material than is warranted?

      Charles P: Please do not continue searching for reasons to disagree with
      me. The empirical and verifiable description for the origin and diversity
      of life is not about you and me. This is our opportunity to share with
      others here on Origins Talk sufficient information so that each person can
      interpret the evidence as they decide for themselves. This subject too
      important for one of us to seem like a winner of a debate.

      Gluadys: That is not a conclusion about the process of evolution. Please
      answer more directly to the point.

      Charles P: Not yet. Remember this discussion is not about you and me. I
      do not wish to debate personal philosophies. Let us present here the
      evidence for the origin and diversity of life and let each reader decide
      for themselves what the most recent *tentative truth* is.

      Gluadys: Shapiro obviously has done some interesting research and thinking
      on genomic change. What is not clear so far, is how that relates to his
      thinking on evolution. Charles' conclusions are still a mystery so there
      is no conclusion to be made about them.

      Charles P: That is a good thing. This is no longer about you and me. It
      is about how each reader here on Origins Talk will interpret the evidence
      for themselves.

      Gluadys: Why does Shapiro want to introduce a supernatural element into
      his understanding of genomic change? How does he describe the functioning
      of a supernatural agent in respect of biological material like the genome?

      Charles P: Shapiro is a scientist and a science writer. His ideas of
      natural genetic engineering can be embraced by non-religious people and by
      religious people. Design is self evident, not a religious theory.
      Teleology is self evident, not a religious theory.

      Gluadys: Why? Does Shapiro discuss teleology or is this an addition by
      Charles?

      Charles P: Shapiro is too smart to use the word *teleology* in his book.
      That is left up to the readers to interpret for themselves.

      ********************************************************************************

      http://www.binscorner.com/pages/r/retired-life.html Working people
      frequently ask retired people what they do to make their days interesting.
      Well, for example, the other day my wife and I went into town and visited a
      shop. When we came out, there was a cop writing out a parking ticket. We
      went up to him and I said, *Come on, man, how about giving a senior citizen
      a break?*

      He ignored us and continued writing the ticket. I called him an *(ad
      hominem)* . He glared at me and started writing another ticket for having
      worn-out tires. So my wife called him a *(ad hominem)*. He finished the
      second ticket and put it on the windshield with the first. Then he started
      writing more tickets. This went on for about 20 minutes. The more we
      abused him, the more tickets he wrote.

      Just then our bus arrived, and we got on it and went home. We try to have a
      little fun each day now that we're retired. It's important at our age.


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Charles Palm
      Gluadys: I don t know what he means by 21st Century scientific perspective . Does he define or describe what this is? Charles P: I suggest that you read his
      Message 41 of 41 , Nov 23, 2012
      • 0 Attachment
        Gluadys: I don't know what he means by "21st Century scientific
        perspective". Does he define or describe what this is?

        Charles P: I suggest that you read his book. Then we can each give our
        opinions about his definitions and descriptions.

        Gluadys: What does he mean by "cognitive cellular operations"? I agree
        that evolving life has far exceeded human ingenuity (we have seen some
        small examples of that in genetic engineering, and I would certainly expect
        much more in natural biology.)

        Charles P: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TVfmUfr8VPA Shapiro commented
        on the Bonnie Bassler video as being a good example of evidence for natural
        genetic engineering. She shows that Vibrio fischeri microbes talk to each
        other. Vibrio fischeri communication occurs without their using a brain.

        Gluadys: What are the "selected cases"? Does he give any examples of how
        "cell cognition" works? Does he see this as a natural process? Does he see
        it as an outcome of evolution?

        Charles P: The book is only 147 pages long, but there are 1,162 references
        that you can scrutinize on the Internet.

        Gluadys: In what respect is it "radically different"?

        Charles P: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_dogma_of_molecular_biology
        Please compare this link to what Shapiro wrote about The Genome As A
        Read-Write (RW) Storage System. Crick*s dogma is that the genome is like a
        read-only (ROM) storage system.

        James A Shapiro: Stated in terms of an electronic metaphor, the view of
        traditional genetics and conventional evolutionary theory is that the
        genome is a read-only memory (ROM) system subject to change by
        stochastic damage and copying errors.

        Gluadys: According to Moran, Shapiro mistates Crick's formulation. If
        Moran is correct that would be a flaw in Shapiro's argument.

        Charles P: Please read the book and follow Shapiro*s blog.

        James A Shapiro blog: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-a-shapiro/

        James A Shapiro answer to Moran:
        http://shapiro.bsd.uchicago.edu/Reply%20to%20Larry%20Moran.pdf

        Gluadys: You seem to be citing a lot of empty narrative, but never citing
        the actual substance of his concepts. What cases? What new conceptual
        territory?

        Charles P: I am responsible if it seems to you to be *empty narrative*. I
        truly appreciate this opportunity to discuss natural genetic engineering
        with you, Gluadys. I learn from my mistakes and I will do my best to share
        what I have learned with you and others here on Origins Talk. It is all
        open to scrutiny. At the end of these discussions, we can agree to
        disagree but we will all be winners. In a debate filled with rhetoric,
        there is only one winner and a lot of losers.

        Gluadys: ok. The discovery of the structure of the DNA molecule and how it
        replicates itself, and how it is modified has certainly revealed a great
        deal. It is interesting that virtually all advances in the theory of
        evolution have focused on two topics: how is genetic information inherited
        and how is inherited genetic information modified. What hasn't changed is
        that both of these remain subject to selection. Darwin's original insight
        has hardly been modified at all, except to include neutral selection
        (=genetic drift).

        Charles P: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_drift We should be
        thankful that Darwin made a science out of biology that went far beyond
        just classifying living things in the same way scientist classify
        non-living things. Genetic drift shows us a lot of theory but no empirical
        and verifiable evidence to discuss.

        Gluadys: What is his definition or description of "conventional
        evolutionary theory"? What does he mean by "chance" or "accident"? The
        precise meaning used by most scientists is "random with respect to
        fitness". That is rather different than say "a fluke". What new mechanism
        is he proposing for the generation of novel genetic material that is not
        random with respect to fitness?

        Charles P: After you have read his book, we can discuss this in more
        detail.

        Gluadys: I don't know that sentience and cognition should be so blithely
        equated. An organism can be sentient and response to what it senses without
        having cognitive faculties. Yes, cells are built to evolve, but isn't that
        to be expected as an outcome of the evolution of the cell in the first
        place? What alternative, if any, is he proposing?

        Charles P: Are you searching for a reason not to read his book? Coyne and
        Moran tried that by assuming that Shapiro was just another scientist
        writing another book about the same old stuff. I have documented their
        negative comments in my previous messages that are open to scrutiny.

        Gluadys: Why this reference? It seems it does not come from Shapiro's
        book. Are you reading more into his material than is warranted?

        Charles P: Please do not continue searching for reasons to disagree with
        me. The empirical and verifiable description for the origin and diversity
        of life is not about you and me. This is our opportunity to share with
        others here on Origins Talk sufficient information so that each person can
        interpret the evidence as they decide for themselves. This subject too
        important for one of us to seem like a winner of a debate.

        Gluadys: That is not a conclusion about the process of evolution. Please
        answer more directly to the point.

        Charles P: Not yet. Remember this discussion is not about you and me. I
        do not wish to debate personal philosophies. Let us present here the
        evidence for the origin and diversity of life and let each reader decide
        for themselves what the most recent *tentative truth* is.

        Gluadys: Shapiro obviously has done some interesting research and thinking
        on genomic change. What is not clear so far, is how that relates to his
        thinking on evolution. Charles' conclusions are still a mystery so there
        is no conclusion to be made about them.

        Charles P: That is a good thing. This is no longer about you and me. It
        is about how each reader here on Origins Talk will interpret the evidence
        for themselves.

        Gluadys: Why does Shapiro want to introduce a supernatural element into
        his understanding of genomic change? How does he describe the functioning
        of a supernatural agent in respect of biological material like the genome?

        Charles P: Shapiro is a scientist and a science writer. His ideas of
        natural genetic engineering can be embraced by non-religious people and by
        religious people. Design is self evident, not a religious theory.
        Teleology is self evident, not a religious theory.

        Gluadys: Why? Does Shapiro discuss teleology or is this an addition by
        Charles?

        Charles P: Shapiro is too smart to use the word *teleology* in his book.
        That is left up to the readers to interpret for themselves.

        ********************************************************************************

        http://www.binscorner.com/pages/r/retired-life.html Working people
        frequently ask retired people what they do to make their days interesting.
        Well, for example, the other day my wife and I went into town and visited a
        shop. When we came out, there was a cop writing out a parking ticket. We
        went up to him and I said, *Come on, man, how about giving a senior citizen
        a break?*

        He ignored us and continued writing the ticket. I called him an *(ad
        hominem)* . He glared at me and started writing another ticket for having
        worn-out tires. So my wife called him a *(ad hominem)*. He finished the
        second ticket and put it on the windshield with the first. Then he started
        writing more tickets. This went on for about 20 minutes. The more we
        abused him, the more tickets he wrote.

        Just then our bus arrived, and we got on it and went home. We try to have a
        little fun each day now that we're retired. It's important at our age.


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