Re: The HP Way

John Larkin wrote:
On Mon, 11 Sep 2006 17:08:48 +0100, John Woodgate
<jmw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

In message <u6vag21n6ndkh61ijhbqm5ieqqcm958lgt@xxxxxxx>, dated Mon, 11 Sep 2006, John Larkin <jjlarkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes

How can you know, even using your definition of "mutation", that mutations are always random?
There is no evidence that they are anything other. Occam's Razor.

Why aren't we still using crystal sets? They're simple.


That's a complete non-sequitor.

But if the proteome is shown to be able to cause changes in the DNA of germ cells, thus providing a path for 'inheritance of acquired characteristics', so be it. That doesn't change anything much; it's certainly not radical.

That's only one of many plausible mechanisms, and many more
implausible ones.


There are many mechanisms for making random changes, and there are many mechanisms for limiting those changes. We know how the main ones work, and researchers regularly find new mechanisms. But there is no evidence, anywhere, of any sort of "higher order" controlling intelligence - all changes are random. The point of all the control mechanisms is to allow small random changes while having minimal chances of ending up with something completely broken.

It certainly doesn't make sense that they should be.
Things don't have to make sense, and what makes sense varies with the person sensing. For most people, quantum entanglement doesn't make sense, but for some, it does. It makes perfect sense that radiation, chemicals and copying errors can create random changes in DNA.

And it makes perfect sense that DNA should itself include redundancy
and should encode repair mechanisms to cancel most or maybe even all
of those random changes.


DNA *does* include redundancy and repair mechanisms to cancel most of these changes.

You don't redesign circuits boards by firing bullets at them. Well, I
don't.


Circuit boards are a case of "intelligent design", not evolution.

More generally - and this applies to electronic design - when someone
declares, with little or no justification, that something is
impossible, it's because they want it to be impossible. So, for them,
it becomes impossible. I don't hire people who think this way.


You wouldn't hire someone who thought warp drives would be invented within the next five years either - even if you don't like people saying things are impossible.


Of course, in a way your theories of some non-random, intelligent yet non-supernatural and non-religious control of DNA having evolved is correct. It's just not something that the DNA itself affects or controls - it's done by people.

John

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: SETI and the Detection of ID
    ... existence at a time and place when humans did not exist and no other ... My argument is that DNA, by itself, is a very poor artifact to use ... or any other evidence of a technological civilization. ... is not that such mechanisms don't exist, but only that, because you ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: failure
    ... Any creature that had superior adaptive mechanisms would win, so evolution at some point must look on itself, the very mechanisms of evolution, as something to be worked on. ... Small changes in the DNA mechanism have occurred, and will continue to occur, but don't expect anything dramatic. ... While the analogy is not that great (you can design self-replicating "lifeforms" in the Game of Life, but the emphasis is on the "you" - they don't evolve by themselves), your ideas about DNA changing itself are analogous to a Game of Life "organism" changing the rules of the Game of Life - a sort of "meta evolution". ...
    (sci.electronics.design)
  • Re: Intelligent Design is for lying cowards who deny their God
    ... >evidence, are not intelligent or directed, and that there is no evidence for ... I don't think there is even a need to define the known mechanisms as ... The real distinction between ID and science has always been ID's refusal to ... >of intelligent intervention, only flawed arguments that known causes could ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Finding useful functions- part 1
    ... In article, David Longley ... >>may share mechanisms in common. ... bold assertion. ... the evidence as I've already done so ad nauseam to no avail not to ...
    (sci.cognitive)
  • Re: Scientific Dissent on Darwinism
    ... mechanisms which drive the evolutionary process has increased ... Species by Means of Natural Selection: ... Evolution proceeded. ... we haven't seen any discussion of concrete evidence ...
    (talk.origins)