Re: The HP Way

John Larkin wrote:
On Tue, 19 Sep 2006 10:07:09 +0200, David Brown
<david@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

John Larkin wrote:
On Mon, 18 Sep 2006 09:53:26 +0200, David Brown
<david@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

John Larkin wrote:
On Fri, 15 Sep 2006 11:06:27 +0200, David Brown
<david@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


As far as I can figure out, you are not aware of the concept of levels of abstraction.
This is hilarious. I make the plausible argument that evolution has
resulted in DNA using sophisticated meta-mechanisms that themselves
drive evolution more efficiently than random base-pair mutation. And
you counter with the argument that I can't understand abstraction!

As I said, as soon as evolution is mentioned, you can hear brains
switching into low-power standby mode in all directions.

John


I give up, at least for this thread - there is just no point in going on here. Sometimes when we discuss this topic, I feel we make some progress in understanding each others' viewpoints, but I think we are at a dead-end here.

Of course you give up. From your perspective, refusing to consider
ideas is winning.

I've failed to win, in that I haven't your point, nor made you understand my point. I've also failed to stop digging.

What's interesting is that I've tried this experiment many times here,
suggesting that DNA *must* have evolved better evolutionary mechanisms
than random base-pair damage. And lots of people have argued against
the concept. But *not one* person has chosen, even conditionally, to
riff on the idea. And this in a "design" newsgroup!

Can I list a few points, and see what you agree on?

There are many ways for DNA change other than random base-pair damage. Some, like virus DNA swapping, are fairly accidental. But others of these ways are better, and evolved in higher-order organisms as better methods - sex is a pretty good example. In humans, random base-pair damage occurs much less than in, say, bacteria, as we have evolved better error correcting mechanisms and alternative and more productive sources of variation.

All these mechanisms are random. Evolution is a process of random changes and natural "survival of the fittest" selection.

Any non-random changes would imply guidance of some sort, which requires something/someone which can see the DNA, the effects changes might cause, and evaluate what DNA changes would provide useful effects on the organism as a whole. Humans have started dabbling with such things, with limited success in some areas, and some people (neither you nor I, I think) believe some sort of "intelligent designer" provides the guidance.

I have seen no reason to suppose that random evolution could not have produced the life we see around us.

Right. Things could have started that way. And bacteria are a lot more
numerous and "expendable" than, say, mammals, so bacteria can do fine
with random mutation as the source of variation.


*All* organisms we know of do fine with random mutation.

Again I ask, have you the slightest hint of any evidence to the contrary? As Bill said in another post, scientists will react when the see evidence. It had better be dramatic evidence before it will sway the mainstream, but I'd be happy to hear of anything you can come up with.

Further, I can see no way that DNA could in itself guide evolution in any way

Doesn't DNA itself evolve? And why wouldn't it evolve better
mechanisms of evolution itself? Your last sentence is equivalent to
declaring that you don't believe in evolution. Well, I do.

You accept that the creatures defined by their DNA evolve; what's so
hard to accept about the idea the functionality of DNA is *itself*
subject to evolution?


DNA evolved - the evidence that it has changed over time can be seen in the occasional organism that uses a different base molecule, even though most have settled on the standard four letters. Mechanisms for copying and changing the DNA have also evolved. But the idea of evolution - changes through random mutations and selections - is in a different category altogether. The concept exists independently of life, and can be applied to many other things. It is not something that developed or evolved from or with DNA. What you are suggesting is some mechanism beyond evolution. I'll grant that just because neither I nor any biologist can think of any plausible mechanism, it does not mean that it could not happen. But there is no need, no reason, and no evidence for such a concept. To a scientist, there is therefore no reason to pursue the idea further.

Here's a suggestion for you to think about. Suppose there *were* some way for DNA to discover flaws in its surrounding organism, the deduce changes that could improve on these flaws, and make these changes to itself. That would be very much more resource-intensive than the "normal" DNA work of providing protein patterns, duplicating cells, and the like. You would require some very specialised cells to do this work (having it in every cell's nucleus would be grossly inefficient), with much more activity than other cells, and with all sorts of feedback mechanisms for monitoring the organism as a whole. Call it naive faith in science, but I think if such a system existed, someone would have noticed.

If, however, you dispel the requirement that this is all directly involving and controlled by the DNA, then the answer is obvious. It's called sex. Animals actively choose mates based (partly) on a desire to produce offspring that are better than the current generation.



- there is simply no way for the DNA to view the organism as a whole or predict its future - it's not *that* complex a system.

It's the most complex thing on the planet. If I survive a virus

We know a great deal about DNA, actually. There is a lot more still to learn, especially in biology in general, but a lot of the fundamentals about DNA are understood.

attack, my immune system learns, usually for life, to recognize that
virus and immediately attack it. That becomes encoded into my immune
system's cells somewhere. Why not pass that along to my sperm cells,
so my kids can take advantage of it? If that mechanism is even
possible, it would be very strongly selected for; and it's certainly
not impossible.


It is possible - but not for you. Certainly your immune system learns, but that information is not passed along in sperm cells (it's your immune system that learns, not the sperm cells). It's a very different matter for women - there are all sorts of mechanisms for passing information on to their children in addition to inherited nucleic DNA. There is DNA and other bits and pieces in the egg cell outside the nucleus, and the kid spends nine months swapping blood with the mother. After that, they get a lot of antibodies (and therefore inherit some of the learned wisdom about diseases) through their mother's milk.

In other words, what you are suggesting is not only possible (although from the mother, not the father), but occurs all the time. It is, however, not at the DNA level - there is a great deal more to defining an organism than just its DNA.


Why did the 1918 flu die out?


I don't know exactly - there are many things that influence the comings and goings of epidemics. But if you have some idea why the question is relevant here, then let me know.


Can I absolutely and unequivocally rule it out? No, of course I can't - but such theories are at the philosophical levels along with questions as to whether we are all really here, or just part of my imagination.

They will remain philosophical until someone does serious research to
find examples. Meanwhile, they are heretical, hence hard to fund.


People do "heretical" research all the time. It generally requires a higher standard of evidence to get mainstream scientists to pay attention, but if your theory is worth pursuing, someone will look into it sooner or later. Meanwhile, I am still waiting to hear any hint of evidence or research - even if it is not serious.


You have regularly claimed that non-random evolution not only could exist, but should exist or even *must* exist. Yet you have not offered the slightest proof, or even the vaguest theory, as to how that might be the case.

The theory is called "evolution." And yes, it's still vague.

I'm not a biologist. But I do believe in evolution, and evolution
selects the mechanisms that work best.

John

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Any Christian Electronic Designers Here?
    ... Evolution practically demands it. ... are the actual mechanisms and how did they get started. ... the fact that the DNA needs us to carry it around in red sports cars ... Consciousness and in particular certain US cult religions also create major genetic defects in their adherents that would never get past any medical ethics committee. ...
    (sci.electronics.design)
  • Re: ID and the Difference Between Spheres and Cubes
    ... The "constant rate" of DNA change is an empirical fact. ... explosion) forms of evolution. ... basic chemistry and biology. ... question of whether the mutations which differentiated humans from apes ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Whats more important, self-organzation or evolution?
    ... Discussions of evolution have been ... Its DNA governs how protein and RNA molecules are built, ... proteins, RNAs, various signalling molecules (some of which are proteins ... "Tarbutniks are small rodentlike animals, which got their name from the ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: The HP Way
    ... drive evolution more efficiently than random base-pair mutation. ... suggesting that DNA *must* have evolved better evolutionary mechanisms ...
    (sci.electronics.design)
  • DNA in nonliving systems
    ... Is my tooth brush made out of DNA? ... of the design of either a living or nonliving system. ... non-compartmentalized models of evolution. ... search algorithm dubbed Directed Exhaustive Search. ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)