tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post6275280593361013885..comments2024-03-27T14:50:47.345-04:00Comments on <center>Sandwalk</center>: Facilitated VariationLarry Moranhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comBlogger85125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-73171927832038379962011-09-08T12:29:01.364-04:002011-09-08T12:29:01.364-04:00At least cabbagesofdoom acknowledges that what he ...At least cabbagesofdoom acknowledges that what he said was false. <br />Even if he feels the need to present a convoluted justification for his false statement.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-7700815390576518462011-09-08T11:23:46.978-04:002011-09-08T11:23:46.978-04:00You are right, I did not use the phrase "Desi...You are right, I did not use the phrase "Design language". I said "Design Mentality" <br /><br />and <br /><br />"I have converted the language of "systems" into the language of biology." <br /><br />Apologies for any confusion. I don't even know if either of these posts were what provoked your needless accusation.<br /><br />Although I was not trying to make it about design "versus" biology, design and biology <i>are</i> different. <br /><br />But this is not worth arguing about.Richard Edwardshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16115218690707131186noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-29622458948987990382011-09-08T11:11:22.403-04:002011-09-08T11:11:22.403-04:00cabbagesofdoom posted:
"I did not say design ...cabbagesofdoom posted:<br />"I did not say design versus biology. <b>I said design <i>language</i> </b>versus biological language."<br /><br />In fact that is incorrect. <br />cabbagesofdoom did not say "design <i>language". </i><br />Does he/she not realize that we can scroll back and see what was said?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-1460263410128308912011-09-06T17:29:49.410-04:002011-09-06T17:29:49.410-04:00It would appear that caggagesofdoom is not used to...It would appear that caggagesofdoom is not used to being called on his spin. <br />When he is called on it he has nothing further to contribute. <br />But that is not unique to him. <br />I have seen this tactic a number of times before.<br />I met one guy who was so good at it that even cabbagesofdoom would be impressed. <br /><br />If anyone else would like to discuss the significance of facilitated variation I am certainly interested.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-26914351960557113692011-09-06T17:21:59.993-04:002011-09-06T17:21:59.993-04:00I did not say design versus biology. I said design...I did not say design versus biology. I said design <i>language</i> versus biological <i>language</i>. Ideas are inherrently shackled to the language in which they are expressed. A biological idea must ultimately be expressed in biological language.<br /><br />I'm getting bored of all these accusations of spin (by, ironically, distorting <i>my</i> words), so I bid all Anonymids farewell. Let me know (using a stable pseudonym) if you ever want to actually discuss any of these ideas.Richard Edwardshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16115218690707131186noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-20787106394874737112011-09-06T17:00:49.858-04:002011-09-06T17:00:49.858-04:00cabbagesofdoom, again you have spun this. As if it...cabbagesofdoom, again you have spun this. As if it is design versus biology when it is all biology. <br />This is why discussion with you is pointless.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-88200170597653983742011-09-06T16:51:48.088-04:002011-09-06T16:51:48.088-04:00I am not that interested in "systems design&q...I am not that interested in "systems design" implications for evolutionary theory if they cannot be framed in biological language. I interpret that as meaning that the systems theory in question has little or no relevance to actual biology. <br /><br />I'll still try to get to the bottom of that Facilitated Variation paper some time, though. My gut feeling is still that it's old news wrapped in new language but perhaps there is more real biology in there than my first read-through identified.Richard Edwardshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16115218690707131186noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-90508527887623055882011-09-06T15:04:49.536-04:002011-09-06T15:04:49.536-04:00cabbagesofdoom writes:
Is that not, after all, th...cabbagesofdoom writes:<br /><br /><i>Is that not, after all, the point of such a discussion?</i><br /><br />It might be to you, but consider your audience.Judnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-76945326901613531782011-09-06T14:51:10.918-04:002011-09-06T14:51:10.918-04:00Don't put it into your own words. Use the word...Don't put it into your own words. Use the words that the article uses. <br /><br />I already said I am not wasting time straightening out the distorted way you re-word these ideas. <br />It is not only the words but the actual ideas that you distort.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-76292171197081779752011-09-06T14:44:15.473-04:002011-09-06T14:44:15.473-04:00"I do not understand what you have said. You ..."I do not understand what you have said. You have again put it into your own words rather than using the words and ideas the authors use."<br /><br />I have converted the language of "systems" into the language of biology. This is essential if we want to understand the biological implications of the systems ideas. I am sorry if I made too much of a jump or explained it poorly. (I am probably assuming a lot of molecular biology knowledge.) <br /><br />I am of the opinion that you can never really know if you understand an idea, unless you can put it in different words and keep the meaning. That is why I re-phrase things. If the meaning gets lost in translation, it means that I have misunderstood, or explained poorly. If the meaning remains clear, then we know we are on the same page.<br /><br />If you can tell me which bits you do not understand, I will try to explain it better. (But later. I have to dash now...)Richard Edwardshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16115218690707131186noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-87487576583008760912011-09-06T14:37:03.936-04:002011-09-06T14:37:03.936-04:00I do not understand what you have said. You have a...I do not understand what you have said. You have again put it into your own words rather than using the words and ideas the authors use.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-13496841738225706102011-09-06T14:33:14.007-04:002011-09-06T14:33:14.007-04:00OK. I understand all of those last two posts and a...OK. I understand all of those last two posts and agree with it, as far as I can tell. <br /><br />What you/they describe fits very well with my understanding of signalling pathways. Often the point of "detection" for a signal involves a hard-coded "strong linkage" between signal molecule and receptor but I cannot think of any receptors that generate a complex output all by themselves - the signal is invariably propagated through intermediaries, which will recognise and pass on different "formats" of intermediate signal. <br /><br />I still do not see any problem for the evolution of such core modules.Richard Edwardshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16115218690707131186noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-60261847353585165682011-09-06T14:18:12.463-04:002011-09-06T14:18:12.463-04:00What I have called hard-coded the authors call &qu...What I have called hard-coded the authors call "strong linkage".<br /><br />"Conceptually, the alternative is “strong linkage” (e.g., cofactors and substrates), <b>which, we argue, requires more complex, precise, informative, and direct interactions from the input to make a process give a particular output.</b> Constraint to change would be greater; more genetic change seems required.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-5063561660343954762011-09-06T14:14:00.712-04:002011-09-06T14:14:00.712-04:00Let us say you have a module that accepts an input...Let us say you have a module that accepts an input and processes the input into particular outputs. <br />The module must receive the input (the signal) in a PARTICULAR format. It is a hard-coded relationship. If the signal is not in exactly the format that that particular module expects the module cannot work with the signal. <br /><br />Here is a different (more flexible) design. The signal does not interact directly with the module. <br />The signal interacts with an intermediate and the intermediate interacts with the module. <br />In this case the signal does not have to be EXACTLY formatted for that particular module. It simply has to interact with the intermediate. And the intermediate is already designed to work with the module. This is of course much more flexible. (I could expand on that but perhaps you understand this). <br /><br />Here is how the authors put it:<br />"The regulator need not inform the response <b>or be stereochemically compatible </b>with it. Regulation does not need to coevolve with the functional response."<br />and<br />"Thus, a simple signal, which can easily be moved, replaced, or modulated, regulates the time, place, and amount of the very complex developmental response. The ease with which simple signals can entrain complex processes reflects the capacity of core processes to engage in weak regulatory linkage."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-63960057670475501492011-09-06T14:08:28.509-04:002011-09-06T14:08:28.509-04:00"I am starting to see the problem. You do not..."I am starting to see the problem. You do not understand design principles and you do not understand the article."<br /><br />That is possibly true. What <i>certainly</i> true is that I do not have the same understanding of the article as you. If, therefore, you tell me to read it, I will read it and get the same understanding as I did before. If you answer my questions and tell me how you understand it, I might know what you are talking about.<br /><br />Is that not, after all, the point of such a discussion?Richard Edwardshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16115218690707131186noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-17691160399559753472011-09-06T14:04:33.853-04:002011-09-06T14:04:33.853-04:00First you say: "Just work with what I actuall...First you say: "Just work with what I actually said."<br /><br />Now you want me to add what you say to what <i>they</i> and somehow synthesise the ideas myself?<br /><br />You say: "On it's own it would NEVER evolve intermediaries because the intermediaries add NO survival value." <br /><br />They say: "For the most part, though, animals since the Cambrian have repeatedly reused the processes and components that had been evolved long beforehand..." <br /><br />Do you see why I have a problem with that? They present no examples to support your argument because they do not make it. Are you saying that there are no examples to support your position? [Question, not spin.]Richard Edwardshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16115218690707131186noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-66737580041242685512011-09-06T14:03:21.670-04:002011-09-06T14:03:21.670-04:00I am starting to see the problem. You do not under...I am starting to see the problem. You do not understand design principles and you do not understand the article.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-82895267283925446092011-09-06T14:02:55.861-04:002011-09-06T14:02:55.861-04:00"Just work with what I actually said. "
..."Just work with what I actually said. "<br /><br />This is why talking with Anonymous is a waste of time.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-72999574415972170562011-09-06T13:56:52.962-04:002011-09-06T13:56:52.962-04:00"Signal", "process" and "..."Signal", "process" and "intermediate" are the words the authors use. <br />http://www.pnas.org/content/104/suppl.1/8582.full<br /><br />You spin this as if I came up with those words. And as if I have to define them for you. <br />Read the article. <br />Use the examples the authors use.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-56237481335306534082011-09-06T13:39:37.848-04:002011-09-06T13:39:37.848-04:00Anonymous: "Just work with what I actually sa...Anonymous: "Just work with what I actually said."<br /><br />That's fine with me. This is what you actually said: <br /><i>"When the first form of the design appeared it would be a "hard-coded" from signal to process. The signal would be tailored to the specific process that it would trigger. <br />That is how a programmer codes who does not feel a need to make the program easily modified for future adaptation/modification.<br /><br />And if further functions are needed they would take the same form of direct hard-coded linkage. <br /><br />On it's own it would NEVER evolve intermediaries because the intermediaries add NO survival value. <br /><br />It is only when you plan and think about the future that you design a flexible system like that described by the authors.!<br /><br />As I say, this is immediately obvious to me, since I have been involved in both types of designs."</i><br /><br />Working with just this, you state: <b>"On it's own it would NEVER evolve intermediaries because the intermediaries add NO survival value."</b><br /><br />Does this not assume that the "signal" and "process" to which you refer are the same throughout the evolutionary process and that any intermediaries were subsequently added <i>as intermediaries</i>? [Note: A question, not a re-wording.] Why is it not possible that the intermediaries were originally signals or processes themselves and that they only became intermediaries when additional ("better") bits were bolted on?<br /><br />I think it is less likely that intermediates would have evolved directly as intermediaries, not so much because of the lack of selective advantage ("survival value") - they could add buffering, feedback or amplification, for example - but more that it would involve multiple steps. <br /><br />Do you have any examples where you believe that intermediaries were added to an existing direct signal-process coupling? Part of my problem in understanding what you mean is that "signal" and "process" do not have precise biological meanings and so I do not really know what you are referring to. It would be helpful if you could expand on your statements/ideas accordingly.<br /><br />Can you also please define what you mean by a "direct hard-coded linkage". Is this a direct protein-protein interaction? If protein A produced metabolite X and protein B recognised X, would that be "direct hard-coded linkage" in these terms? (Only A and B are "hard-coded" by the genome.) Or is metabolite X an "intermediary"?Richard Edwardshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16115218690707131186noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-36103184872198228522011-09-06T13:14:48.026-04:002011-09-06T13:14:48.026-04:00cabbagesofdoom - why reword what I have said?
Just...cabbagesofdoom - why reword what I have said?<br />Just work with what I actually said. <br /><br />This is why talking with you is a waste of time. <br />I am supposed to deal with whatever distorted way you put it. <br />Just work with what I actually said.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-59302473097670116402011-09-06T12:18:52.951-04:002011-09-06T12:18:52.951-04:00More slander, Anonymous. I express explicitly what...More slander, Anonymous. I express <b>explicitly</b> what <i>I think you are saying</i> and ask you to clarify if it is not, <i>which you <b>do not</b></i>.<br /><br />I quite like the term "spin-meister", though! Makes me sounds like a DJ.Richard Edwardshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16115218690707131186noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-19695656057220570802011-09-06T10:59:54.356-04:002011-09-06T10:59:54.356-04:00I have seen expert spin-meisters in action. But I ...I have seen expert spin-meisters in action. But I must say that cabbagesofdoom is right at the top. <br />His genius is to present a subtly distorted position as if I have said it. Then he derides that distorted position. <br />His subtly and slyness is a marvelous thing to behold. <br />People would be better to take what I actually have said rather than cabbagesofdoom's sly distortions.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-35211791964520173632011-09-06T10:21:59.652-04:002011-09-06T10:21:59.652-04:00@Cabbagesofdoom:
see comment 32 in:http://whyevolu...@Cabbagesofdoom:<br />see comment 32 in:http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2011/09/05/free-kindle-edition-of-evolution-book/#commentsheleenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17358426050959144140noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-44807536792509982062011-09-06T10:16:42.076-04:002011-09-06T10:16:42.076-04:00Anonymous said...
When children are given the cor...Anonymous said... <br /><i>When children are given the correct idea about the obvious intelligence of Nature, things will begin to change. </i><br /><br />Nothing I said has anything to do with 'the intelligence of Nature'. <br /><br />Anonymous simply does not know two hoots about evolutonary biology.heleenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17358426050959144140noreply@blogger.com