tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post4057178652094016847..comments2024-03-27T14:50:47.345-04:00Comments on <center>Sandwalk</center>: Deflated egos and the G-value paradoxLarry Moranhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comBlogger51125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-38615323057185173422019-01-23T09:27:28.055-05:002019-01-23T09:27:28.055-05:00"I can’t,
Why not?
"and you’ve missed ...<i>"I can’t,</i><br /><br />Why not?<br /><br /><i>"and you’ve missed the point. Let’s try this."</i><br /><br />If you cannot explain anything at all about how the process (of evolution that fossil evidence beyond reasonable doubt proves happened) works then it's <strong>your</strong> theory that failed.<br /><br /><i>...... Your theory says that this system is the result of powerful natural selection acting on multiple series of random, but complimentary mutations.</i><br /><br />This is <strong>my</strong> theory:<br /><br />http://theoryofid.blogspot.com/<br /><br />How could you not know this after my earlier linking you to several places including what it looks like in computational neuroscience? Did you later forget what you read? Or did you not bother to study any of it?<br /><br /><i>You tell me how it works.</i><br /><br />I develop cognitive models/theory of things that are <strong>intelligent</strong>. And for some reason you have no interest at all in <strong>evolution by natural selection</strong> theory that another way explains how the <strong>process of evolution</strong> works. <br />Gary Gaulinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10925297296758439900noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-6511234381671053872019-01-21T20:28:45.733-05:002019-01-21T20:28:45.733-05:00“tell us "how it works" so that we becom...<i>“tell us "how it works" so that we become as wise and knowing as you are”</i><br /><br />I can’t, and you’ve missed the point. Let’s try this. <br /><br />From your point of view, once upon a time, mammals had not evolved from reptiles. But the mammary function (among other things) <i>arose</i>. Your theory says that this system is the result of powerful natural selection acting on multiple series of random, but complimentary mutations. Lots of novel subsystems and features are involved, in parent and offspring, things too numerous to list. So are the complications and obstacles.<br /><br />So what makes you believe that this, or anything like this, occurred….millions of times? You tell me how it works.txpiperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03645156881353741058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-68443844868228014772019-01-20T21:06:42.741-05:002019-01-20T21:06:42.741-05:00Then go ahead txpiper, tell us "how it works&...Then go ahead txpiper, tell us "how it works" so that we become as wise and knowing as you are.<br /><br />Gary Gaulinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10925297296758439900noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-2283279910643569762019-01-20T19:03:34.893-05:002019-01-20T19:03:34.893-05:00“No, why is it a problem?”
Because nobody can exp...“No, why is it a problem?”<br /><br />Because nobody can explain how it works.<br />txpiperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03645156881353741058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-40567622562842058872019-01-20T06:49:15.854-05:002019-01-20T06:49:15.854-05:00txpiper, this blog format is not very conducive to...txpiper, this blog format is not very conducive to this kind of discussion. You can register as a user on https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/ or on http://theskepticalzone.com/wp/ alternatively.Mikkel Rumraket Rasmussenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07670550711237457368noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-22839399303650358052019-01-20T06:32:02.533-05:002019-01-20T06:32:02.533-05:00No, why is it a problem? No, why is it a problem? Mikkel Rumraket Rasmussenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07670550711237457368noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-82070323744863645572019-01-19T21:25:32.482-05:002019-01-19T21:25:32.482-05:00"For txpiper"
Good grief. Okay, so let’..."For txpiper"<br /><br />Good grief. Okay, so let’s just assume that I’m addicted to religion, morphine, muffaletta sandwiches and Japanese girls. That doesn’t make your mutations problem go away. Have you even figured out that you have a problem yet? Do you comprehend why the supposed operational mechanism of evolution is a ridiculous idea?txpiperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03645156881353741058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-77326651503776426862019-01-19T18:40:28.142-05:002019-01-19T18:40:28.142-05:00"How is the fact that they are there evidence...<i>"How is the fact that they are there evidence for how they got there?"</i><br /><br />It isn't. It is the patterns in their sequences and distribution in different species, that is the evidence. Not the mere fact of their existence. Mikkel Rumraket Rasmussenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07670550711237457368noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-14546122557084815482019-01-19T00:00:06.503-05:002019-01-19T00:00:06.503-05:00For txpiper:
https://www.elementsbehavioralhealt...For txpiper: <br /><br /><a href="https://www.elementsbehavioralhealth.com/behavioral-process-addictions/can-religion-be-an-addiction/" rel="nofollow">https://www.elementsbehavioralhealth.com/behavioral-process-addictions/can-religion-be-an-addiction/</a><br /><br />Gary Gaulinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10925297296758439900noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-10694953599395432512019-01-18T14:31:40.648-05:002019-01-18T14:31:40.648-05:00“Are you familiar with the Dunning–Kruger effect?&...“Are you familiar with the Dunning–Kruger effect?"<br /><br />Yes, I am. The illusion of cognitive superiority enables people to accept ideas that are either not supported by evidence, or refuted by profuse evidence. The fact that the disease databases cannot rattle the absurd beliefs associated with mutations are a good example. Combine the DKE with academic, political and cultural groupthink, and you have an iron-clad religion.txpiperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03645156881353741058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-56737194709447299652019-01-18T12:41:39.188-05:002019-01-18T12:41:39.188-05:00@txpiper
Are you familiar with the Dunning–Kruger...@txpiper<br /><br />Are you familiar with the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect" rel="nofollow">Dunning–Kruger effect</a>?Larry Moranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-87519382451338773102019-01-18T09:18:01.593-05:002019-01-18T09:18:01.593-05:00”A sentence like "It's all accidents.&quo...<i>”A sentence like "It's all accidents." is tinkering with terminology….”</i><br /><br />No, it is just being candid. Random events cannot result in complexity and sophistication. <br />-<br /><i>”…as Judge Jones found denigrate well tested scientific theory.”</i><br /><br />No, it has not been tested at all. The scientific theory says that eyes (and every other biological thing) are the result of recurring, fortuitous DNA replication errors. It also says that everything that eyes (and every other biological thing) require, were produced by recurring, fortuitous DNA replication errors. <br /><br />This is, of course, an idiotic thing to believe, and the invocation of natural selection does not make it less idiotic. It is just looking for a deity.txpiperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03645156881353741058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-41919825811444584042019-01-15T23:24:28.180-05:002019-01-15T23:24:28.180-05:00I’m sorry, but that concept doesn’t apply at all.
...<i>I’m sorry, but that concept doesn’t apply at all.</i><br /><br />I computer model this concept! You're up against a serious model/theory that is already being useful to experimenters in a number of "intelligence" related fields including robotics.<br /><br />Numenta is a popular neuroscientific research organization with an online community that is best able to understand and fairly judge the usefulness of computational biological models pertaining to how "intelligence" works, as I explained happening in genetic systems, cells and our brain. In all of "science" the Numenta online community is the best place in the world for the model/theory and I to be right now, which is why I discuss details there instead of elsewhere. <br /><br /><a href="https://discourse.numenta.org/t/will-we-ever-see-agi/5123/10" rel="nofollow">https://discourse.numenta.org/t/will-we-ever-see-agi/5123/10</a><br /><br /><a href="https://discourse.numenta.org/t/intelligence-and-transfer-learning/3894/7" rel="nofollow">https://discourse.numenta.org/t/intelligence-and-transfer-learning/3894/7</a><br /><br /><a href="https://discourse.numenta.org/t/intelligence-and-transfer-learning/3894/4" rel="nofollow">https://discourse.numenta.org/t/intelligence-and-transfer-learning/3894/4</a><br /><br /><a href="https://discourse.numenta.org/t/oscillatory-thousand-brains-minds-eye-for-htm/3726" rel="nofollow">https://discourse.numenta.org/t/oscillatory-thousand-brains-minds-eye-for-htm/3726</a><br /><br /><i>It's all accidents. Nobody is trying, nobody is recognizing errors, and nobody is learning. You’ve just heard words like “tinkering” used for anthropomorphic effect. It is deceitful, but it has the intended effect. You’re not the first person who has been led to believe that evolution is smarter than you.</i><br /><br />A sentence like "It's all accidents." is tinkering with terminology that should have read "random mutation" to as Judge Jones found <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District#Legal" rel="nofollow">denigrate</a> well tested scientific theory.<br /><br />This is how "intelligent cause" really works, giant mystery explained:<br /><br /><a href="https://theoryofid.blogspot.com/" rel="nofollow">https://theoryofid.blogspot.com/</a><br /><br /><a href="https://www.reddit.com/r/IDTheory/" rel="nofollow">https://www.reddit.com/r/IDTheory/</a><br /><br />Much more information that you badly need:<br /><br /><a href="https://www.reddit.com/user/GaryGaulin" rel="nofollow">https://www.reddit.com/user/GaryGaulin</a><br /><br />What I have to say came from many thousands of hours spent conducting experiments with applicable computational models. My experience now helps write ahead of their time dissertations and such using most precise terminology for concepts relating to multiple-level intelligent systems and a model based definition that also works for IBM Watson, HTM Theory and rest of neuroscience. <br /><br />Throwing stones at what I explained caused your response to become destined to be a faded memory of a <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y7NVxAMQn_I" rel="nofollow">bully</a>. This is a situation where you are forced to adapt to the existing scientific terminology and definitions, like I always have had to. So please try again. <br />Gary Gaulinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10925297296758439900noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-44747885476037203282019-01-14T19:25:03.605-05:002019-01-14T19:25:03.605-05:00"Have you ever heard of "trial and error...<i>"Have you ever heard of "trial and error learning”?… You need to study the concept”</i><br /><br />I’m sorry, but that concept doesn’t apply at all. It's all accidents. Nobody is trying, nobody is recognizing errors, and nobody is learning. You’ve just heard words like “tinkering” used for anthropomorphic effect. It is deceitful, but it has the intended effect. You’re not the first person who has been led to believe that evolution is smarter than you.txpiperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03645156881353741058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-69866119246035663782019-01-12T18:48:42.142-05:002019-01-12T18:48:42.142-05:00The problem doesn’t really demand a solution, but ...<i>The problem doesn’t really demand a solution, but it does call for a reasonable conclusion. Believing that random accidents result in fantastic innovation is not reasonable.</i><br /><br />Have you ever heard of "trial and error learning"?<br /><br />You need to study the concept. Humans work the same way. Your argument shows your ignorance.<br /><br />Gary Gaulinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10925297296758439900noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-44027833990567376752019-01-09T23:22:32.510-05:002019-01-09T23:22:32.510-05:00"Oh, I read the post, and the questions posed..."Oh, I read the post, and the questions posed at the end."<br /><br />You probably should have read <a href="https://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2018/12/alternative-splicing-in-nematode-c.html#comment-form" rel="nofollow">this one too</a>.John Harshmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04478895397136729867noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-30233316286054649762019-01-09T20:16:22.700-05:002019-01-09T20:16:22.700-05:00"...you haven't been reading"
Oh, I..."...you haven't been reading"<br /><br />Oh, I read the post, and the questions posed at the end.<br /> <br />”Do you have a problem accepting that humans have about the same number of genes as other mammals, fish, or insects? If so, can you explain to me why you think this is a problem that demands a solution?”<br /><br />The answer is obvious, but it isn’t about the number of genes. It is about functional complexity. Complex systems make the mutations/selection idea look stupid, and hyper-complex systems make it look deluxe stupid. Genes coding for multiple proteins is an extremely sophisticated design. The Nature article I linked to touches on the concept:<br /><br /><i>”Consider again those 60,000 protein-coding genes in Trichomonas vaginalis. If all of those 60,000 genes operated at the same level of complexity as the 20,000 or so genes in Homo sapiens, then shouldn't T. vaginalis be a much more complex organism than it is? As it turns out, its genes do not operate at that same level of complexity.”</i><br /><br />The problem doesn’t really demand a solution, but it does call for a reasonable conclusion. Believing that random accidents result in fantastic innovation is not reasonable. txpiperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03645156881353741058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-74688073096765857322019-01-09T10:22:54.407-05:002019-01-09T10:22:54.407-05:00"Do you dispute the numbers?"
Clearly, ..."Do you dispute the numbers?"<br /><br />Clearly, you haven't been reading much that Larry has posted, including the very post at the top of this page. Why not?John Harshmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04478895397136729867noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-26317802588274340792019-01-08T20:03:16.678-05:002019-01-08T20:03:16.678-05:00"If."
Do you dispute the numbers? There..."If."<br /><br />Do you dispute the numbers? There are other estimates:<br /><br />"As with genome size, having more protein-coding genes does not necessarily translate into greater complexity. This is because the eukaryotic genome has evolved other ways to generate biological complexity....In fact, scientists have estimated that there may be as many as 500,000 or more different human proteins, all coded by a mere 20,000 protein-coding genes."<br /><br />https://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/eukaryotic-genome-complexity-437 <br /><br />The real problem though, is not about the numbers. It is about how in hell natural selection and random mutations "evolved other ways to generate biological complexity". txpiperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03645156881353741058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-9924774858960190602019-01-07T21:56:58.324-05:002019-01-07T21:56:58.324-05:00"If humans utilize 100,000 proteins, but only..."If humans utilize 100,000 proteins, but only have 21,000 genes"<br /><br />If.John Harshmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04478895397136729867noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-18504663529929788062019-01-07T19:09:57.289-05:002019-01-07T19:09:57.289-05:00"we can just look at the evidence and see tha..."we can just look at the evidence and see that it has come mostly from three processes"<br /><br />How is the fact that they are there evidence for how they got there?<br /><br />If humans utilize 100,000 proteins, but only have 21,000 genes, which one of the three accidental processes you mention do you see as the big player in producing genes that code for multiple proteins? txpiperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03645156881353741058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-83218994058497841002019-01-07T01:24:39.753-05:002019-01-07T01:24:39.753-05:00It's good we don't have to imagine it then...It's good we don't have to imagine it then, we can just look at the evidence and see that it has come mostly from three processes: 1) Gene dupication and divergence, 2) from de novo emergence of promoters in non coding DNA, and 3) from genetic recombination and exon shuffling. Mikkel Rumraket Rasmussenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07670550711237457368noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-73539072868766091612019-01-06T02:02:43.347-05:002019-01-06T02:02:43.347-05:00Did this professor explain how DNA replication err...Did this professor explain how DNA replication errors built functional genes? What school did he go to?txpiperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03645156881353741058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-76762284562709596182019-01-06T01:58:39.690-05:002019-01-06T01:58:39.690-05:00"it highlights the problem because we don’t h..."it highlights the problem because we don’t have a lot more genes than trees"<br /><br />Yes, that does highlight an interesting problem. How DNA replication errors have resulted in the phenomenal versatility that human genes exhibit is difficult to imagine. txpiperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03645156881353741058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-53876526482952552012019-01-05T08:30:30.650-05:002019-01-05T08:30:30.650-05:00The smart biology man up the thread says 2^n so he...The smart biology man up the thread says 2^n so he seems to be saying you have to add up nC0, nC1, nC2 ... nCn.<br /><br />I'm not qualified to opine but I did do a project on Pascal's triangle in grade 11 math. Made a very pretty poster. All the rows add to 2^n! where here I'm using ! as the punctuation and not the math thing.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04481056840220056722noreply@blogger.com