tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post5386429803915439131..comments2024-03-19T00:24:23.577-04:00Comments on <center>Sandwalk</center>: Junk & Jonathan: Part 8—Chapter 5Larry Moranhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comBlogger414125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-59256067856393319992013-10-22T22:36:31.610-04:002013-10-22T22:36:31.610-04:00So sad to see a professor holding on to 5th grade ...So sad to see a professor holding on to 5th grade logic -- "Johnny hit me first!" The outspoken biologists, skeptics, atheists, secularists and the like do not realize you all are your own worst enemies. Bill Raybarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04983019883413164948noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-29933733122532820122011-10-21T19:22:44.390-04:002011-10-21T19:22:44.390-04:00Wow, Anonymous drew out the discussion to over 400...Wow, Anonymous drew out the discussion to over 400 comments, even though everyone realized her game. I can think of two main possibilities:<br /><br />1) This is a strategy to at least to distract real scientists from productive work and, if possible, to drive them insane or<br /><br />2) Anonymous is actually a fictitious person created by the evolutionists, whether for amusement (successful until it became tedious) or to discredit ID. Come on, 'fess up, you all made her up just for fun, didn't you?Mike Blythhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09189486229376291297noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-4179544113998299692011-08-01T11:23:46.208-04:002011-08-01T11:23:46.208-04:00"While we wait for an answer to this, if anyo..."While we wait for an answer to this, if anyone has evidence, please present it and include a reference link. <br />That would be great. This is, after all, a scientific question."<br />It looks like nobody has evidence to present. <br />Without evidence it is just an interesting idea."<br /><br />In fact it is just muddled thinking to think that survival instinct could be found in the genes. <br />Survival instinct is an underlying, assumption. It is a correct assumption - it stands outside/beyond/above "evolution". It itself does not evolve. <br />It points us to the fact that there is more involved than what we see with our senses.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-62061910477137852182011-07-28T13:36:58.886-04:002011-07-28T13:36:58.886-04:00@Anonymous
“Jud said...
Anonymous writes:
But no...@Anonymous<br />“Jud said... <br />Anonymous writes:<br /><br />But note that what Dr. Shapiro has shown conclusively is that there is intelligence in Nature.<br />Well, no.”<br /><br />So Anonymous can’t hide behind Dr. Shapiro for its opinions.<br />Anonymous should explain what he means by ‘the intelligence of Nature’, rather than as some slogan to wave about. Explain NATURE, and the intelligence of NATURE, and tell everyone how it works, and why you seem to suppose ‘the intelligence of NATURE’ is anything different from evolution. <br />Moreover, we are still waiting for an explanation of ‘desire to survive’.heleenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17358426050959144140noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-59546967019336508272011-07-28T11:24:08.463-04:002011-07-28T11:24:08.463-04:00"While we wait for an answer to this, if anyo..."While we wait for an answer to this, if anyone has evidence, please present it and include a reference link. <br />That would be great. This is, after all, a scientific question."<br /><br />It looks like nobody has evidence to present. <br />Without evidence it is just an interesting idea.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-67239824486680358142011-07-27T03:56:51.550-04:002011-07-27T03:56:51.550-04:00@Anonymous
“Jud said...
Anonymous writes:
But no...@Anonymous<br />“Jud said... <br />Anonymous writes:<br /><br />But note that what Dr. Shapiro has shown conclusively is that there is intelligence in Nature.<br />Well, no.”<br /><br />So Anonymous can’t hide behind Dr. Shapiro for its opinions.<br />Anonymous should explain what he means by ‘the intelligence of Nature’, rather than as some slogan to wave about. Explain NATURE, and the intelligence of NATURE, and tell everyone how it works, and why you seem to suppose ‘the intelligence of NATURE’ is anything different from evolution. <br />Moreover, we are still waiting for an explanation of ‘desire to survive’.heleenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17358426050959144140noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-37889060651948669542011-07-26T11:18:30.475-04:002011-07-26T11:18:30.475-04:00M. Dionis posted:
"Unless suppression of a ge...M. Dionis posted:<br />"Unless suppression of a gene expression at some historical moment led to some behavioral advantageous pattern, I'd rather say that it's a story of coding genes.<br />Is there any evidence for the coding genes you are referring to? Or is this just an interesting idea you are suggesting?"<br /><br />While we wait for an answer to this, if anyone has evidence, please present it and include a reference link. <br />That would be great. This is, after all, a scientific question.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-52122124706950720342011-07-26T03:49:08.924-04:002011-07-26T03:49:08.924-04:00@Anonymous
“Jud said...
Anonymous writes:
But no...@Anonymous<br />“Jud said... <br />Anonymous writes:<br /><br />But note that what Dr. Shapiro has shown conclusively is that there is intelligence in Nature.<br />Well, no.”<br /><br />So Anonymous can’t hide behind Dr. Shapiro for its opinions.<br />Anonymous should explain what he means by ‘the intelligence of Nature’, rather than as some slogan to wave about. Explain NATURE, and the intelligence of NATURE, and tell everyone how it works, and why you seem to suppose ‘the intelligence of NATURE’ is anything different from evolution. <br />Moreover, we are still waiting for an explanation of ‘desire to survive’.heleenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17358426050959144140noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-48013519597533745062011-07-25T15:05:37.797-04:002011-07-25T15:05:37.797-04:00M. Dionis posted:
"Unless suppression of a ge...M. Dionis posted:<br />"Unless suppression of a gene expression at some historical moment led to some behavioral advantageous pattern, I'd rather say that it's a story of coding genes."<br /><br />Is there any evidence for the coding genes you are referring to? Or is this just an interesting idea you are suggesting?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-5652553250856917982011-07-25T09:47:36.769-04:002011-07-25T09:47:36.769-04:00@Anonymous
“Jud said...
Anonymous writes:
But no...@Anonymous<br />“Jud said... <br /><i>Anonymous writes:<br /><br />But note that what Dr. Shapiro has shown conclusively is that there is intelligence in Nature.</i><br />Well, no.”<br /><br />So Anonymous can’t hide behind Dr. Shapiro for its opinions.<br />Anonymous should explain what he means by ‘the intelligence of Nature’, rather than as some slogan to wave about. Explain NATURE, and the intelligence of NATURE, and tell everyone how it works, and why you seem to suppose ‘the intelligence of NATURE’ is anything different from evolution. <br />Moreover, we are still waiting for an explanation of ‘desire to survive’.heleenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17358426050959144140noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-64653451973053202052011-07-25T09:42:25.609-04:002011-07-25T09:42:25.609-04:00Anonymous wrote:
Does SPB mean survival instinct....Anonymous wrote:<br /><br /><i>Does SPB mean survival instinct. If not, could you please explain how it differs?</i><br /><br />I prefer to speak about SPB because:<br />1. it is more general than "survival instinct"<br />2. it does not imply any degree of superior analysis/involvement (that is: it can be the result of possibly simpler/local processes)<br /><br /><i>Concerning the genes that are responsible for SPB - are they "coding genes" or "non-coding genes"?</i><br /><br />Unless suppression of a gene expression at some historical moment led to some behavioral advantageous pattern, I'd rather say that it's a story of coding genes.M. Dionisnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-5533488134930636662011-07-25T08:51:20.817-04:002011-07-25T08:51:20.817-04:00M. Dionis posted:
"Everything inheritable is ...M. Dionis posted:<br />"Everything inheritable is in the genes. So does the SPB, [self-protective behavior] as well as any other fitness-enhancing feature." <br /><br />M. Dionis, I have two questions.<br />1. Does SPB mean <i>survival instinct</i>. If not, could you please explain how it differs?<br />2. Concerning the genes that are responsible for SPB - are they "coding genes" or "non-coding genes"?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-37779300513130489912011-07-25T07:45:56.456-04:002011-07-25T07:45:56.456-04:00Anonymous writes:
But note that what Dr. Shapiro ...Anonymous writes:<br /><br /><i>But note that what Dr. Shapiro has shown conclusively is that there is intelligence in Nature.</i><br /><br />Well, no. What he's done is interpret some experimental results in ways that the vast majority of researchers do not, even some of the co-authors on the papers he cites for his conclusions. The other thing he does is ignore some experimental results that contradict his interpretation.<br /><br />It's hard to know with Shapiro how much of this is serious and how much is tweaking the "establishment." But to put the argument simply:<br /><br />- Both Shapiro and other researchers recognize that microorganisms such as E. coli mutate at a greater rate than normal in response to various stressful environments.<br /><br />- Shapiro says that not only are there more mutations, these mutations are directed toward more favorable outcomes in the particular environment. (That's as far as even Shapiro gets toward anything that could be called "intelligence," and even he doesn't credit microorganisms, much less some entity called "Nature," with capacity for thought and planning.)<br /><br />- The vast majority of researchers, while agreeing there are more mutations, do not agree they are directed toward more favorable outcomes.<br /><br />- There are experiments Shapiro ignores, such as Lenski's, that show far more E. coli generations elapsing before a mutational "solution" is found to an environmental "problem" than should be the case if mutations were indeed directed toward favorable outcomes. In other words, Shapiro appears to do some cherry picking of experimental results to suit his own conclusions.Judnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-87767126707617087362011-07-25T05:53:31.035-04:002011-07-25T05:53:31.035-04:00Anonymous said...
heleen posted:
"Anonymous ...Anonymous said... <br /><i>heleen posted:<br />"Anonymous should do his/her/its own explanation of what he/she/it has written on this blog."<br /><br />heleen has referred to me as "it". <br />In the face of such rudeness, it is only common sense for me to stop responding to him/her. </i><br /><br />Thought up a pretext not to answer, since you haven't got any?<br /><br />Given that Anonymous refuses to have a name, or even a commenting name, I don't see why I shouldn't refer to this ephemeral quantity as 'it'.heleenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17358426050959144140noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-87013710563870494252011-07-25T05:04:03.786-04:002011-07-25T05:04:03.786-04:00Anonymous wrote:
Nobody here has tried to explain...Anonymous wrote:<br /><br /><i>Nobody here has tried to explain where it came from originally in evolution terms, like random mutation, genetic drift, selection etc.</i><br /><br />After a careful lecture of the excerpts from my previous message (hopefully this time the blog's owner will accept it in a reasonable amount of time) you should be able at least to grasp the main idea. Your question sounds like "no physicist has ever tried to check Ohm's law for a resistance of 20 k Ohms under a potential difference of 263.5 V" or "no mathematician has ever tried to explain why we can form a triangle with three segments of lengths 523m, 245m and 404m". If you still don't understand the parallel, keep reading.<br /><br /><i>Here is a kind of answer.<br />The survival instinct came as the result of random arrangements of genes.<br />I am not saying that this is a good answer. But it is a kind of answer that an evolutionists might give.<br />Can someone come up with a better explanation?</i><br /><br />Everything inheritable is in the genes. So does the SPB, as well as any other fitness-enhancing feature. Most probably, it is not the result of <i>one</i> very fortunate gene reshuffle, but of many mutations spanned over a rather long period. Each mutation of those concerning the SPB (don't forget the randomness of the mutations with respect to natural selection: there were really <i>many</i> other mutations not related to this particular overall trend) has somehow added a discrete behavioral trait slightly improving replication success of those individuals sharing the mutation with respect to non-mutants. The "overall trend" towards a clearly defined SPB is given not by an useless "nature intelligence" but by simple math considerations: improved fitness individuals will almost necessarily substitute the non-mutants over several hundreds/thousands of generations, a long time for an individual but a rather short period on a geological scale (the word "almost" is to account for eventual initial stochastic effects due to finite population sizes or to unlikely catastrophes such as accidental death of a population group containing all mutants). In this sense, the behavioral change is directional, not random. The randomness is found in how mutations occur: in fact, the mutations who have specifically led to SPB in many intermediate steps are a small subset of the mutations having been fixed through natural selection -> a subset of mutations having been fixed -> a subset of mutations having occurred and not wiped out by stochasticity or natural selection -> a small subset of all mutations having occurred meanwhile -> a subset of all possible mutations on the given genome. It could sound like tremendous fortune, but it isn't: due to the large number of mutations effectively occurring over a reasonable amount of time in a decent number population, the probability of having also something good among these is actually very high. <br />Resuming: SPB results from the combination of random-occurring corresponding mutations and natural selection acting on each of them. The same holds for most traits subjected to natural selection, so it's a mystery why you have singled out this behavioral pattern as if it were something out of the norm. The only explanation is that you are not aware of the main tenets of the modern evolutionary synthesis. There is only a cure for that: reading some real science specialty books, you might also consider to take some basic biology courses. That won't yet make you a scientist, but at least you should be able to use correctly the specialty terms in their context.M. Dionisnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-33079874728491394972011-07-25T04:49:08.054-04:002011-07-25T04:49:08.054-04:00Anonymous said... on Sunday, July 24, 2011 11:45:0...Anonymous said... on Sunday, July 24, 2011 11:45:00 AM something irrelevant to this thread. Wht he/she/it said is however a perfect example that 'macroevolution' is not what Anonymous thinks it. Also relevant to the other thread, Anonymous still has not explained what is 'process' about 'macroevolution'. <br /><br />But could Anonymous be relevant to this thread, and explain ‘the intelligence of Nature’ in an actual explanation, rather than as some slogan you wave about. Explain NATURE, and the intelligence of NATURE, and tell everyone how it works, and why you seem to suppose ‘the intelligence of NATURE’ is anything different from evolution. <br />Still waiting for an explanation about that ‘desire to survive’ too. And don 't hide behind somebody else.heleenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17358426050959144140noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-88738724023629955602011-07-25T04:02:18.425-04:002011-07-25T04:02:18.425-04:00Anonymous wrote:
And my question is - where did t...Anonymous wrote:<br /><br /><i>And my question is - where did that original SPB (survival instinct) come from? Please explain in evolution terms where it came from originally.</i><br /><br />You should still keep on reading some modern biology basics, otherwise my meaningful words will always look incomprehensible to your eyes. Here you have a condensed relevant extract from Futuyma's <i>Evolution</i> (Sinauer Associates, 2005):<br /><br /><i>The principal claims of the evolutionary synthesis are the foundations of modern evolutionary biology. Although some of these principles have been extended, clarified, or modified since the 1940s, most evolutionary biologists today accept them as fundamentally valid. These, then, are the fundamental principles of evolution [...]<br /><br />1. The phenotype (observed characteristic) is different from the genotype (the set of genes in an individual's DNA); <b>phenotypic differences among individual organisms may be due partly to genetic differences</b> and partly to direct effects of the environment.<br /><br />2. Environmental effects on an individual's phenotype do not affect the genes passed on to its offspring. In other words, acquired characteristics are not inherited.<br /><br />3. <b>Hereditary variations are based on particles - genes - that retail their identity as they pass through the generations</b>; they do not blend with other genes. [...]<br /><br />4. <b>Genes mutate</b>, usually at a fairly low rate, to equally stable alternative forms, knolwn as alleles. The phenotypic effect of such mutations can range from undetectable to very great. The variation that arises by mutation is amplified by recombination among alleles at different loci.<br /><br />5. Evolutionary change is a populational process: it entails, in its most basic form, a change in the relative abundances (proportions or frequencies) of individual organisms with different genotypes (hence, often, with different phenotypes) within a population. [...]<br /><br />6. The rate of mutation is too low for mutation by itself to shift a population from one genotype to another. Instead, <b>the change in genotype proportions within a population can occur by either of two principal processes: random fluctuations in proportions (genetic drift), or nonrandom changes due to the superior survival and/or reproduction of some genotypes compared with others (i.e., natural selection).</b><br />Natural selection and random genetic drift can operate simultaneously.<br /><br />7. Even a slight intensity of <b>natural selection can (under certain circumstances) bring about substantial evolutionary change</b> in a realistic amount of time. [...]<br /><br />8. Natural selection can alter populations beyond the original range of variation by increasing the frequency of alleles that, by recombination with other genes that affect the saine trait, give rise to new phenotypes.<br />[...]<br />11. The differences between different species, and between different populations of the same species, are often based on differences at several or many genes, many of which have a small phenotypic effect. This pattern supports the hypothesis that the differences between species evolve by rather small steps.<br />[...]<br />13. Phenotypically different genotypes are often found in a single interbreeding population. Species are not defined simply by phenotypic differences. Rather, different species represent distinct "gene pools"; that is, species are groups of interbreeding or potentially interbreeding individuals that do not exchange genes with other such groups.<br />[...]</i><br /><br />A good exercise for you would be to connect my keywords "inherent variability", "positively discriminated", "increased evolutionary fitness" and "natural selection" with the concepts expressed by Futuyma (of course, this exercise won't exempt you from the fundamental homework of reading something ).M. Dionisnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-69649120135042210222011-07-24T19:54:42.542-04:002011-07-24T19:54:42.542-04:00heleen posted:
"Anonymous should do his/her/i...heleen posted:<br />"Anonymous should do his/her/its own explanation of what he/she/it has written on this blog."<br /><br />heleen has referred to me as "it". <br />In the face of such rudeness, it is only common sense for me to stop responding to him/her.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-4139618225157799652011-07-24T17:11:04.958-04:002011-07-24T17:11:04.958-04:00heleen is not interested in the extensive, scienti...heleen is not interested in the extensive, scientific research of Dr. Shapiro on natural genetic engineering. So be it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-48959257856968865302011-07-24T11:45:10.363-04:002011-07-24T11:45:10.363-04:00Some background info:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wik...Some background info:<br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miacoidea<br />"The Miacidae (miacids) evolved into the modern Caniformes (dogs, bears, raccoons and weasels), while the Viverravidae evolved into the Feliformes (cats, hyaenas and mongooses), both of the order Carnivora."<br /><br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnivora<br />"Carnivorans evolved out of members of the paraphyletic family Miacidae (miacids). The transition from Miacidae to Carnivora was a general trend in the middle and late Eocene, with taxa from both North America and Eurasia involved. The divergence of carnivorans from other miacids, as well as the divergence of the two clades within Carnivora, Caniformia and Feliformia, is now inferred to have happened in the middle Eocene, about 42 million years ago (mya). Traditionally, the extinct family Viverravidae (viverravids) had been thought to be the earliest carnivorans, with fossil records first appearing in the Paleocene of North America about 60 mya, but recently described evidence from cranial morphology now places them outside the order Carnivora.[1] Traditionally, some paleontologists considered the viverravids to be ancestral to the aeluroid carnivorans (felids, hyaenids, herpestids and viverrids), but this is now doubted."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-62306177531375223342011-07-24T07:45:41.232-04:002011-07-24T07:45:41.232-04:00Anonymous said... Saturday, July 23, 2011 10:59:00...Anonymous said... Saturday, July 23, 2011 10:59:00 AM <br /><br /><i>If people are interested in the intelligence of NATURE I recommend the work of </i><br />The work of somebody else? <br />I'm not interested (at least here) in what somebody else is doing, so don't hide behind that. Anonymous should do his/her/its own explanation of what he/she/it has written on this blog.<br />So, still waiting for any use of ‘the intelligence of Nature’ in an actual explanation, rather than as some slogan you wave about. Explain NATURE, and the intelligence of NATURE, and tell everyone how it works, and why you seem to suppose ‘the intelligence of NATURE’ is anything different from evolution. <br />Still waiting for an explanation about that ‘desire to survive’ too.heleenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17358426050959144140noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-45219103269399363942011-07-23T10:59:50.464-04:002011-07-23T10:59:50.464-04:00If people are interested in the intelligence of NA...If people are interested in the intelligence of NATURE I recommend the work of Dr. James A. Shapiro. <br />http://shapiro.bsd.uchicago.edu/<br /><br />His work is about "Natural Genetic Engineering". <br />Or in other words - NATURE's genetic engineering. <br /><br />His work is primarily about the intelligence involved in what we call adaptation. But he has stopped short of following this line of thinking and research into the intelligence that must be involved in macroevolution. <br /><br />Even so he has met with hostility from the evolution establishment. <br /><br />But note that what Dr. Shapiro has shown conclusively is that there is intelligence in Nature.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-88114010589095244532011-07-23T10:46:01.518-04:002011-07-23T10:46:01.518-04:00Anonymous posted:
"And calling this nonsense ...Anonymous posted:<br />"And calling this nonsense is not an answer." <br /><br />So anonymous reserves the right to label other people's thoughts "nonsense" but demands that nobody label his/her thoughts that way. (I have never done that of course). <br /><br />At least he/she acknowledges that simply throwing out an insult of "nonsense" is not an answer.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-26105326165192856882011-07-23T05:10:08.220-04:002011-07-23T05:10:08.220-04:00Anonymous said... Saturday, June 25, 2011 11:10:00...Anonymous said... Saturday, June 25, 2011 11:10:00 AM<br /><i><br />What happens when a creature with a particular single letter mutation mates with another creature? That other creature does not have the same particular single letter change. After mating, the offspring will have a 50% chance of having that mutated single letter. Similarly with the next mating and each one afterwards. <br />The original single letter mutation will fade way. The chances of it continuing are astronomically low. <br />So not only do we have very few single letter mutations to begin with, but they fade away over the generations. <br /></i><br /><br />Anonymous thinks that mating itself change allele frequencies. Anonymous thinks that mating itself a probability ½ after one generation, ¼ after two generations and so on. Anonymous has never heard of the Hardy-Weinberg law.<br />Anonymous was talking as if mating itself has a frequency effect, he was not talking about the probabilities of drift. <br />Larry Moran in his answer credited Anonymous with to much intelligence.heleenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17358426050959144140noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-18753539942332509202011-07-23T05:02:06.122-04:002011-07-23T05:02:06.122-04:00Anonymous said..
Wednesday, July 13, 2011 5:49:00 ...Anonymous said..<br />Wednesday, July 13, 2011 5:49:00 PM<br /><br /><i> NATURE is an immense, living, intelligent organism and it "develops novel solutions".<br />Not only does NATURE "repeatedly develop novel solutions" facilitating adaptation, it also develops new types of creatures. </i><br /><br />Saturday, July 16, 2011 11:29:00 AM<br /><i>Intelligence is involved in Nature. <br />… I attribute the intelligence to NATURE. <br />NATURE manifests its intelligence at the level of the biosphere and at the level of the cell.</i><br /><br />Anonymous said...<br />Friday, July 22, 2011 10:22:00 AM<br /><i>I am invoking (your word) the intelligence of NATURE. <br />... I am content to simply "invoke" the intelligence of NATURE.<br /></i><br /><br />Still waiting for any use of "the intelligence of Nature" in an actual explanation, rather than as some slogan you wave about. Explain NATURE, and the intelligence of NATURE, and tell everyone how it works, and why you seem to suppose ‘the intelligence of NATURE’ is anything different from evolution. <br /><br /><br />Anonymous said...<br />Wednesday, July 20, 2011 9:21:00 AM<br /><i>Where does the desire to survive come from? </i><br />No such DESIRE exist. Anonymous should explain why he thinks such a DESIRE exists. As to <i> Can anyone actually understand the issue and say something constructive?</i> : there is no issue apart from Anonymous misunderstanding of life, and the constructive thing has been said: there is no desire to survive, organisms survive or not.heleenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17358426050959144140noreply@blogger.com