Science and Technology news... :: View topic

server · Guest

message unavailable

Entertained by my own EIM · Guest

"John W Edser" <edser@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
news:g43fgb$1e5q$1@darwin.ediacara.org...
[quote]Virgil <Virgil@gmale.com> wrote:-

Non random processes produce both random and no random patterns whereas
a random processes can only provide a random pattern such that _every
random pattern presents the same pattern_.

This seems to be saying that non-random processes can be unpredicatble
but random processes must be entirely predictable.

JE:-
Firstly, a pattern is not a process. A pattern is produced by a process
and not the reverse. Mathematicians almost always get this wrong because
_they have no frame of reference to be able to separate them_. Only a
Non random process can provide a non random pattern such that only non
random patterns can be unique. OTOH all random patterns provide the same
random pattern. This does not mean that random patterns remain
predictable and non random patterns unpredictable; it means the
opposite. A random pattern remains _scientifically unpredictable by
definition_ because random events have no explicable cause. OTOH a non
random pattern can provide unique events which, because of their
uniqueness, allow a unique process to explain them. An example is c as
THE (singular) velocity maximand which can only be explained using
Einstein>s Special Theory as a proposed process. Similarly, fitness as a
maximand can only be explained by Darwinian theory which must not be
confused with Neo Darwinian theory because it allows more than just the
one fitness maximand per falsifiable selectee (i.e. represents
mathematics and not science; mathematics is not a science).
[/quote]
The (by me estimated) 'extent of praiseworthiness' that your "Darwinian"
idea of a (philosophically and logically foremost ;-)) "fitness maximand"
deserves is (by me determined as being) directly proportional to the degree
that it is successfully put in the service of focusing people>s minds on,
and makes them (us) come to practically and remedially transformative (from
physiologically to socially/sociopolitically so) conceptual grips with what
it is [and thus an "Effectively ~Perfectly~ {i.e. approximatively}True"
understanding of why, and of how] they (we) normally tend to reflexively
remain unable to consciously recall and recognize yet be insidiously
motivated (or co-motivated) by.

Cheers,
P

kangarooistan · Guest

On Jun 21, 7:53 am, "Robert Karl Stonjek" <rston...@bigpond.net.au>
wrote:
[quote]Originally published in Science Express on 22 May 2008
Science 20 June 2008:
Vol. 320. no. 5883, pp. 1647 - 1651
DOI: 10.1126/science.1155725

Evolution of Mammals and Their Gut Microbes
Ruth E. Ley, Micah Hamady, Catherine Lozupone, Peter J. Turnbaugh, Rob Roy
Ramey, J. Stephen Bircher, Michael L. Schlegel, Tammy A. Tucker, Mark D.
Schrenzel, Rob Knight, Jeffrey I. Gordon
Mammals are metagenomic in that they are composed of not only their own gene
complements but also those of all of their associated microbes. To
understand the coevolution of the mammals and their indigenous microbial
communities, we conducted a network-based analysis of bacterial 16S
ribosomal RNA gene sequences from the fecal microbiota of humans and 59
other mammalian species living in two zoos and in the wild. The results
indicate that host diet and phylogeny both influence bacterial diversity,
which increases from carnivory to omnivory to herbivory; that bacterial
communities codiversified with their hosts; and that the gut microbiota of
humans living a modern life-style is typical of omnivorous primates.

Source: Science
1155725
Posted by
Robert Karl Stonjek
[/quote]
[moderator>s note: Fascinatin' stuff follows; how much is relevant,
and how much is non-bollocks, I leave to the readership. - JAH]

Reminds me of research I did into camels , that showed big differences
in two adjacent paddocks that showed big changes when one paddock had
poly pipes and water troughs installed several years ago

The older iron pipes and troughs showed big differences in growth
rates , with mildly radio active water from nearby mound springs being
used for both paddocks , it became clear that the intestinal microbes
were actually feeding of the increased algae growth seen in the steel
troughs to supplement the camels diets

Camels drinking direct from mound springs and camels drinking from
poly troughs were identical , all camels were related from the same
mob , and identical grazing and food , and groups of camels moved
between these three mobs soon matched the results of the new group
after 12 months yet even to an untrained eye the "steel trough
camels" looked much more robust than the other two mobs

Research ongoing , into algae , iron , saline water, camels

kangarooistan
=============

cut and paste from another message board on this topic
==============================================
Q where is the largest sheet of limestone [calciumum carbonate ] and
what built it

Nullarbor Plain
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Nullarbor Plain is part of the area of flat, almost treeless, arid
or semi-arid country immediately north of the Great Australian Bight.
The word Nullarbor is derived from the Latin nullus for 'nothing' or
'no one' and arbor for 'tree', and is pronounced "NULL-uh-
bore" (IPA: /
ˈnʌləbɔr/). It is the world>s largest single piece of limestone, and
occupies an area of about 200,000 km² (77,200 sq miles)[1].
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullarbor_Plain

- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
[quote]Its so simple you will laugh , I forgive you as it does sound silly .
But some s will eventually test it , it cost nothing to at least test
it , and you too will very quickly see that it does indeed work ,
. Step one , Take a used jam tin , steel food grade like you most
likely have in your kitchen bin. place it into the sea near where you
live below the water in a safe quiet spot , where you can watch it
for a few days to see if it will stay where you put it .
Step two , take an old wire coat hanger from the wardrobe and
straighten it out , save up your old tin food grade tin [ steel ] cans
and punch a hole in either end and thread them onto the meter long
wire coat hanger, and make what I shall call a tin can " necklace "
like they make flower or shell necklaces in some countries.
Step 3 . place this " necklace : into the sea near where you live ,
in water where you left your test tin can in a safe quiet spot , they
will soon grow a covering of green algae / sea weed . Step three ,
Make ten more " necklaces " exactly like the first one and test them
to see they weigh exactly one kg each and tie ten " necklaces together
to make what I call a bundle , with a total weight of ten KG ,
.Step four , Place this ten Kg bundle of tin food grade cans into the
sea where you have tested out they will stay where you put them ,
. Step five remove one necklace from the " bundle " from time to time
to examine the results without disturbing the " bundle too much , and
can weigh a necklace to check results if you wish to be exact .
Step Six , do some checking and you will notice the tin cans vanish
after a few months . max 2 years , and a ball of Algae and lots of
baby fish have grown inside and around your "bundle " . If you examine
what has happened , you will note that 1Fe atom and 360,000 carbon
atoms and 580,000 nitrogen atoms and 3,600 potassium atoms will have
turned your ten KG bundle of used waste steel [ tin ] cans into a
360,000kg x 10kg =3,600,000 kg ,carbon "sink " as the algae feeds
millions of happy little fish [ zooplankton ] that hid inside your "
can " bundle " from big hungry fish and ate the hundreds of tons of
micro Algae[ phytoplankton] that grew from your slow release iron
fertilization tablet { ten kg bundle of cans }.
Once you stop laughing, and start testing , you too will soon see
that if 6 billion people all added one kg of tin can "necklaces", to
the sea , it would cure global warming and feed the world on sea food
ten times over for free ,in a few months , OK I said I will forgive
you for Laughing , But I do expect you to at least test out with one
tin can , It does work , and nothing else comes close . 16.000
children are dying every day , their blood is now on your hands if you
fail to at least try it out , is 16,000 children die very day from
hunger and you have at least one tin can , use it , there is nothing
to lose , if you test as above it will be safe and iron tin cans are
non toxic , you eat your food out of them
.Once you are sure it works its possible to make bigger wire cages to
hold 100 kg or 10000 kg of cans , "Tincanistan" fish nursery /
hotels , please repost this to all your friends ASAP . contact me if
you want algae as Ive found some are much better than others , but
your local algae must be tested first as its often best...
many thanks kangarooistan
[/quote]
When the experts finally discover that algae from the mound springs in
South australia can store more carbon dioxide than any other method
known for free , they will eventually be forced to admit that
kangarooistan had indeed cured global warming and solved the worlds
food shortage all for free
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spencer_Gulf

experts are so dumb it will take them another 10 years to work out
what any ordinary person could discover in 10 minutes flat

One day they will discover it is exactly like the Woolemi Pine tree
they discovered left over from the dinosaur times in an " isolate "
time capsule
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wollemia

http://www.sea-us.org.au/roxstop97/msinfo1.htm

The mound springs contain ancient Algae that will cure global warming
and feed the world more sea food than they could ever eat 10 times
over for free , algae plus iron tin cans will cure global warming ,
but experts are so dumb they need time for it to sink in , be patient
mate

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wollemia
http://www.sea-us.org.au/roxstop97/msinfo1.htm

When the algae from the mound springs enters salt water in Spencer
Gulf , with iron in
it from Whyalla , it is like a explosion of life , the algae grows so
fast it keeps
the largest fishing fleet in Australia busy catching all the fish and
prawns that eat algae
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whyalla,_South_Australia

When the fish die they leave behind Calcium carbonate , { limestone ]

Where do you think the largest single slab of limestone should be
found if kangarooistan is right

Nullarbor Plain
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Nullarbor Plain is part of the area of flat, almost treeless, arid
or semi-arid country immediately north of the Great Australian Bight.
The word Nullarbor is derived from the Latin nullus for 'nothing' or
'no one' and arbor for 'tree', and is pronounced "NULL-uh-
bore" (IPA: /
ˈnʌləbɔr/).

It is the world>s largest single piece of limestone, and occupies an
area of about 200,000 km² (77,200 sq miles)[1]. At its widest point,
it stretches about 1,200 km from east to west between South Australia
(SA)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullarbor_Plain

If the experts actually looked they would soon discover what nature
does with excess unwanted carbon in the air , nature has been doing it
for thousands of years and is happy to keep doing it for free , just
give nature the iron and the algae and watch , the evidence is over
whelming , thats why experts refuse to look , they only want very
expensive cures that will employ them all for life , once the public
discover the truth and simply add their used food tin cans to the
sea , all the experts will lose their jobs over night

see pics of limestone cliffs
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Australian_Bight

Anybody with eyes can see how nature has used Arabunna Algae and iron
in salt water to build the largest carbon sink on earth , over 3
billion years for free and all based on fish bones from eating
arabunna algae flowing out of Spencer Gulf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spencer_Gulf

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algae

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_fertilization

Test any area of the ocean you like

There is a direct link between iron algae sea water and carbon sink

It can be tested anywhere , test how much iron in the water and the
exact proportion of algae and fish and carbon > limestone always
follow

Add tin / steel waste food cans to your sea water and watch what
happens

It really is that simple , algae don>t care what iron they eat , sea
food will eat the algae , you can eat the fish

one kg of iron cans will lock away 83 tons of carbon as limestone

kangarooistan
=============

Virgil · Guest

In article <g43fgb$1e5q$1@darwin.ediacara.org>,
John W Edser <edser@ozemail.com.au> wrote:

[quote]Virgil <Virgil@gmale.com> wrote:-

Non random processes produce both random and no random patterns whereas
a random processes can only provide a random pattern such that _every
random pattern presents the same pattern_.

This seems to be saying that non-random processes can be unpredicatble
but random processes must be entirely predictable.

JE:-
Firstly, a pattern is not a process. A pattern is produced by a process
and not the reverse. Mathematicians almost always get this wrong because
_they have no frame of reference to be able to separate them_. Only a
Non random process can provide a non random pattern such that only non
random patterns can be unique. OTOH all random patterns provide the same
random pattern. This does not mean that random patterns remain
predictable and non random patterns unpredictable; it means the
opposite. A random pattern remains _scientifically unpredictable by
definition_ because random events have no explicable cause. OTOH a non
random pattern can provide unique events which, because of their
uniqueness, allow a unique process to explain them. An example is c as
THE (singular) velocity maximand which can only be explained using
Einstein>s Special Theory as a proposed process. Similarly, fitness as a
maximand can only be explained by Darwinian theory which must not be
confused with Neo Darwinian theory because it allows more than just the
one fitness maximand per falsifiable selectee (i.e. represents
mathematics and not science; mathematics is not a science).

Regards,

John Edser
Independent Researcher
[/quote]
I do not understand
"Only a Non random process can provide a non random pattern such that
only non random patterns can be unique".

If you are trying to say that only a non random process can produce an
entirely predictable pattern, you are saying it remarkably obscurely.

I also do not understand "OTOH all random patterns provide the same
random pattern."

I have no idea what you are trying to say there but you do not seem to
have said it.

Entertained by my own EIM · Guest

"Cj" <Cj@mist.net> wrote in message
news:g43fgb$1e6c$1@darwin.ediacara.org...
<snip>
[quote]This would be more interesting if you made the whole thing a single
sentence, it would save on punctuation and have exactly the same meaning.
Cj
[/quote]
Cj,,,,,,,,
Gulp, but thanks. %-}

I shall try to apply your advice; and, if I manage to do so, this will make
me into someone who merely have had a sojourn in a mental state of being
both semantically and essentially message-wise hard to swallow; something
which should make me think, accompanied by feelings of philo_genetic
fondness, of you as the mutagene that made me 'evolve' into mastering the
art of making S_EPT_IC sense.

May your critical contributions never cease!

P

dkomo · Guest

John Edser wrote:
[quote]dkomo <dkomo871@comcast.net> wrote:

In my opinion, natural selection and genetic drift are more or less
equal contributors to the evolution of organismal form.

JE:-
They are not at all equal.
[/quote]
There is a lot of empirical evidence that much genetic polymorphism --
allele differences between species -- is caused by genetic drift. I
based my statement regarding the approximate equality of contributions
by genetic drift and natural selection on the following bit of evidence:

"Witn an extension of the MK test applied to 35 genes in D. simulans and
D. yakuba, Nick Smith and Adam Eyre-Walker (2002) estimated that 45% of
all amino acid substitutions between the genomes of the two species were
fixed by positive selection."

Scott Freeman, _Evolution Analysis_, 3rd Ed., p. 231

With 45% of the differences caused by selection, the rest of the 55% of
differences would be due to genetic drift.

[quote]Genetic drift and other random processes can
only limit what the entirely non random process of natural selection may
select i.e. genetic cannot direct anything but selection can. Unselected
changes in heritable variation cannot constitute random evolution within
the sciences but it does within mathematics. The neutral theory of
evolution is not a theory of anything just, mathematics. Mathematics is
not a science.

[/quote]
This is utter nonsense. Genetic drift is as much a force in evolution
as is natural selection. Genetic drift not only changes the allelle
frequencies of populations, which is the population genetics
*definition* of evolution, but it also can *fix* these allelles in the
population independently of selection. These effects have strong
empirical support within the discipline of molecular evolution.

"Drift can have profound effects on the evolutionary history of a
population. In very small populations, the effects of sampling error are
so significant that even deleterious alleles can become fixed in the
population, and may even threaten its survival."

"In a population bottleneck, where a larger population suddenly
contracts to a small size, genetic drift can result in sudden and
radical changes in allele frequency that occur independently of
selection. In such instances, the population>s genetic variation is
reduced, and many beneficial adaptations may be permanently eliminated."

"Similarly, migrating populations may see a founder effect, where a few
individuals with a rare allele in the originating generation can produce
a population that has allele frequencies that seem at odds with natural
selection. Founder>s effects are sometimes held to be responsible for
high frequencies of some genetic diseases."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_drift

What many people don>t seem to realize is that genetic drift acts on
*all* allelles whether they be neutral, beneficial or deleterious. It
acts independently of selection, so, for example, a beneficial allele
can at the same time be acted upon by positive selection and genetic drift.

[quote]

I agree with
Gould that a large percentage of phenotypical features probably have
little adaptive utility and could have arisen "accidentally".

JE:-
Traits are commonly observed to arise "accidentally". Heritable,
randomly produced variation remains ubiquitous in nature (Note: this is
proposed as a falsifiable observation and not a proposed theory of
causation for a trait). Proposing a theory of evolutionary science to be
based on a random process was and remains just a contradiction in terms
simply because "random" can only mean observed but not understood.
Mathematics cannot explain random events even if it can measure them and
even predict a few of them. Verification without non verification and
falsification cannot constitute a valid science of anything because the
ancient square of opposition absolutely requires all three to apply to
each corner of one, indivisible square.

[/quote]
Because drift alone can drive the frequencies of alleles, a strong
argument can be made that the phenotypical features influenced by these
allelles may have neutral adaptive value.

--dkomo@cris.com

John W Edser · Guest

Virgil <Virgil@gmale.com> wrote:-

[quote]I do not understand
"Only a Non random process can provide a non random pattern such that
only non random patterns can be unique".
[/quote]
JE:-
Hi Virgil,

What see around us as unique (one of a kind objects or events) e.g. a
snowflake, a bottle shattering or a living thing are produced by non
random processes. OTOH all random processes produce the same pattern:
a random pattern

[quote]If you are trying to say that only a non random process can produce an
entirely predictable pattern, you are saying it remarkably obscurely.
[/quote]
JE:-
I was relating process to pattern. While this may seem obscure it
remains rigorous to the premises

[quote]I also do not understand "OTOH all random patterns provide the same
random pattern."
[/quote]
JE:-
All random processes produce the same pattern.

Regards,

John Edser
Independent Researcher

edser@ozemail

Entertained by my own EIM · Guest

"Entertained by my own EIMC" <decoy@mindyaown.biz> wrote in message
news:g47a24$6s2$1@darwin.ediacara.org...
[quote]
"John W Edser" <edser@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
news:g43fgb$1e5q$1@darwin.ediacara.org...
Virgil <Virgil@gmale.com> wrote:-

Non random processes produce both random and no random patterns whereas
a random processes can only provide a random pattern such that _every
random pattern presents the same pattern_.

This seems to be saying that non-random processes can be unpredicatble
but random processes must be entirely predictable.

JE:-
Firstly, a pattern is not a process. A pattern is produced by a process
and not the reverse. Mathematicians almost always get this wrong because
_they have no frame of reference to be able to separate them_. Only a
Non random process can provide a non random pattern such that only non
random patterns can be unique. OTOH all random patterns provide the same
random pattern. This does not mean that random patterns remain
predictable and non random patterns unpredictable; it means the
opposite. A random pattern remains _scientifically unpredictable by
definition_ because random events have no explicable cause. OTOH a non
random pattern can provide unique events which, because of their
uniqueness, allow a unique process to explain them. An example is c as
THE (singular) velocity maximand which can only be explained using
Einstein>s Special Theory as a proposed process. Similarly, fitness as a
maximand can only be explained by Darwinian theory which must not be
confused with Neo Darwinian theory because it allows more than just the
one fitness maximand per falsifiable selectee (i.e. represents
mathematics and not science; mathematics is not a science).

The (by me estimated) 'extent of praiseworthiness' that your "Darwinian"
idea of a (philosophically and logically foremost ;-)) "fitness maximand"
deserves is (by me determined as being) directly proportional to the
degree
that it is successfully put in the service of focusing people>s minds on,
and makes them (us) come to practically and remedially transformative
(from
physiologically to socially/sociopolitically so) conceptual grips with
what
it is [and thus an "Effectively ~Perfectly~ {i.e. approximatively}True"
understanding of why, and of how] they (we) normally tend to reflexively
remain unable to consciously recall and recognize yet be insidiously
motivated (or co-motivated) by.
[/quote]
I know I am barking up ringbarked trees but since I seem to be AEVASIVEly
drawn to behave barkingly, here I go:

I meant we need to become better both at
1. "beholding" (perceiving)
2. "biting the bullet" (as far as doing something about)
A. what can be realistically done to prevent Specific (synaptic-sized states
of) Hibernation (here i.e. inhibitory impact of interneurons) Imploring (as
if 'imploring to be induced') Type predicaments from happening,
B. learning how best to deal with already 'bitten-in' memory states of a
type that can be called CURSES (same insidious conditioned in states are
elsewhere printed and talkatively termed less euphemistically as Pain - with
a capital, or as "primal pain", or elsewhere more euphemistically as
"engrams").

IF one can and do take "SHI-Type stressors" {primly put} and their
conditioned-in subcortical and cortical counterparts "CURSES" entirely
properly and thoroughly into account as being significant complementary
selective pressures often operating concurrently alongside positive (or
primarily opportunity offering) 'evolutionarily pressuring' types of
lifetime challenges (IOW "positively selective" pressures) - thus combining
into a key (key to how we evolved to become how we are) kind of "overlap"
that obviously frequently affected (or challenged) individuals of pre and
proto human populations of which our ancestors were members, AND, MOREOVER,
into additional account as environmental and endogenous influences factors
that contribute to how our personalities (or individual "psychologies")
develop (importantly through learning - including feedback involving
interactions with environmental factors - in the process of
"socialization"), THEN one will get fairly close to appreciate the serious
aim [minus any the S_EPT_IC humored (almost homeopathically protective and
deceptively solely silly) meanings] of my loosely lingual and sem_antics
sporting but essentially rational and science-aligned "enlightenment
promoting terminology" and its constituent key-concEPTs. %-|

P

Cj · Guest

Entertained by my own EIMC wrote:
[quote]Consider the following leading (but typically only reluctantly followed)
question:
What is the best (most adaptive) possible strategy by which an individual
can cope with/survive a harrowing (painful and/or fearsome) predicament (of
a neuromuscular individual) that is not being avoided or prevented (whether
or not it in principle can be avoided or prevented) and that cannot be
physically fled from or otherwise 'neutralized' after an individual animal
have _actually_ ended up in it (that is, ended up in a thus _generally
defined_ predicament)?

The above question should be (is best) contemplated against a background
'that consists of'

1. The capacity of all sufficiently genetically normal, sufficiently
developmentally formed and neuroanatomically intact neuromuscular animals to
form some kind of durable "memory" (and you may very well also consider that
even single-celled 'amoebic' individuals are capable of some form of
learning and remembering). By durable memory I here mean mean mainly but not
only any experientially induced (or "conditioned-in") lasting functural
change of neurons ("functural" is my shorthand way of implying and
underscoring that a functional change is also structural); more specifically
changes of "LTP-type" - that is, lasting or "long-term potentiating" changes
of both excitatory and inhibitory neurons' firing-propensity; and,

2. that the capacity to undergo such changes is, basically, entirely
automatic.

I told you to omit all punctuation to make your writings more[/quote]
interesting and coherent. You>re doing better but still too much
punctuation.
Cj

Entertained by my own EIM · Guest

(Thanks Josh! :>)
"Entertained by my own EIMC" <decoy@mindyaown.biz> wrote in message
news:g3tubi$1h2k$1@darwin.ediacara.org...
[quote]
Consider the following leading (but typically only reluctantly followed)
question:
What is the best (most adaptive) possible strategy by which an individual
can cope with/survive a harrowing (painful and/or fearsome) predicament
(of
a neuromuscular individual) that is not being avoided or prevented
(whether
or not it in principle can be avoided or prevented) and that cannot be
physically fled from or otherwise 'neutralized' after an individual animal
have _actually_ ended up in it (that is, ended up in a thus _generally
defined_ predicament)?

The above question should be (is best) contemplated against a background
'that consists of'

1. The capacity of all sufficiently genetically normal, sufficiently
developmentally formed and neuroanatomically intact neuromuscular animals
to
form some kind of durable "memory" (and you may very well also consider
that
even single-celled 'amoebic' individuals are capable of some form of
learning and remembering). By durable memory I here mean mean mainly but
not
only any experientially induced (or "conditioned-in") lasting functural
change of neurons ("functural" is my shorthand way of implying and
underscoring that a functional change is also structural); more
specifically
changes of "LTP-type" - that is, lasting or "long-term potentiating"
changes
of both excitatory and inhibitory neurons' firing-propensity; and,

2. that the capacity to undergo such changes is, basically, entirely
automatic.

[/quote]
You>ve had your chance to come up with an answer, so I>ll answer myself. ;-)

[I know I am barking up ringbarked trees but since I seem to be AEVASIVEly
drawn to behave barkingly, here I go ;-)]

I meant we need to become better both at

1. "beholding" (perceiving)

2. "biting the bullet" (as far as doing something about)

A. what can be realistically done to prevent Specific (synaptic-sized states
of) Hibernation (here i.e. inhibitory impact of interneurons) Imploring (as
if 'imploring to be induced') Type predicaments from happening,

B. learning how best to deal with already 'bitten-in' memory states of a
type that can be called CURSES (same insidious conditioned in states are
elsewhere printed and talkatively termed less euphemistically as Pain - with
a capital, or as "primal pain", or elsewhere more euphemistically as
"engrams").
---

_If_ one can take in the significance of "SHI type predicaments (see#) and
their normally automatically
conditioned-in subcortical and cortical counterparts "CURSES" in a way that
is both
'evolution pertainingly' theoretical and restraining of a
rational-reasoning-revoking reflex [a reflex that I recommend be more
efficiently and charmingly referred to as "a 'rEPTilian' self-restraint"
%-}] _then_ one is no more than halfway on the way to obtain an in-dEPTh
heuristic [here EPT might stand for "effectively philosophy terminating"]
philosophical overview of people - oneself omitted not! ;-)

In order to be somewhat farther along the way to be EPT-aligned, one must
master being mindful of that these two closely causally related sorts of
significant selective pressures are *complementary* to ANY other obvious or
realistically suggested factors/scenarios/interactions of our phylogeny!.

Only after such advances closer to an edgy but fairly philanthropically
oriented EPT understanding of ourselves will one get fairly close to
appreciate the serious aim behind
[minus the S_EPT_IC humored - i.e., almost homeopathically protective and
only
decEPTively silly, or, IOW, for a soberly assigned purpose lingually loose
and sem_antics-sporting - surface of] my essentially rational and
science-aligned concEPT..

However, only by also perceiving the simple evolutionary sub-principle of
how very often and how significantly (in respect of how our traits got
naturally selected) SHI-type predicaments and their dynamic and in the
long-term lingering imprints (CURSES) have combined with positive (or
primarily 'opportunity-offering') 'evolutionarily pressuring' types of
lifetime challenges - thus combining
into a key ("key to" a largely unprecedented unified understanding of how we
evolved to become how we are kind of naturally selectively (or
phylogenetically) operative 'overlap' [one that obviously frequently
affected (or challenged) individuals of pre and proto human populations] AND
by taking into additional account that lifetime examples of the same
subcategory of predicaments and their imprints together with lifetime
examples of the completely generally defined counterpart-category of
predominantly pleasurable (or opportunity offering) lifetime challenges and
the learning/memories caused by them, also amount to a substantial part NOT
ONLY of the "evolutionary pressure totality" but of all the environmental
and endogenous (both conditioned-in and intrinsic) influences or factors
that combine to the _developement_ of our personalities (or individual
"psychologies") - not least importantly via the learning (including through
feedback-involving
interactions with environmental factors) in the process of "socialization".
%-|
--------

#
"SHI-type" is a more prudely put expression than the expression that would
have resulted had I allowed the full abbreviatory potential of this concEPT
[and the corresponding aspect of my creative (by EPT implications AEVASIVEly
motivated) and 'exEPTionally' poised thinking about and ditto take on
our species' evolution toward our uniquely outstanding AEVASIVE phenotype
and behavioral/psychologic/cultural characteristics.
----

Lastly, if I allow myself to be self-ironic (including being ironic about my
'EPT efforts' to fertilize - or infect - folk>s minds with my 'EPT memes')
then I could say that I think or feel that we 'ought' to (i.e. according to
my not even half hopeful and humble
opinion) have evoked (within us) constructive embarrassments, empathies, and
"specific
self-regulatory sorrows". And that I seem to be trying to have a recipe for
such changes transferred to
electronic paper - textually and S_EPT_I_C-ally/-omedically. %-}

P

John Edser · Guest

dkomo <dkomo871@comcast.net> wrote:-

[quote]In my opinion, natural selection and genetic drift are more or less
equal contributors to the evolution of organismal form.

JE:-
They are not at all equal.

There is a lot of empirical evidence that much genetic polymorphism --
allele differences between species -- is caused by genetic drift.
[/quote]
JE:-
Hi Dkomo,

Firstly, the falsifiable Darwinian theory of evolution 100% incorporates
heritable random events as strictly, HERITABLE VARIATION, i.e not as
EVOLUTION in its own right as yourself and the Neo Darwinian
establishment incorrectly assume. Random heritable variation is acted on
by non random natural selection within *THE ONE SAME FALSIFIABLE
THEORY*, i.e. they cannot be separated and then pitched against each
other in just a simple additive way as somehow, equal contesting
theories of evolution such that selection provides say, 40% and drift
60%! Separating them as competing, additive evolutionary theories in
their own right reduces both to non falsifiability. The Darwinian theory
cannot be partitioned in this way and remain in any way reasonable (even
if such a partition remains logical). All that is happening here is that
mathematicians continue to misuse oversimplified models of Darwinian
evolutionary theory and to refuse to acknowledge that this was and
remains the case. Mathematics is not a science.

Secondly, we cannot validly propose within any of the sciences (which
does include evolutionary theory) that a just a random process remains
causative to anything even if we can do so within mathematics simply
because any proposed random process only means a process which is not
understood.

[quote]I
based my statement regarding the approximate equality of contributions
by genetic drift and natural selection on the following bit of evidence:

"Witn an extension of the MK test applied to 35 genes in D. simulans and
D. yakuba, Nick Smith and Adam Eyre-Walker (2002) estimated that 45% of
all amino acid substitutions between the genomes of the two species were
fixed by positive selection."

Scott Freeman, _Evolution Analysis_, 3rd Ed., p. 231

With 45% of the differences caused by selection, the rest of the 55% of
differences would be due to genetic drift.
[/quote]
JE:-
The supposed Neutral Theory of evolution is not a valid theory of
anything. What it produces are mathematically based modeling
observations which then require a falsifiable explanation of science.
This can only be provided by incorporating the proposed random process
of sampling error with at least one NON RANDOM PROCESS within the ONE
SAME THEORY OF SCIENCE. Just a mathematically based observation is not
an explanation, of anything i.e. a pattern is not a proposed process.
Unfortunately, mathematicians cannot separate a proposed process from
the pattern it is supposed to produce because mathematics has no frame
of reference to be able to do so.

The random process of sampling error and the non random process of
natural selection cannot remains separated in the sciences i.e. their
relationship is 100% dependent and not at all interdependent (not just
additive). Neo Darwinists are repeating the same error that the
pointless "nature nurture" controversy fostered in the 1960>s when it
was assumed that genes provided x% and nurture y%. While it can be
useful to assume such a gross oversimplification and allow both as
competing independent processes using just an oversimplified model it
constitutes a gross misuse of such a model to propose it as a bona fide
theory of science. Mathematics is not a science because it has no frame
of reference.

[quote]Genetic drift and other random processes can
only limit what the entirely non random process of natural selection may
select i.e. random genetics cannot direct anything but selection can. Unselected
changes in heritable variation cannot constitute random evolution within
the sciences but it does within mathematics. The neutral theory of
evolution is not a theory of anything just, mathematics. Mathematics is
not a science.

This is utter nonsense. Genetic drift is as much a force in evolution
as is natural selection.
[/quote]
JE:-
I agree that sampling error does constitute just a random force within
the ONE SAME EVOLUTIONARY THEORY OF SCIENCE but because it is just a
proposed random process it it cannot provide direction without selection
Genes can only become randomly fixed via genetic drift allowing just a
random pattern of gene fixation. All such a proposed random process can
possibly do is to set limits as to what the non random process of
natural selection can select within the one same, falsifiable theory of
evolutionary science. The invalid separation of evolution into drift
verses selection was and remains an absurdity of mathematics.

[quote]Genetic drift not only changes the allelle
frequencies of populations, which is the population genetics
*definition* of evolution, but it also can *fix* these allelles in the
population independently of selection. These effects have strong
empirical support within the discipline of molecular evolution.
[/quote]
JE:-
The only valid definition that can exist within the sciences which can
validly remain focused at just the gene level is: any NON RANDOM change
in a gene in a deme. This is only because "random" means an observed
pattern without any scientific explanation. Mathematical explanations
are NOT scientific explanations. Mathematics is not a science. We cannot
validly propose that we understand what we also proposed we do not
understand.

[quote]"Drift can have profound effects on the evolutionary history of a
population. In very small populations, the effects of sampling error are
so significant that even deleterious alleles can become fixed in the
population, and may even threaten its survival."
[/quote]
JE:-
Yes but that is not an explanation of anything, just an observation
begging _an as yet not supplied falsifiable explanation_. An observation
is not an explanation of anything except within mathematics. Mathematics
is not a science. Yet again both yourself and the Neo Darwinian
establishment refuse to separate just an observation from a proposed
explanation for the same observation. The point here is that natural
selection cannot halt _incorporated sampling error_ but it can control
the rate to genetic drift e.g. by stopping meiosis or by
reducing/increasing the cross over rates etc etc. Just the incorporation
of genes into chromosomes of a certain number and size has a direct
effect on the random patterns which provided Mendel>s Laws via an
alteration in linkage disequilibrium. It was and remains absurd to argue
that the non random process of selection cannot control the rate of
production of randomly produced heritable variation. It can and it does.
This being the case so called evolutionary causes attributed to just
drift alone may have been produced by selection increasing the rate of
drift, i.e. a selective pressure may open or close this heritable
variation tap even if it cannot close it entirely. Once again,
separating drift from selection as they are firmly incorporated within
the one same falsifiable theory of evolutionary science has produced
more harm than good because of chronic model misuse.

[quote]"In a population bottleneck, where a larger population suddenly
contracts to a small size, genetic drift can result in sudden and
radical changes in allele frequency that occur independently of
selection. In such instances, the population>s genetic variation is
reduced, and many beneficial adaptations may be permanently eliminated."

"Similarly, migrating populations may see a founder effect, where a few
individuals with a rare allele in the originating generation can produce
a population that has allele frequencies that seem at odds with natural
selection. Founder>s effects are sometimes held to be responsible for
high frequencies of some genetic diseases."
[/quote]
JE:-
It was Sewell Wright who introduced genetic drift to evolutionary
science. He proposed it as just a producer of heritable variation along
with random mutation. It was JBS Haldane and RA Fisher who misused
drift as evolution. Out of the three founding fathers of population
genetics, only Wright was a bona fide biologist. Haldane and Fisher were
mathematicians. It was Haldane who went of to provide the Mathematical
red herring of inclusive fitness which haunts evolutionary theory to
this very day. While mathematics properly incorporated within the
sciences (Mendel was one of the first within biology to do this) has
produced massive strides, the consistent misuse of oversimplified models
of falsifiable Darwinism within Neo Darwinism remains unconscionable.

[quote]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_drift

What many people don>t seem to realize is that genetic drift acts on
*all* allelles whether they be neutral, beneficial or deleterious. It
acts independently of selection, so, for example, a beneficial allele
can at the same time be acted upon by positive selection and genetic drift.
[/quote]
JE:-
No proposed random process can act independent of at least one proposed
non random process within the sciences BUT IT CAN DO WITHIN MATHEMATICS.
Mathematics is not a science for this reason.

[quote]I agree with
Gould that a large percentage of phenotypical features probably have
little adaptive utility and could have arisen "accidentally".

JE:-
Traits are commonly observed to arise "accidentally". Heritable,
randomly produced variation remains ubiquitous in nature (Note: this is
proposed as a falsifiable observation and not a proposed theory of
causation for a trait). Proposing a theory of evolutionary science to be
based on a random process was and remains just a contradiction in terms
simply because "random" can only mean observed but not understood.
Mathematics cannot explain random events even if it can measure them and
even predict a few of them. Verification without non verification and
falsification cannot constitute a valid science of anything because the
ancient square of opposition absolutely requires all three to apply to
each corner of one, indivisible square.

Because drift alone can drive the frequencies of alleles, a strong
argument can be made that the phenotypical features influenced by these
allelles may have neutral adaptive value.
[/quote]
JE:-
This "strong" argument of mathematics is not even a valid argument of
the the sciences. All it actually constitutes is a misplaced observation
i.e. an observation invalidly used as an explanation. Suggesting that
random processes can validly compete against non random processes when
both remain incorporated within the one, same falsifiable theory of
evolution _unnecessarily_ tears that theory apart. Model misuse is not
model use.

Regards,

John Edser
Independent Researcher

edser@ozemail.com.au

Anthony Campbell · Guest

On 2008-06-26, Cj <Cj@mist.net> wrote:
[quote]
Yes. A blind dog cannot respond to the body language of other dogs.
Since pack leadership (almost equals dominance) virtually requires that
the Alpha ignore the body language of subordinates the blind dog is
automatically exhibiting the body language of a dominant (Alpha) dog.
In theory a blind dog could represent a very dominant Alpha temporarily;
this would only last until the rest of the "pack" realized that the
blind dog was responding inappropriately to other body language signals
unrelated to dominance.
Cj

[/quote]
This certainly sounds likely, although I seem to remember seeint a TV
programme about wolves which said that they tended to protect an injured
pack member -- but I may be misremembering.

Anthony

--
Anthony Campbell - ac@acampbell.org.uk
Microsoft-free zone - Using Debian GNU/Linux
http://www.acampbell.org.uk (blog, book reviews,
and sceptical articles)

Virgil · Guest

In article <g48g4r$pkl$1@darwin.ediacara.org>,
John W Edser <edser@ozemail.com.au> wrote:

[quote]Virgil <Virgil@gmale.com> wrote:-

I do not understand
"Only a Non random process can provide a non random pattern such that
only non random patterns can be unique".

JE:-
Hi Virgil,

What see around us as unique (one of a kind objects or events) e.g. a
snowflake, a bottle shattering or a living thing are produced by non
random processes. OTOH all random processes produce the same pattern:
a random pattern
[/quote]
There is randomness in determining WHICH snowflake, or which human, for
that matter, is to be produced

And afterwards, once a pattern has been created, there is no way at all
to tell for certain whether it was created randomly or non-randomly,
[quote]

If you are trying to say that only a non random process can produce an
entirely predictable pattern, you are saying it remarkably obscurely.

JE:-
I was relating process to pattern. While this may seem obscure it
remains rigorous to the premises
[/quote]
Not until you have explained more clearly what you mean by "process" and
by "pattern".
[quote]

I also do not understand "OTOH all random patterns provide the same
random pattern."

JE:-
All random processes produce the same pattern.
[/quote]
Then you are saying that all dice rolls come up seven?

John W Edser · Guest

Anthony Campbell <ac@acampbell.org.uk> wrote:-

[quote]On 2008-06-26, Cj <Cj@mist.net> wrote:
Yes. A blind dog cannot respond to the body language of other dogs.
Since pack leadership (almost equals dominance) virtually requires that
the Alpha ignore the body language of subordinates the blind dog is
automatically exhibiting the body language of a dominant (Alpha) dog.
In theory a blind dog could represent a very dominant Alpha temporarily;
this would only last until the rest of the "pack" realized that the
blind dog was responding inappropriately to other body language signals
unrelated to dominance.

This certainly sounds likely, although I seem to remember seeint a TV
programme about wolves which said that they tended to protect an injured
pack member -- but I may be misremembering.
[/quote]
JE:-
The main point is being missed. These dogs are not displaying fitness
altruism they are displaying fertile organism fitness mutualism as it
was selected for in the wild. The antiquated fitness
altruism/selfishness argument which has been raging within evolutionary
theory ever since Wallace proposed group selection never had a fitness
frame of reference so it was and remains to this very just (more)
irrational (misused) mathematics. The entirely unrecognized falsifiable
frame of reference which does apply to Neo Darwinism is: Total Darwinian
Fitness (TDF) as I have previously defined it here. TDF remains the only
falsifiable fitness maximand that the science of biology has.

What a pack of dogs is doing is _amazingly successfully_ hunting
together as a cooperative group such that each adult dog increases its
very own TDF BUT NOT NECESSARILY EQUALLY by doing so. Because TDF only
allows a single and therefore falsifiable fitness maximand per adult per
population, it cannot be selected to be reduced. Maximands operate,
without exception, at a maximum (by definition) e.g. c the velocity of
light in a vacuum. In water c can be less but even here it remains
maximal within that medium. Exactly the same rationale applies to TDF.

Regards

John Edser
Independent Researcher

John W Edser · Guest

Virgil <Virgil@gmale.com> wrote:-

[quote]JE:-
What see around us as unique (one of a kind objects or events) e.g. a
snowflake, a bottle shattering or a living thing are produced by non
random processes. OTOH all random processes produce the same pattern:
a random pattern

There is randomness in determining WHICH snowflake, or which human, for
that matter, is to be produced
[/quote]
JE:-
Scientifically interpreted what you wrote means: we have knowledge re:
the combination of non random processes which uniquely determines each
unique snowflake etc. What we do know are minimally two things:

1) Without at least one proposed non random process acting with any
proposed random process as _the one,same theory of science_, there is no
snowflake. Only mathematicians allow random processes to act alone.
Mathematics is not a science.

2) The extent of our knowledge with regard to any question, e.g. a
snowflake formation, is only determined by how well we can predict the
architecture etc of each unique snowflake using a falsifiable theory.
Always, more than just one such theory will be proposed so at least two
theories of science empirically contest. By this empirical measure our
knowledge only remains basic (despite any strident argument from
authority to the contrary), i.e. so much more needs to be discovered
about snowflake formation, particularly in the way that the laws of
nature COMBINE to produce one.

[quote]And afterwards, once a pattern has been created, there is no way at all
to tell for certain whether it was created randomly or non-randomly,
[/quote]
JE:-
Please refer to(1) above.

[quote]If you are trying to say that only a non random process can produce an
entirely predictable pattern, you are saying it remarkably obscurely.

JE:-
I was relating process to pattern. While this may seem obscure it
remains rigorous to the premises

Not until you have explained more clearly what you mean by "process" and
by "pattern".
[/quote]
JE:-

Process: Any falsifiable theory of causation, i.e. any bona fide theory
of science.

Pattern: The perceptual result of any process.

[quote]I also do not understand "OTOH all random patterns provide the same
random pattern."
JE:-
All random processes produce the same pattern.

Then you are saying that all dice rolls come up seven?
[/quote]
JE:-
No, that would prove a NON RANDOM process :-)

Regards,

John Edser
Independent Researcher

edser@ozemail.com.au


www.GetXFactor.com Leading Technology, Science, Agriculture News and information	Part of the Identityscape.com network... getxfactor.com jmoodmusic.com smartbusinesschoices.com mintdepot.com lowfaresalways.com evangelicalview.com shoppingpodder.com soproudlywehail.com webnews.ws currenthumor.com

Science and Technology news... Forum Index -> Biological Evolution Forum	Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Next
Page 1 of 5