Skip to main content

TR Memescape

  • Talk Rational: bwrv spotted

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Monad

I wondered if someone would come along and straighten Saunt Taunga out.

You were making the same mistake and were straightened out yourself last time you tried to conflate morphogenetic fields with morphic fields but unfortunately you don't learn from your mistakes.
I think you may be confusing this with Sheldrake's 'morphic fields' (possibly Socrates is too?) - not at all the same concept

A morphogenetic field is a pretty well established concept based in natural processes
I think a better way of seeing it is as reality, not magic (or natural, not supernatural). 'Physical' doesn't just mean matter based, that's a simplistic way of understanding the concept, energy and quantum states (including actual and potential) are also physical (which is why physics studies all these things, physics is the scientific study of the nature of reality).
Not ironically at all, I have always been interested in Leibniz and Spinoza
I think he means what László referred to as the Akashic Field
All-Pro level grifter

Pro as in hooker right?

It seems he bends over backwards for his fellow capitalists.
Politics and Current Events / Re: Canada legalizes?
Fuck I'm moving to Canada  :parrot:  :parrot:
Unsurprising that Socrates even misuses and misunderstands the concept of metaphysics

Much research has been done on homeotic genes in different organisms, ranging from basic understanding of how the molecules work to mutations to how homeotic genes affect the human body. Changing the expression levels of homeotic genes can negatively impact the organism. For example, in one study, a pathogenic phytoplasma caused homeotic genes in a flowering plant to either be significantly upregulated or downregulated. This led to severe phenotypic changes including dwarfing, defects in the pistils, hypopigmentation, and the development of leaf-like structures on most floral organs.[13] In another study, it was found that the homeotic gene Cdx2 acts as a tumor suppressor. In normal expression levels, the gene prevents tumorgenesis and colorectal cancer when exposed to carcinogens; however, when Cdx2 was not well expressed, carcinogens caused tumor development.[14] These studies, along with many others, show the importance of homeotic genes even after development.
This only stands to reason.
Note that this is only reporting on homeotic genes. That is just the tip of the iceberg in terms of regulatory genes.
One can see from these examples that if not lethal then it reduces survivabilty.
So that is the dilemma. Changes to development regulatory genes can create new species and even higher levels but random changes will not do it. From this we can conclude that if changes to development regulatory genes did create new species it was directed by some form of intelligence.   

How would that look to us. It would look spontaneous.
In summary, the present study aimed at studying facilitated variation in simple model systems. Populations evolved under systematically varying conditions were found to exhibit not only a memory of past goals but were also able to generalize to new conditions that are in the same language as previous conditions. Adaptation to useful novel goals was enhanced by organisms that have learned the shared subgoals that existed in past environments and are therefore likely to be encountered in future environments. Several elements of facilitated variation theory, such as genetic triggers, modularity, and reduced pleiotropy of mutations seem to evolve spontaneously under these conditions. It would be interesting to study the evolution of additional FV mechanisms such as exploratory behavior and body-plan compartmentalization using more elaborate models with hierarchical designs and developmental programs.

Note that "spontaneously" means they have no explanation for the phenomena. The actual explanation is the intelligence of Nature.

No it means these are emergent processes under particular conditions that replicate previously 'experienced' conditions. ie you create the right conditions for something it will spontaneously emerge, like creating the right conditions for crystallisation or combustion (or pebbles being sorted on a beach).

Really if you are going to actually read stuff try to read what it actually says and to understand it instead of just cherry picking what fits your own preconceptions.
Yes it's about how evolution learns from its past, the evolution of evolvability. Kirschner and Gerhardt see natural selection as a heuristic process (which was always implicit in Darwin's original thinking but to some extent got lost during the initial synthesis of Darwinian evolutionary theory and Mendelian Genetics but is being re-appreciated in the new extended synthesis).
How many years ago did I first recommend that Socrates read 'The Plausibility of Life' by Kirschner and Gerhardt? - it answers all the issues he's raising and is still one of the best rebuttals of 'Intelligent' design I've come across (far better than anything by Dawkins).

It's all about the interaction between core conserved processes and relatively deconstrained elements. Brilliant but much misunderstood book (particularly by Creationists).
Again Monad supports what I am talking about.

Well no, it actually blows your whole ridiculous argument apart.

Mutations that lead to such ectopic placements are usually lethal

Usually means usually, not always, as the evidence shows

Therefore no designer necessary
Again Monad supports what I am talking about.

Well no, it actually blows your whole ridiculous argument apart.
Monad has given an example of changes related to changes of regulatory genes. This supports what I have been talking about. 

Non lethal changes that affected the evolution of a whole new clade.
Black Panther certainly lived up to its promise - brilliant in every way but most of all for the beautiful Africanist vision it offers.
The "quantum vacuum" is simply the name that scientists give for a domain not visible to the senses. And in fact they even get off on the wrong foot because it is not a vacuum but a plenum. If you wish to ignore that domain that is of course your call. Continue to try to shoehorn reality into explanations that demand that reality only be what we can sense with our senses.
The invisible domain called the quantum vacuum (actually quantum plenum) is not visible to the senses. You folks ignore it and restrict your explanations to the part visible to the senses. So be it.
You folks have become tedious.

Oh my, does that mean that we are asking for an explanation that you are not able to provide?

Well what he is alluding to vaguely is probably something close to this:

although Comings is at least honest in referring to this as something approximating to 'god' (probably in a deistic sense)

(perhaps, also aligned with Bohm's ontology)

TR Embassy and Animal Shelter / Re: Raccoon thread
It is safe

and now being fed cat food

I am surprised people did not offer a saltation excuse.
You used to really like saltations. No more?

He's just finally decided to come out as the Creationist everyone knew he was
This thread is about the origins of increased brain size.  Start your own thread if you want to talk about the origins of your reduced brain size.

It's amusing in the other thread that Socrates doesn't seem to have twigged the study is based on mitochondrial DNA.
Watched the sequence of Superman dawn of justice, Justice league and Wonder woman over a couple of days. Much better that way. Justice League is the only one with any sense of humour but that's Joss Whedon, Superman was pretty dull but did help to make sense of the others. Wonder woman I liked better a second time around but it's still annoyingly flawed in some respects.
Youtube recommendations are dumb and annoying - about time they made it possible to shut them off