Skip to main content

TR Memescape

  • I think as part of the "reboot" this place's name should be changed to "Talk and Talk and Talk and Talk More or Less Rationally".

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 - Lugubert

Dave, has the calf dropped yet? Natalie's back end sloppy?
Sea Star, I guessed it was your cow post when I detected a new post in this thread. Dave doesn't seem to be much into saving agriculture these days. A pity; some of the responses to his outlandish fantasies supplied useful suggestions to a hobby scale vegetable grower.
It's because he starts of with what he KNOWS to be The Truth, and can easily tell what is bullshit and what isn't by whether it's consistent with The Truth.

He is not, of course seeking Truth. He already has that.  He is seeking evidence that supports it. Where "evidence" can mean as little as "something containing the words I googled in some similar order".
No I'm really not seeking evidence to support what I believe anymore. At least not with respect to my idea that copying errors could have never created the biosphere.

Which, of course, is not believed by anyone.

But copying errors did contribute.

Do people still seek support for the idea that water is wet?
Does Davie-doodles still post idiotic analogies?

Continuously. Meme material. Just like "Does a bear..."

No. If he keeps on with the stupid car analogies the thread will continue to go nowhere. Cars are not living things, and pretending that earlier models are 'parents' is stupid and leads to completely unrealistic scenarios when compared to living things.
What's stupid is not being able to read.

I didn't say that earlier models are parents.

Learn to read.
You didn't say who the parents were.

Learn to write.
If you say that a car has no parent, then that means that you don't really understand what a parent actually is.
It means that we have another definition of "parent" than you. Please provide yours. You'll find ours in any dictionary.
Dave, I was taught genetics 101 by this guy. You're a moron.

I liked this quote
Quote from: wiki
In July 2011, Jones produced a report dealing with science reporting issues at the BBC. He was critical of the BBC for giving too much space and credence to maverick views on science
Jones describes "[a]ttempts to give a place to anyone, however unqualified, who claims interest can make for false balance: to free publicity to marginal opinions and not to impartiality, but its opposite".
Einstein / Newton, not Copernicus / Ptolemy.

I suggested this to Dave, and IIRC he lol'd.

Which usually means that he sort of understands the objections to his ideas, but, if he were to accept his failures, his world view would collapse, meaning that most of his efforts in life would have been pointless.
I went to the Vasa museum in stockholm where they raised a 400 year old ship. The big trick is replacing the seawater as the ship dried. I forget what they used, some sort of glycerine mixture I think. You have to keep spraying it every half hour for years or it will crack up as it dries.
It was a polyethylene glycol (PEG) solution. Some info in English on Vasa's history at
Continuing in the same article ...
Lenski and Blount concur. "We had already shown that if you put the bacteria on petri dishes where citrate was the only carbon source available and they were subject to prolonged starvation on it, we also could get . . . citrate mutants appearing on the order of a few weeks or so," Lenski told The Scientist. "It's already known [when mutants appear] depends on the ecological context."
OK so if when mutants appear depends on the ecological context, then that means that NGE is occurring, not RM + NS + MOY.

The only remaining question is HOW.  How do bacteria adapt so quickly?  What NGE processes are occurring?  What sensors to bacteria have to detect an alternate carbon source like citrate?  How is this sensory data collected?  Stored?  Processed?  Why doesn't the mutation happen immediately?  Like on Day 1?  Etc.

Ladies and gentlemen, may I boldly/bolded present a Davination of "quickly".
Anyway, another item to glean from this para is the fact that bacteria are already equipped to exploit any ecological niche that appears.  THEY DON'T NEED RANDOM MUTATIONS.  And I think they don't even need other bacteria, which is contrary to your idea that "there has to be lots of diversity in their population for them to adapt."  I don't think that's true.  I think that ONE LONE BACTERIUM has everything it needs right within itself to survive and adapt.  Why?  Because I think it and it's progeny will quickly ACQUIRE what they need from sources outside themselves.  Which is truly remarkable if I'm correct.

Dave, if they are "equipped to exploit any ecological niche that appears", why do they die when exposed to (for them) unsuitable antibiotics instead of using their resources to "survive and adapt"?
More interesting stuff from Shapiro... Sorry I'm driving so this is not formatted as well as I would like it to be... If you want to look up the link, Google Shapiro Huffington Post cell cognition

"Although each checkpoint could be deemed just another intricate mechanism, it is hard to consider the entire integrated cell cycle-checkpoint system purely mechanical. This is because the network is capable of responding to completely unpredictable events, such as external damage or experimental interventions. It displays reliability enviable in any complex human manufacturing process. Note that a dividing cell has far more components than any man-made device."

Great quote, Dave. Illustrates nicely how ridiculous comparisons between biological entities and man-made things are.
Now you are saying "Bah all those 3,000 differences couldn't possibly be due to NGE. If so, in GE is pretty stupid."

Which carries with it an enormous, arrogant assumption...

Namely that you are informed enough to really understand how bacteria operate.
No, as usual, that was not what was being said. What I took it to mean, and perhaps I am wrong, is that the author was asking you if all those 3000 differences were due to NGE, and given they were not used (useless) your NGE (not necessarily Shapiro's) doesn't seem all that amazing. Think about it, 1 success out of 3000 failures. Not real effective. It worked, but it looks a lot more like simple trial and error than some deliberate intentional process.
1 one out of 100,000,000 cells

If your mechanic only had a 1:100,000,000 chance of fixing your car, but would also give 3000 random pieces a whack with a ball peen hammer then I think you'd probably take your car somewhere else...
Your problem is that you don't appreciate how far beyond human technology biology really is. The technology literally blows our minds. It's like sci-fi. And you're stuck in the mud comparing it to human automotive technology. Sad.
IIRC it was you, Dave, who introduced hammers in an analogy. Have you now understood that biology's complexity can't be described with mechanical similes?

Most recent example is "bah cells can't think."

Turns out they can though.
And because they can think, they should be protected by animal welfare laws. Cruel practices like applying antibiotics to bacteria should be a prosecutable offence.
at the rate trump is kicking people out of the white house how long can it last before hes the only one left?
or is it more like 99 bottles of beer on the wall?
More like Christie's Ten Little Whatever you're allowed to say these days.

The cell "tries very hard" not so much to prevent mutations but to prevent DNA damage during the copying process.  Those mechanisms often result in perfect copy but sometimes result in an altered copy,  In other words, the repair is often good, but not an exact replication of the original.  And sometimes the repair isn't even to damage incurred during copying - it can be damage due to environmental factors.





Go back to Genetics 101

Thanks for the laugh. You have no idea whatsoever of what's in any "Genetics 101".

Your rigid tenet is

Go back to Genesis 1.
The cell "tries very hard" not so much to prevent mutations but to prevent DNA damage during the copying process.
Just one of a multitude of pearls that Pingu strews before Dave that make me envy her students.
By the way, here's another Shapiro paper that looks interesting ...
When I saw this, and the end of the post was below my screen, realistic me made a bet with optimistic me:

Dave won't explain what he thinks is interesting in that paper.

Realistic won. SAD.
Cells are adapted to a certain environment. There are changes: new chemicals, or the old set in different concentrations. New temperatures etc. Chemical reactions on and in the cells might be affected - mutations happen.

No need for anthropomorphic interpretations like need, effort, desire, sensing, intention...

Is that too simplistic a view?
can we ship trump to nk with the hopes that the hold him hostage?
I wouldn't call it a hostage situation if nobody will want him to get out.

Kim is smart and must have learned a lesson from the fates of Mu'ammar al-Qaddhafi and Saddam Hussein. He won't give up any means of defence.
Looks like "socrates" is back to ignoring reality and talking to himself. Oh well.

Meanwhile, in the real world,
Quote from: 2005 study
  On  this  basis  we  suggest  that  hominid  fossils Omo I and Omo II are relatively securely dated to 195^5 kyr old, somewhat older than the age of between 154 and 160 kyr assigned to the hominid fossils from Herto, Ethiopia24, making Omo I andOmo  II  the  oldest  anatomically  modern  human  fossils  yet recovered.
What's the ^5? Obviously not for exponential.  ±?
Show me anything developing in, say, goats that you can say confidently was NOT a result of DNA copying errors. TIA.
Faster, better and more concise than the reply I was preparing.
 well I certainly don't have a complete understanding of the correct and intended function of the DNA sequence, but apparently the cell does, otherwise why would it work so hard to try to keep it  Error free? It expends lots of energy to try to do that. In fact, as Shapiro points out, it cannot afford the energy expenditure for the best level of Correction during times of stress so it settles for a not as good error correction system In those situations because its back is up against the wall, so to speak, and it's either settle for lower Fidelity copying or die.

As noted previously, cells do not work hard. At anything.
The reason why they have error detection and correction mechanisms is because if they do not, or if those are not robust enough, the population tends to evolve into extinction. It fails. Failed populations generally do not leave much of a track record. On the other hand, populations that have error correction and repair tend to continue and generally do leave a track record.

It's kind of the basic concept of Evolution, that which works better tends to survive, at least better than that which doesn't work as well. And that which works poorly tends to not survive, at least not as well as that which works better.

I know, I know, that's circular but it's what is and what happens. Things that succeed are successful. Things that fail are failures.

It is not too surprising that a person who believes in talking animals might think that cells have minds.
I cannot imagine how anyone, no matter how strong Morton's Demon is, could possibly disagree with my Points 1 and 2 above ... Perhaps it's this part you disagree with?

"Automobile accidents in the State of Missouri is one of the mechanisms by which novel car designs are created."


If so, please explain why you disagree with this.

EDIT:  I just re-read this ... and it's not quite a parallel statement.  Maybe that's your difficulty.  Let's change it to this ...

"Automobile accidents Highway travel in the State of Missouri is one of the mechanisms by which novel car designs are created."

(Because accidents occur on the highways and smashed cars are indeed "novel")
It is sort of true. Car designs once did not include seat belts, now they do, because of accidents.
I stand corrected, Saunt!
Crumple zones, coming from a refined understanding of how to engineer Monocque chassis, instead of hanging all the parts off of a rigid frame.

ETA Picture, and Mea culpa!
Correct an correct of course, but to fit Dave's analogy, it should have been the cars that modified themselves, or perhaps the accidents transmogrifying the wrecks.

A sentence that really triggered Dave was "Cell division is one of the mechanism by which novel DNA sequences are created." I think this can be defended, biologically and linguistically, but from my layman point of view, "Cell division is one of the mechanisms during which novel DNA sequences are created." is more transparent.  Equivalent though in the sense that without cell division, those new pieces wouldn't have been created. I asked Dave if he would prefer this phrasing, but haven't seen an answer.
I think this is what Shapiro and Co. are saying, yes.

Does that mean that you agree with them?
This is just another goddamn, motherfucking salesman bullshit LIE that turns people off and make them think you are nothing but a huckster ...
Yes, indeed. Cell division is one of the mechanism by which novel DNA sequences are created.

My what pretty white wrapping and a pretty little white bow you wrap around your goddamn lies!!

But that doesn't change the fact that YOU ARE LYING your ass off.

Plain and simple.
Explain why and how it's a lie.

Do you like "Cell division is one of the mechanism[s ]during which novel DNA sequences are created." better?
"he does not get that millions of species of bacteria, fungi, plants, animals were NOT lucky enough to have the right mutation show up at the right time in the right environment to prevent their slow or fast demise."




That's a hilarious cartoon version of biology right there!

If you don't want to look like a cartoon character, tell us why you don't agree.