Skip to main content

TR Memescape

  • do you have any understanding of ... anything at all?  Or do you just like to throw words together in a crude imitation of intellectual discourse?

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 - RickB

1
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0012160696900329?via%3Dihub#!
Quote
A new and more robust evolutionary synthesis is emerging that attempts to explain macroevolution as well as microevolutionary events. This new synthesis emphasizes three morphological areas of biology that had been marginalized by the Modern Synthesis of genetics and evolution: embryology, macroevolution, and homology. The foundations for this new synthesis have been provided by new findings from developmental genetics and from the reinterpretation of the fossil record. In this nascent synthesis, macroevolutionary questions are not seen as being soluble by population genetics, and the developmental actions of genes involved with growth and cell specification are seen as being critical for the formation of higher taxa. In addition to discovering the remarkable homologies of homeobox genes and their domains of expression, developmental genetics has recently proposed homologies of process that supplement the older homologies of structure. Homologous developmental pathways, such those involving thewntgenes, are seen in numerous embryonic processes, and they are seen occurring in discrete regions, the morphogenetic fields. These fields (which exemplify the modular nature of developing embryos) are proposed to mediate between genotype and phenotype. Just as the cell (and not its genome) functions as the unit of organic structure and function, so the morphogenetic field (and not the genes or the cells) is seen as a major unit of ontogeny whose changes bring about changes in evolution.


If "macroevolutionary questions are not seen as being soluble by population genetics" then those people (including the folks here) who have been claiming that macroevolutionary questions are soluble by population genetics, have been going down the wrong path.
And everyone started down the wrong path since the time of Darwin.
But it is not necessary to continue going down the wrong path.
Instead:
"the developmental actions of genes involved with growth and cell specification are seen as being critical for the formation of higher taxa."

So the focus now shifts to the plausibility of higher taxa being formed by changes to "growth and cell specification genes" (regulatory genes).
The first point is that the published material (which I have posted) shows that higher taxa being formed by changes to "growth and cell specification genes" (regulatory genes) is indeed plausible. Indeed credible.
This is the first point. If anyone wishes to deny this, now is the time.
Some people pompously talk as if they know all about this and others seem to not have a clue. The only possible way for new higher taxa to arise is through changes to the regulatory genes during development.

The only one being pompous here is yourself.  Try expanding on the posts that you are making  to include your own ideas as to what you think that they mean.  As it is, nothing that you have posted suggest in any way that the regulatory genes are changing during development, their expression may be but the genes themselves are not.  But you have not shown that any change in expression is due to some supernatural influence from the 'quantum plenum' (what ever that may be).

2
As long as people think that some form of evolution theory explains the evidence, you will not be particularly interested in the idea of the intelligence of Nature infusing the organic world. But when you look in detail at the evidence you see that evolution theory is not even close to explaining it. I have presented the evidence. You folks really have nothing.
As I said:
As long as people think that some form of evolution theory explains the evidence, you will not be particularly interested in the idea of the intelligence of Nature infusing the organic world.

Imagine that, an idea supported by evidence being accepted versus an idea not supported by evidence.

3
As long as people think that some form of evolution theory explains the evidence, you will not be particularly interested in the idea of the intelligence of Nature infusing the organic world. But when you look in detail at the evidence you see that evolution theory is not even close to explaining it. I have presented the evidence. You folks really have nothing.


And yet all of the evidence that you have presented is based on evolutionary theory.  You have presented no evidence about the 'quantum plenum', or 'natural intelligence'.   So, upon what do you base your conclusions?  Wishful thinking?




Maybe So-crates should also get used to this image.

:badger:
4
After only 12 replies, is Dave the Brave already
:badger:
5
As long as people think that some form of evolution theory explains the evidence, you will not be particularly interested in the idea of the intelligence of Nature infusing the organic world. But when you look in detail at the evidence you see that evolution theory is not even close to explaining it. I have presented the evidence. You folks really have nothing.


And yet all of the evidence that you have presented is based on evolutionary theory.  You have presented no evidence about the 'quantum plenum', or 'natural intelligence'.   So, upon what do you base your conclusions?  Wishful thinking?

6
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeotic_gene
Quote
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.
Quote
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.


Why is there no mention in your 'evidence' about the 'quantum plenum' or 'intelligence'?

Possibly because there is no actual evidence for either?

7
Hmmm.  Does anyone else think that this distraction thread should be merged with the 'Dave presents his OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE of global flood, no badgering!' thread?

If the mods could accommodate, it would be appreciated, TIA.

8
The creation of new types of creatures is credibly related to mutations (changes) in regulatory genes and "not small-scales changes in the entire genome as neo-Darwinians thought."    
BUT:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeotic_gene
Quote
Mutations in homeotic genes cause displaced body parts, such as antennae growing at the posterior of the fly instead of at the head.[3] Mutations that lead to such ectopic placements are usually[/b] lethal.[4]
Saltations are caused by changes in regulatory genes during development. But if these changes are random then the result will be lethal.
Therefore the changes are not random.
Hey, sucky, see the world I emboldenized, "usually". Do you know what that word means? Or have you come up with your own meaning? Or just ignoring it entirely?

Not that being lethal would necessarily preclude random. At least not in the context of evolution.

That's twice now.  Can you stop putting your comments inside socrates quotes?
I'll try, but I wasn't doing it. It's the software.


I know, or it is socrates editing his posts.  In any case please pay attention.

9
The creation of new types of creatures is credibly related to mutations (changes) in regulatory genes and "not small-scales changes in the entire genome as neo-Darwinians thought."    
BUT:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeotic_gene
Quote
Mutations in homeotic genes cause displaced body parts, such as antennae growing at the posterior of the fly instead of at the head.[3] Mutations that lead to such ectopic placements are usually[/b] lethal.[4]
Saltations are caused by changes in regulatory genes during development. But if these changes are random then the result will be lethal.
Therefore the changes are not random.
Hey, sucky, see the world I emboldenized, "usually". Do you know what that word means? Or have you come up with your own meaning? Or just ignoring it entirely?

Not that being lethal would necessarily preclude random. At least not in the context of evolution.

That's twice now.  Can you stop putting your comments inside socrates quotes?

10
The creation of new types of creatures is credibly related to mutations (changes) in regulatory genes and "not small-scales changes in the entire genome as neo-Darwinians thought."   
BUT:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeotic_gene
Quote
Mutations in homeotic genes cause displaced body parts, such as antennae growing at the posterior of the fly instead of at the head.[3] Mutations that lead to such ectopic placements are usually lethal.[4]
Saltations are caused by changes in regulatory genes during development. But if these changes are random then the result will be lethal.
Therefore the changes are not random.

For which you have given no evidence.

And I need no more evidence to reject you BS than you have given to support it.  Proposal rejected.

11
Holy shit, one should be careful of what MS Word captures about your edits.

Ouch!
12
Thank you; not sure why I couldn't find it. Hrm. I wonder why Mueller didn't use that at all.

Maybe gave Manafort enough rope to allow him (Mueller) to add witness tampering charges.  Might also add more charges to the other witnesses themselves.
While that would have motivated a course of action before the motion to revoke bail, the rope is being pulled now with that motion. So why not use the obvious and much less deniable condition-breaking? I'd think the revocation would be somewhere that Mueller would throw the kitchen sink (or at least, point out every obvious reason) at Manafort.

Only thing I can think of is if the bail agreement was modified (and the relevant document would have to still be unreleased). Which doesn't really make sense...

As I understand it, the bail agreement was modified from what I posted.  The house arrest requirement was removed and the monetary amount was increased to $12 M.  Can't see why the requirement to not interact with witnesses would have been removed.

But true, I don't have a link to that modified bail agreement.

13
Tampering with witnesses seems like an obvious threat to the integrity of the judicial process. If nobody thinks there's a risk of that happening then fine, no need to put it on the bail conditions.

ETA: The whole point was asking Dave to think about why it might be in the bail conditions in the first place. 

I'm doubtful it was; Mueller heavily relies on a different condition (don't commit a crime while out on bail) that is statutorily included in any bail agreement (18 US Code 3142 (c)(1)(A)).

Do I understand then that it was an implicit rather than an explicit condition to granting bail?
I'm not sure what "it" refers to, there, but no matter what, I'm not differentiating between a condition being implicit or explicit.

I'm saying that if there were a condition not to contact certain potential witnesses (specifically, the ones cited in the motion to revoke), I would have expected Mueller to cite that condition. Instead, he's relying on a condition that appears in all bail agreements (and therefore was a part of Manafort's).

I should have probably used the word 'included' instead of 'implicit'.
14
Thank you; not sure why I couldn't find it. Hrm. I wonder why Mueller didn't use that at all.


BTW, I got it from this site

Unsealed mueller documents re manafort
15
If you don't like the things that I post, then go away to some other forum.

Right Dave.  I shouldn't protest against a bunch of Nazi's either.  Or not state any disagreements that I might have about Trump.  Or not say anything when 'pro-lifers' blow up abortion clinics or murder abortion providers.

No, Dave, I'll stay right here and comment as I like on any bigoted, racist, fucked up thing that you say.  If you don't like it then fuck-the-hell-off!

16
Thank you; not sure why I couldn't find it. Hrm. I wonder why Mueller didn't use that at all.

Maybe gave Manafort enough rope to allow him (Mueller) to add witness tampering charges.  Might also add more charges to the other witnesses themselves.
17
Tampering with witnesses seems like an obvious threat to the integrity of the judicial process. If nobody thinks there's a risk of that happening then fine, no need to put it on the bail conditions.

ETA: The whole point was asking Dave to think about why it might be in the bail conditions in the first place. 

I'm doubtful it was; Mueller heavily relies on a different condition (don't commit a crime while out on bail) that is statutorily included in any bail agreement (18 US Code 3142 (c)(1)(A)).

Do I understand then that it was an implicit rather than an explicit condition to granting bail?
I'm not sure what "it" refers to, there, but no matter what, I'm not differentiating between a condition being implicit or explicit.

I'm saying that if there were a condition not to contact certain potential witnesses (specifically, the ones cited in the motion to revoke), I would have expected Mueller to cite that condition. Instead, he's relying on a condition that appears in all bail agreements (and therefore was a part of Manafort's).

Here is the bail agreement (the first one).

Manafort bail agreement

No reference (in the case of USC), with respect to witnesses, rather an explicit order to not 'contact either directly or indirectly'.

18
I was not joking. Obviously it's a guess, but probably a pretty good guess based on my many years of observation of Academia. Perhaps your anger should be directed at the system instead of at me.

'Obviously it's a guess', bullshit , you fucking liar.  You reference him because he is presenting an hypothesis that is contrary to the mainstream.  And then degrade him for what, not going full YEC stupid?

You are the most dishonest, chicken shit asshole that I have ever encountered.  Why don't you go practice some of your Hawkins Magical Grazing and go all mouth to ass with one of your goats.

19
Tampering with witnesses seems like an obvious threat to the integrity of the judicial process. If nobody thinks there's a risk of that happening then fine, no need to put it on the bail conditions.

ETA: The whole point was asking Dave to think about why it might be in the bail conditions in the first place. 

I'm doubtful it was; Mueller heavily relies on a different condition (don't commit a crime while out on bail) that is statutorily included in any bail agreement (18 US Code 3142 (c)(1)(A)).

Do I understand then that it was an implicit rather than an explicit condition to granting bail?

20
Wright ....

"Heretofore, humans have been viewed as passive agents in the termination of the AHP, responding to changing climatic conditions by adopting animal husbandry and spreading an agricultural lifestyle across the African continent. This paper explores scenarios whereby humans could be viewed as active agents in landscape denudation."
The part emboldenized is crucial to understanding the paper. It's not a "this is the way it was" paper as much as "these are ways it might have been" paper.




Deaton also says that the Sahara was already a 'stressed out landscape'.  Why was it already stressed out before humans and their goats got there?

Orbital mechanics?


He doesn't want to get kicked out of the octohatter club so he's being coy.


Oh fuck off, Dave.

You have no intelligent response, so you impugn his character.  Were you deliberately raised to be a low life piece of shit?

And don't even both to come back with, 'It was a joke guys!'.

21
Wright ....

"Heretofore, humans have been viewed as passive agents in the termination of the AHP, responding to changing climatic conditions by adopting animal husbandry and spreading an agricultural lifestyle across the African continent. This paper explores scenarios whereby humans could be viewed as active agents in landscape denudation."
The part emboldenized is crucial to understanding the paper. It's not a "this is the way it was" paper as much as "these are ways it might have been" paper.




Deaton also says that the Sahara was already a 'stressed out landscape'.  Why was it already stressed out before humans and their goats got there?

Orbital mechanics?

22
https://www.popsci.com/sahara-desert-drought-humans
This is what Wright think the Sahara looked like back then before humans destroyed it ...




Liar, that image does not appear in Wright's paper.

23
A note to Socrates, you disrespected me first by removing the context of my responses.  You were the dishonest one, not me.  And this dishonesty shall follow you in all future endeavors, just as your past dishonesties are haunting you here.

25

Quote
Not only are they intelligent in design but wonderfully executed/engineered.
There is wonderful material here about the engineering of trichomes:
https://www.leafly.ca/news/cannabis-101/what-are-trichomes-on-cannabis
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trichome

The defense mechanisms employed by plants and animals are called intelligent when employed by humans.
But if you choose to not call it intelligent when you see it in plants and animals (other than humans) that is of course your call.

Sure it is.  But we would be abdicating our own intelligence if we were to simply accept your BS explanation.