Skip to main content

TR Memescape

  • we'll just have to weaponize our autism

Topic: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World) (Read 209060 times) previous topic - next topic

BenTheBiased, entropy, DaveGodfrey, VoxRat, borealis, JonF (+ 1 Hidden) and 5 Guests are viewing this topic.
  • JonF
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #35400
Do you think the software that you write is as sophisticated as the software employed in the biological world? I happen to think that it's nowhere close. And Bill Gates is actually on record agreeing with me. Which begs the question... What makes you feel qualified to judge the quality of biological software?
I'm not talking about the function and what is aparent on the outside. I'm talking about internal structure, the way it is put together, the design or lack of it.
I'm thinking of things like the laryngeal nerve in giraffes, whale pelvises, marsupial birth and development of kidneys in mammals. These things have familiar patterns commonly found in badly designed sofware.
Woodpecker's tongue.
"I would never consider my evaluation of his work to be fair minded unless I had actually read his own words." - Dave Hawkins

  • uncool
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #35401
I can safely say as the father of two expert bowhunting sons... That this is a poorly designed bow and arrow ... they would not be kill anything with this. WTF was the designer thinking!?



I cannot get this dang image to show
There we go ... it was an issue with my phone.

Anyway, do you see my point?
Yes, Dave. Your point is that you think we're idiots that can't think through the fact that there are differences.

We talked about one principle of programming before: a programmer documentary his code on all levels he thinks someone else will use. A programmer that doesn't is either an inconsiderate programmer, an incompetent programmer, or a hostile programmer.

God didn't document his work on most levels. So which one is he? Inconsiderate, incompetent, or hostile?

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #35402
Why on Earth would God think someone else should use his code?

  • uncool
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #35403
Why on Earth would God think someone else should use his code?
Because he's omniscient? Or do you not accept that?

(And just to be clear: the word I used was will, not should)

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #35404
Why on Earth would God think someone else should use his code?
Why not? Is God ashamed of his code?
Good code is the best user manual.

Incoherent code is bad design by the only standard we have.
If secrecy is a design goal, messy code is not the best way to do it.
If our standards don't apply we cannot evaluate it at all.
The only excuse use for calling it good design would be cheerleading.

But God making himself look like a lazy bumbler is all part of his multidimensional hyperchess strategy, right?

  • Pingu
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #35405
Software is a metaphor for what happens in cells. Not a very good one either.


I have a Darwin-debased mind.

  • Faid
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #35406
It's dave's usual shtick. He glorifies any similarities between two things, to claim they are the same (organisms are like machines, therefore organisms are machines), and then dismisses the -often quite more prominent- differences as merely a result of increased complexity or "sophistication" (organisns are not like [other] machines because organisms are really sophisticated machines).

It's not much, but it's all he has. It's all he ever had.
Who even made the rule that we cannot group ducks and fish together for the simple reason that they are both aquatic? If I want to group them that way and it serves my purpose then I can jolly well do it however I want to and it is still a nested hierarchy and you can't tell me that it's not.

  • Faid
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #35407
Aaaaand it now seems he's made an entire thread based on that flawed reasoning. Oh well.
Who even made the rule that we cannot group ducks and fish together for the simple reason that they are both aquatic? If I want to group them that way and it serves my purpose then I can jolly well do it however I want to and it is still a nested hierarchy and you can't tell me that it's not.

  • Pingu
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #35408
Aaaaand it now seems he's made an entire thread based on that flawed reasoning. Oh well.

Then apparently forgot it wasn't this one.
I have a Darwin-debased mind.

  • Fenrir
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #35409
Aaaaand it now seems he's made an entire thread based on that flawed reasoning. Oh well.

Then apparently forgot it wasn't this one.

It's all good. That was a mistake, not an error.
It's what plants crave.

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #35410
There's no such thing as an error ... or a mistake.  So I'm told.

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #35411
There's no such thing as an error ... or a mistake.  So I'm told.
you got a lot of participation awards, eh?
Love is like a magic penny
 if you hold it tight you won't have any
if you give it away you'll have so many
they'll be rolling all over the floor

  • Photon
  • I interfere with myself
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #35412
There's no such thing as an error ... or a mistake.  So I'm told.
you got a lot of participation awards, eh?
Jesus loves me this I know, for the Bible tells me so.  It matters not whether you have any knowledge, or expertise, or whether you are a raging narcissist with an overblown sense of pride and imagined brilliance, believe on Jesus, accept him into your heart, and you will win everlasting life.  John 3:16 

Those participation awards are a fleeting, temporary consolation for your afflicted, debased, worthy of eternal suffering, sinful soul.  Hawkins needing cleansing absolution more than most, what with all that self love, a few prostitutes, and mixed animals in a robot pen, that can't be kosher.

  • Pingu
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #35413
There's no such thing as an error ... or a mistake.  So I'm told.

I cannot believe you are stupid enough not to get this but on the offchance that this really is stupidity, not dishonesty, here goes:

A mistake is something you did instead of something you intended to do.

So it only literally applies to an agent capable of forming an intention.  That would include you.

But it sometimes used as a metaphor when applied to a molecule or a biological process.




  • Last Edit: February 25, 2018, 02:10:33 AM by Pingu
I have a Darwin-debased mind.

  • Pingu
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #35414
Interestingly, human beings often INTEND to do "unintentional" things e.g. toss a coin to make a decision, or make a painting by throwing paint at the canvas.

In an metaphorical sense, it may be that a certain rate of  copying "mistakes" is optimal for conferring robustness and evolvability.  A population that reproduces totally without "error" i.e. in which every offspring is identical to its parent would be incapable of adaptive evolution by natural selection.  One that reproduces with a great deal of error may tend to go extinct rapidly because too few good viable variants are born.

Therefore populations in which the "error" rate is low but non-zero are likely to adapt best and thus leave long lineages.  This is the "evolution of evolvability" that is one of the core ideas of the Third Way people you love to reference, but apparently do not understand.

Call those "errors" what you will - the metaphor doesn't matter.  You can call  the system "pre-programmed variance-producing features" if you like.  What matters is the reality, which is that novel genetic sequences appear in every generation.

And as far as we know, the generation of novel genetic sequences is still random with respect to fitness.  I would be interesting if it turned out that they weren't.  And epigenetic features, and features inherited by other non-genetic channels may well not be.

Another important point, often missed by "evolutionists" and almost always missed by IDists, is that the vast majority of novel sequences are neutral with respect to fitness at the time when they appear.  This means that any population is full of neutral novelties capable of being either advantageous or disadvantageous when circumstances change.  This drives a coach and horses through the ID arguments-from-improbability.


I have a Darwin-debased mind.

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #35415
There's no such thing as an error ... or a mistake.  So I'm told.

I cannot believe you are stupid enough not to get this but on the offchance that this really is stupidity, not dishonesty, here goes:

A mistake is something you did instead of something you intended to do.

So it only literally applies to an agent capable of forming an intention.  That would include you.

But it sometimes used as a metaphor when applied to a molecule or a biological process.





You are literally making something out of a nothing burger.  Which is apparently what you do a lot because you don't have anything substantive to say.  No rational person would misunderstand what is being said about DNA copying errors in this article. https://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/dna-replication-and-causes-of-mutation-409  ... which I suppose means that you are an irrational person.  Also, according to your view, there's nothing fundamentally different between a human being and a cell from the perspective of forming "intentions."   The difference - according to you - is merely in degree ... that is, the degree of complexity.

But according to MY view of humanity, there IS something fundamentally different between a complete human and a single cell, namely, the human has a "soul" or a "spirit" which is "attached" to the brain and interacts with it.  My view is that no other organism whether single cell or multi cell has this feature.


  • Martin.au
  • Thingyologist
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #35416
I think this is Dave's 'apology' for his mistake/error equivocation.
"That which can be asserted with evidence can also be dismissed without evidence." (Dave Hawkins)

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #35417
I continue to be amazed at your lack of the most elementary understanding of basic biology and genetics.  For example, you say

Quote
A population that reproduces totally without "error" i.e. in which every offspring is identical to its parent would be incapable of adaptive evolution by natural selection.

which is completely false.

I return again to Ayala (Repetition Aids Learning) ...

Quote
Ayala, Francisco J., "The Mechanisms of Evolution," Scientific American, vol. 239 (September 1978).

p. 63
"It therefore seems clear that, contrary to Darwin's conception, most of the genetic variation in populations arises not from new mutations at each generation but from the reshuffling of previously accumulated mutations [1]by recombination. Although mutation is the ultimate source of all genetic variation,[2] it is a relatively rare event, providing a mere trickle of new alleles into the much larger reservoir of stored genetic variation. Indeed recombination alone is sufficient to enable a population to expose its hidden variation for many generations without the need for new genetic input by mutation."
p. 64
"In any case there can be no doubt that the staggering amount of genetic variation in natural populations provides ample opportunities for evolution to occur. Hence it is not surprising that whenever a new environmental challenge materializes--a change of climate, the introduction of a new predator or competitor, man-made pollution--populations are usually able to adapt to it.

So Pingu does not understand basic biology or basic genetics.

But I'm the shyster.

Go figure.
Ayala doesn't KNOW that these are "previously accumulated mutations" ... he BELIEVES IT ... on faith
Another statement of faith here

  • Martin.au
  • Thingyologist
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #35418
Are you familiar with the concept of sexual and asexual reproduction?
"That which can be asserted with evidence can also be dismissed without evidence." (Dave Hawkins)

  • uncool
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #35419
Dave, Pingu phrased her post very carefully. Did you notice the singular "parent"?

Do you know what that means?

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #35420
Lol @ Team Darwin teammates trying to save their Dear Leader, Pingu.

  • Martin.au
  • Thingyologist
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #35421
Lol @ Team Darwin teammates trying to save their Dear Leader, Pingu.

So I take it you just figured out your mistake.
"That which can be asserted with evidence can also be dismissed without evidence." (Dave Hawkins)

  • uncool
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #35422
There's "covering for", and there's "Being able to read".

It's hard to tell the difference from the outside.

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #35423
So make that Pingu ... AND Martin ... AND uncool ... that don't understand basic genetics.

  • Fenrir
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #35424
I continue to be amazed at your lack of the most elementary understanding of basic biology and genetics.  For example, you say

Quote
A population that reproduces totally without "error" i.e. in which every offspring is identical to its parent would be incapable of adaptive evolution by natural selection.

which is completely false.

I return again to Ayala (Repetition Aids Learning) ...

Quote
Ayala, Francisco J., "The Mechanisms of Evolution," Scientific American, vol. 239 (September 1978).

p. 63
"It therefore seems clear that, contrary to Darwin's conception, most of the genetic variation in populations arises not from new mutations at each generation but from the reshuffling of previously accumulated mutations [1]by recombination. Although mutation is the ultimate source of all genetic variation,[2] it is a relatively rare event, providing a mere trickle of new alleles into the much larger reservoir of stored genetic variation. Indeed recombination alone is sufficient to enable a population to expose its hidden variation for many generations without the need for new genetic input by mutation."
p. 64
"In any case there can be no doubt that the staggering amount of genetic variation in natural populations provides ample opportunities for evolution to occur. Hence it is not surprising that whenever a new environmental challenge materializes--a change of climate, the introduction of a new predator or competitor, man-made pollution--populations are usually able to adapt to it.

So Pingu does not understand basic biology or basic genetics.

But I'm the shyster.

Go figure.

Do you think one day, if you really put your mind to it, you could actually learn to read?

Neverthelesss I'm sure Pingu will be right chuffed that you quoted back a snippet agreeing with her.

Ayala doesn't KNOW that these are "previously accumulated mutations" ... he BELIEVES IT ... on faith
Another statement of faith here
It's what plants crave.