Skip to main content

TR Memescape

  • Talk Rational: A republic of lutz.

Topic: Introduction to Systems Biology (Read 17104 times) previous topic - next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
  • Pingu
Re: Introduction to Systems Biology
Reply #3150
"He's just got a mental block about the idea that something that cells appear to "try" to avoid doing could possibly be useful for anything."

Yeah. Just like the managers at the Ford plant have a mental block about copying errors in the software that controls the machines being useful for anything.

Lol

Ford plants aren't populations of self-replicators.  As you know. Evolution only works with populations of self-replicators. And the copies have to be a little bit different from the parents, but on average the same.
doesn't matter that Ford factories are not self replicators. Has absolutely nothing to do with it. Total red herring.


Far from being a red herring it's the entire point.  Evolution is ABOUT SELF-REPLICATORS.  Using an analogy from non-self-replicators is absolutely pointless.  Of course it doesn't work with Ford factories.  It only works with things that self-replicate, and it only works if the offspring are very slightly different from their parents, and the average fitness of the offspring is about the same as the average fitness of the parent.

Which means it will only work if the self-replicators are such that some of their offspring are fitter than they are.  And that turns out to be possible in living things.  Small DNA mutations (and even some large ones) can often lead to fitter offspring as well as less-fit offspring.  Refusing to believe it will get you nowhere,  It is a fact.  A single nucleotide change can produe a similar but not identical protein that may make its owner slightly less or slightly more able thrive than the original.

Repeating over and over that mutations that arise during copying (which is not what "Darwinists" even MEAN by "copying errors" anyway - they just mean copies that are not identical to the parent sequence) can't "be creative" is just dumb.  You've provided no evidence that it's true, and I've given you one example, the tryptophan-synthesising mutation in the Hall study, in which a single nucleotide substitution WAS advantageous. And the prime suspect for a single nucleotide substitution is a mismatch during chromosome duplication.

Not only that, but if you read Blount, you will find that the key mutation that enabled citrate utilisation wasn't actually very good at first but was then "refined" by further mutations.  There is NO reason to suppose these refinements were not due to what you call "copying errors" i.e. mutations that occur during copying.  They appear to be fairly small mutations, which are typical of the kind of mutation that occurs during chromosome duplication and/or repair.
I have a Darwin-debased mind.

Re: Introduction to Systems Biology
Reply #3151
So quit your sniveling and whining and excuse-making, grow some balls and face reality.

Your theory died. You need a new one.

  • VoxRat
  • wtactualf
Re: Introduction to Systems Biology
Reply #3152
What's sad is that you don't even understand what evolution actually is. You think evolution is all about random trial and error. It's not. Evolution can best be described as super hi-tech adaptation by artificial intelligence.
Oh?
According to whom?
According to the guy who's never cracked an introductory text on the subject?

I don't think so.
"I understand Donald Trump better than many people because I really am a lot like him." - Dave Hawkins

  • Pingu
Re: Introduction to Systems Biology
Reply #3153
What's sad is that you don't even understand what evolution actually is.

No, Dave, seriously - it's you have failed to understand even the basic principle.  You've got a wrong idea in your head and it's so firmly stuck you think everyone is wrong except you.  It would almost count as a delusion if you weren't otherwise fairly sane.

You think evolution is all about random trial and error.

It's certainly about trial and error.  And all the evidence suggest that the trials are random-with-respect to fitness.  They certainly aren't random-with-respect to chemistry.

It's not. Evolution can best be described as super hi-tech adaptation by artificial intelligence.

Dave - you don't even know what people MEAN by evolution - so you aren't in a position to know they are wrong!

First understand THEN criticise.
I have a Darwin-debased mind.

  • VoxRat
  • wtactualf
Re: Introduction to Systems Biology
Reply #3154
doesn't matter that Ford factories are not self replicators. Has absolutely nothing to do with it. Total red herring.

::)

Grammar tell.
Advertising the fact that Hawkins has his Impenetrable Shield of Militant Ignorance up.
"I understand Donald Trump better than many people because I really am a lot like him." - Dave Hawkins

  • Pingu
Re: Introduction to Systems Biology
Reply #3155
So quit your sniveling and whining and excuse-making, grow some balls and face reality.

Your theory died. You need a new one.

Dave: as you do not understand the theory, you are in no position to know whether it is dead or not.
I have a Darwin-debased mind.

  • Photon
  • I interfere with myself
Re: Introduction to Systems Biology
Reply #3156
Again, evolutionary algorithms have absolutely nothing to do with what I'm talking about.

Remember... I'm not opposed to the idea of evolution. Never have been.

What I am opposed to is the idea that random copying errors can be creative. Net-net, they cannot be.

And the third wayers have figured this out.

Which is why they have become third wayers.
Of course they can be creative. FFS Dave, READ the things that are posted to you, and that you yourself post.

Doesn't matter to her point, Dave.
Do you even know what her point is? I do. Her point is that mutations are essential for adapting to new environments. Now when her predecessors like Ayala back in the 70s said things like this they were talking about copying errors, nothing more. Turns out that they are wrong, but only a few Darwinists realize this, but more will as time goes on. But some darwinists are sneaky like pingu and they don't want to admit that darwinists of the past were wrong about this, so they simply enlarged their tent of meaning for the word mutation to not only include copying errors but any kind of change even the kind of change that Shapiro & Company say is under cellular control. This is a big mistake because there are Galactic differences between these two types of change. And it's fundamentally dishonest because what they should be doing is saying oops we were wrong copying errors don't create anything new.
Ha ha, pretty hilariously wrong, Dave.    And it is blindingly obvious that copying errors can, and do, introduce new genotypes (and subsequent phenotypes) into a population.
of course they do. Who said that they don't?


Another Dave Own Goal:


Quote
So Behe's theory turned out to be wrong.  Irreducible Complexity is not a bar to evolution by classic Darwinian pathways.
Again, you are misrepresenting reality.  You're slick.  Readers beware.  Pingu is as slick as they come. 

Pingu's Strawman version of Behe's theory did indeed turn out to be wrong.  And her strawman version is something along the lines of "cell cannot evolve new traits". But Behe's actual theory turned out to be right - copying errors are not creative. 


Maybe try not holding opposite arguments in your head simultaneously, Dave. It contributes to you being an asshole, apparently.


  • borealis
  • Administrator
Re: Introduction to Systems Biology
Reply #3157
So quit your sniveling and whining and excuse-making, grow some balls and face reality.

Your theory died. You need a new one.

Nope.

Nothing of the sort has happened. You just don't want to understand, because that would mean having to eat a little crow, and your entire intent in talking to Pingu is to try to 'catch her out' or find a 'gotcha'. That isn't going to happen, because she owns up to the tiniest mistakes, has the patience of a stalking cat, is both more educated and more intelligent than you, and doesn't spend all her time acting like a rude dick.

  • Photon
  • I interfere with myself
Re: Introduction to Systems Biology
Reply #3158
So, Dave. Isn't it tiring, with all your lying all the time?

  • uncool
Re: Introduction to Systems Biology
Reply #3159
Hey Dave, help me understand your logic here.

For years, you've made a point out of how much the cell tries to prevent changes, and repeatedly tried to say that implies that the cell couldn't have evolved that error-correction. Could you explain that to me?

1. The cell has apparently strong error-correction.
2. ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
3. That error-correction can't have evolved.

Re: Introduction to Systems Biology
Reply #3160
I have a waffle brain, not a blockhead brain. Come on, get it right!

And yes it has its own set of disadvantages. Different disadvantages than spaghetti brain people.

There aren't two kinds of brain, Dave.  We all have spaghetti.
Some are just more congealed than others.
Why do I bother?

Re: Introduction to Systems Biology
Reply #3161
I think this is the appropriate time to smack you in the head again with this baseball bat from Shapiro

"It has been a surprise to learn how thoroughly cells protect themselves against precisely the kinds of accidental genetic change that, according to conventional theory, are the sources of evolutionary variability."
Gonna repost this every page for awhile in the hopes that it will sink in.

  • Photon
  • I interfere with myself
Re: Introduction to Systems Biology
Reply #3162
I think this is the appropriate time to smack you in the head again with this baseball bat from Shapiro

"It has been a surprise to learn how thoroughly cells protect themselves against precisely the kinds of accidental genetic change that, according to conventional theory, are the sources of evolutionary variability."
Gonna repost this every page for awhile in the hopes that it will sink in.
SFW? ANY change leads to variability.

  • VoxRat
  • wtactualf
Re: Introduction to Systems Biology
Reply #3163
I think this is the appropriate time to smack you in the head again with this baseball bat from Shapiro

"It has been a surprise to learn how thoroughly cells protect themselves against precisely the kinds of accidental genetic change that, according to conventional theory, are the sources of evolutionary variability."
Gonna repost this every page for awhile in the hopes that it will sink in.
What makes you think it hasn't "sunk in" ?  :dunno: 

You need to answer uncool's question:

Hey Dave, help me understand your logic here.

For years, you've made a point out of how much the cell tries to prevent changes, and repeatedly tried to say that implies that the cell couldn't have evolved that error-correction. Could you explain that to me?

1. The cell has apparently strong error-correction.
2. ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
3. That error-correction can't have evolved.
"I understand Donald Trump better than many people because I really am a lot like him." - Dave Hawkins

  • JonF
Re: Introduction to Systems Biology
Reply #3164
I think this is the appropriate time to smack you in the head again with this baseball bat from Shapiro

"It has been a surprise to learn how thoroughly cells protect themselves against precisely the kinds of accidental genetic change that, according to conventional theory, are the sources of evolutionary variability."
Gonna repost this every page for awhile in the hopes that it will sink in.
It's sunk in for us. It never will for you.

The protection isn't perfect.
"I would never consider my evaluation of his work to be fair minded unless I had actually read his own words." - Dave Hawkins

  • RAFH
  • Have a life, already.
Re: Introduction to Systems Biology
Reply #3165
Here is the relevant paragraph from Shapiro's blog post:

Quote from: Shapiro
If experiments show that cells can make distinct appropriate NGE responses to different adaptive challenges occurs, we need to figure out how they do so. This almost certainly would prove to be more than a strictly mechanical process. How do cells carry out their computations to make useful goal-oriented responses? A successful answer to that question will certainly involve cybernetics. If such investigations take evolution science into areas that are more than strictly material, so be it. As long as we stay within the realm of natural processes, there are no boundaries on what science can address.

Not sure what he means.  I mean, computations are "mechanical" in the sense that they can be done by physical reactions and inter-reactions, but it's all still physics and chemistry - you don't need anything "more than strictly material" unless he means emergent properties, but if so, then the cell itself is an emergent entity.
I wish people would pay attention to that "IF" at the beginning of that quote.
So, has anyone done the experiments Shapiro suggests? If not, why haven't they? Is Shapiro over the hill? Past his prime? Considered doddering?

I've asked this question a few times previously, so far there's been little to no response. And it seems our Google-Fu expert has been unable to find any reports of such experiments.

Maybe it's the Darwin Club shutting it all down.
Are we there yet?

Re: Introduction to Systems Biology
Reply #3166
I think this is the appropriate time to smack you in the head again with this baseball bat from Shapiro

"It has been a surprise to learn how thoroughly cells protect themselves against precisely the kinds of accidental genetic change that, according to conventional theory, are the sources of evolutionary variability."
Gonna repost this every page for awhile in the hopes that it will sink in.
What makes you think it hasn't "sunk in" ?  :dunno: 

You need to answer uncool's question:

Hey Dave, help me understand your logic here.

For years, you've made a point out of how much the cell tries to prevent changes, and repeatedly tried to say that implies that the cell couldn't have evolved that error-correction. Could you explain that to me?

1. The cell has apparently strong error-correction.
2. ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
3. That error-correction can't have evolved.
Yes.  Quite simple.  The lineage would have gone extinct quickly without error correction.

Re: Introduction to Systems Biology
Reply #3167
All lineages will go extinct anyway.  But at least we have a 10,000 year window or so before it happens, thanks to DNA error correction.

Re: Introduction to Systems Biology
Reply #3168
Again, evolutionary algorithms have absolutely nothing to do with what I'm talking about.

Remember... I'm not opposed to the idea of evolution. Never have been.

What I am opposed to is the idea that random copying errors can be creative. Net-net, they cannot be.

And the third wayers have figured this out.

Which is why they have become third wayers.
You are an idiot and the straw man you are flailing at is an idiot too. The massive mindfuck you got has made it impossible for you to understand anything anyone says that contradicts the truths you were told to believe. You are broken.
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

Re: Introduction to Systems Biology
Reply #3169
All lineages will go extinct anyway.  But at least we have a 10,000 year window or so before it happens, thanks to DNA error correction.
Does accepting Jesus repair degrading dna?
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

Re: Introduction to Systems Biology
Reply #3170
Dave, no protection at all wouldn't work very well for obvious reasons. Perfect protection 100% of the time would mean we never got beyond LUCA, and nobody would be around to think about it. Protection that works pretty well lots of the time, but doesn't always work, and which is under a degree of control by the cell so it can respond to changes in the environment are going to work even better for a population. There will be an optimum rate of "copying errors" for the population to survive long term.

It's another example of the Weak Anthropic Principle. If things were significantly different then we wouldn't be here.
Why do I bother?

Re: Introduction to Systems Biology
Reply #3171
"He's just got a mental block about the idea that something that cells appear to "try" to avoid doing could possibly be useful for anything."

Yeah. Just like the managers at the Ford plant have a mental block about copying errors in the software that controls the machines being useful for anything.

Lol

Ford plants aren't populations of self-replicators.  As you know. Evolution only works with populations of self-replicators. And the copies have to be a little bit different from the parents, but on average the same.
doesn't matter that Ford factories are not self replicators. Has absolutely nothing to do with it. Total red herring.

Fuuuuuck you are an idiot
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

  • VoxRat
  • wtactualf
Re: Introduction to Systems Biology
Reply #3172
I think this is the appropriate time to smack you in the head again with this baseball bat from Shapiro

"It has been a surprise to learn how thoroughly cells protect themselves against precisely the kinds of accidental genetic change that, according to conventional theory, are the sources of evolutionary variability."
Gonna repost this every page for awhile in the hopes that it will sink in.
What makes you think it hasn't "sunk in" ?  :dunno: 

You need to answer uncool's question:

Hey Dave, help me understand your logic here.

For years, you've made a point out of how much the cell tries to prevent changes, and repeatedly tried to say that implies that the cell couldn't have evolved that error-correction. Could you explain that to me?

1. The cell has apparently strong error-correction.
2. ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
3. That error-correction can't have evolved.
Yes.  Quite simple.  The lineage would have gone extinct quickly without error correction.
I see.

So:

1. The cell has apparently strong error-correction.
2. The lineage would have gone extinct quickly without error correction.
3. That error-correction can't have evolved.

And you think that makes sense?


"I understand Donald Trump better than many people because I really am a lot like him." - Dave Hawkins

Re: Introduction to Systems Biology
Reply #3173
What's sad is that you don't even understand what evolution actually is. You think evolution is all about random trial and error. It's not. Evolution can best be described as super hi-tech adaptation by artificial intelligence.
I hope I never accidentally take whatever drugs you are on.
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

Re: Introduction to Systems Biology
Reply #3174
I think this is the appropriate time to smack you in the head again with this baseball bat from Shapiro

"It has been a surprise to learn how thoroughly cells protect themselves against precisely the kinds of accidental genetic change that, according to conventional theory, are the sources of evolutionary variability."
Your amp goes to 11?
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