inherited behavior

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Dale, Jan 16, 2014.

  1. Dale

    Dale Guest

    I say that "random" mutations do not lead to success in natural selection

    obvious some inherited behavior is passed down in genetics, some species
    do things always the same

    so why can't newly learned behavior be inherited?

    randomness is claimed in a couple sciences, like quantum mechanics,
    radioactive decay which is actually part of quantum mechanics, and
    biological genetic mutations

    quantum mechanics and radioactive decay cannot be random because the
    uncertainty principle says they are uncertain, randomness would be a
    certainty

    if you don't buy that randomness is a certainty, or want to talk about
    mutations, you would have to test and validate that there is no
    correlation from ANY other variable and its own self because it could be
    self causal, that would require a MANOVA of all variables in the scope
    of the randomness

    if you are a determinist this is easy, EVERYTHING is causally related,
    EVERYTHING is in scope, so such an experiment, designing the experiment,
    or even thinking about the experiment might cause the randomness, in
    fact if you are a determinist ALL things are causal and there is NO SUCH
    THING as randomness OR EVEN uncertainty for that matter

    if you are NOT a determinist then you must identify the scope before
    designing the experiment to identify correlation or not, but the
    definition of randomness says there is no scope, perhaps not even
    itself, therefore the only scope to experiment on is itself, you would
    have to find out when a random event starts, but if it is truly random
    then time does not even correlate with it

    so, randomness is not testable, therefore it is not a theory and not
    even a hypothesis, only conjecture by the rules of science as
    established now, and yes, including random mutations
     
    Dale, Jan 16, 2014
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Dale

    Mayayana Guest

    |I say that "random" mutations do not lead to success in natural selection
    |

    No. That's the weak point in the theory of
    evolution. It really doesn't hold water.

    | obvious some inherited behavior is passed down in genetics, some species
    | do things always the same
    |
    | so why can't newly learned behavior be inherited?
    |

    Look up epigenetics. It's what you're talking about.
    It makes evolution theory plausible and is potentially in
    accord with the idea of intelligent design (though not
    necessarily in accord with theism). On the other hand,
    the believers of scientism won't be able to accept that,
    because an idea like intelligent design can't be
    "relevantized" within the narrow confines of scientific
    method.
     
    Mayayana, Jan 16, 2014
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Dale

    Dale Guest

    I looked it up
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epigenetics

    I agree with it, but I do include changes to DNA based on learned
    behavior which is also passed on in DNA
     
    Dale, Jan 16, 2014
    #3
  4. Dale

    Dale Guest

    you cannot even say something is random unless you run a MANOVA across
    ALL the variables in the universe

    quantum mechanics, etc., are uncertain, not random, and a strict
    empiricist would doubt that and ALL math without statistics

    a fact does not mean one sigma, not 2 sigma, not 3 sigma, not 6 sigma,
    but 100%
     
    Dale, Jan 16, 2014
    #4
  5. Dale

    Martin Brown Guest

    Not only that but these days you can evolve computer solutions to
    problems by the same sort of genetic algorithms with sexual
    reproduction, random mutations and selection of the fittest.

    Natural selection merely ensures that the fittest organisms go on to
    reproduce and statistically have more offspring than weaker ones. It
    doesn't take many generations to make a noticeable improvement.

    100 1% incremental improvements is 270% of the original.


    Back in the 1980's Scientific American had an article on evolve your own
    simple computer life form that had rather minimal genetics but rapidly
    evolved to cope with environmental constraints or else died out.

    ISTR in times of plenty with a dense patch of food they spiralled round
    tightly to stay on the spot and breed rapidly and in a famine they moved
    across the screen in long sweeps to cover the maximum amount of new
    ground. It was amazing to watch them evolve (or all expire) as you
    altered their food supply availability and very instructive.

    There is probably a Matlab simulation out there somewhere. My old
    implementation of it was tied to CGA or Hercules graphics cards.

    Virtual fruit fly is a descendant of this early work but now includes a
    very large number of characteristics in the simulation.
     
    Martin Brown, Jan 16, 2014
    #5
  6. Dale

    Dale Guest

    thanks
     
    Dale, Jan 16, 2014
    #6
  7. Dale

    J. Clarke Guest

    If there is an "intelligent designer" who is not a deity, then who is
    this "intelligent designer" and where is he, she, or it located?
     
    J. Clarke, Jan 16, 2014
    #7
  8. Dale

    Whisky-dave Guest

    How do you know whether a 'mutation is random'

    It can.


    It is, because if it wasn't how would you know it exists ?

    Randomess is just not being able to accuratey predict a predicatable pattern.
     
    Whisky-dave, Jan 16, 2014
    #8
  9. Dale

    Mayayana Guest

    | > because an idea like intelligent design can't be
    | > "relevantized" within the narrow confines of scientific
    | > method.
    |
    | "relevantized"???
    |

    It was the best word I could think of to describe
    the way that mainstream science co-opts things in order
    to maintain cultural control. If an idea gains currency
    then science needs to accept it via experimentation
    in order to remain the cultural authority. I often see
    studies about silly things like whether people eat more
    of foods that they like. It's common sense, but for science
    to reign supreme it must officially adopt common sense
    through official experiments, where it becomes official
    scientific data and is thereby ushered into the officially
    accurate collection of official cultural data, for use in
    public discourse.

    In these days of stifling political correctness and
    cultural relativism, science has taken on even more
    authority in public discourse. One almost never sees
    journalists writing on their own authority. If they want
    to say, for instance, that women are more compassionate
    than men, then they'd better have a study to back it up.
    If they want to say the opposite then they'd better have
    three studies. Generally that's not a problem, as the job
    of the mainstream media is to maintain consensus, and
    consensus-supporting results are generally the kind that
    science can be depended upon to churn out.

    An idea like intelligent design is a problem that awkwardly
    highlights the limitations of science. The suggestion that
    reality might be created by an outside element cannot be
    tested by scientific empiricism. (Though I read last week
    that those nutty physicists are saying the universe might
    be a mere hologram. :)
     
    Mayayana, Jan 16, 2014
    #9
  10. Dale

    Mayayana Guest

    | If there is an "intelligent designer" who is not a deity, then who is
    | this "intelligent designer" and where is he, she, or it located?
    |

    You seem to be asking what god is the designer if
    it's not a god. I'm not claiming any god. I'm not claiming
    anything.

    I said that epigenetics could support
    intelligent design, but not necessarily a theistic version
    of it. The view that DNA expression can be changed --
    and that those changes may be able to be passed on in
    some cases, as a result of environment, behavior, or
    even thought -- presents a possibility somewhere in between
    the two dueling dogmas of scientific materialism and divine
    creativity. (We could, ourselves, be divine creativity in
    some sense if our thoughts and actions mold our physical
    selves.)

    Many years ago I remember reading about a study
    where a man experimented with fish in mountain pools.
    Some had markings to blend in with pebbles in their
    pool. Some had unpatterned skin to blend in with sand
    at the bottom of their pool. It was found that fish
    moved between pools could change their skin fairly
    quickly to adapt their camouflage. Random mutation can't
    account for that, but epigenetics might possibly explain it.
    Then there's the question of what intelligence might be.
    Are the fish expressing intelligence? We could come up
    with numerous ways to view the situation. Maybe the
    skin change is triggered by light reflections off the
    bottom of the pool. Maybe it's a kind of consciousness
    we don't recognize. Maybe we need to expand our
    understanding of "God's in the sugar bowl". Whatever it
    is, the fish responded "intelligently" to their environment.

    To my mind, if nothing else, epigenetics and intelligent
    design both provide an important service: They allow us
    more space to actually reflect on these things without
    being reduced to simply choosing between dogmas.
     
    Mayayana, Jan 16, 2014
    #10
  11. Dale

    Dale Guest

    a designer could be all in your head, ever watch the movie "The Matrix",
    or hear of the veil of maya?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maya_(illusion)#In_Vedanta
     
    Dale, Jan 16, 2014
    #11
  12. Dale

    Mark Sieving Guest

    This has nothing to do with digital photography, or any topic of the other newsgroups you've posted to. There is an appropriate newsgroup for this discussion at talk.origins.
     
    Mark Sieving, Jan 16, 2014
    #12
  13. Dale

    J. Clarke Guest

    You're claiming "intelligent design without a god". So what does the
    designing? Where is this intelligence located?
    But you have not demonstrated how the intelligence doing the designing
    can exist without there being a designer.
    Sorry, but that's not "intelligent design", that's natural selection
    with a few bells and whistles.
    Why invoke "epigenetics" when "chromatophores" fully suffices?
    I'm sorry, but a chameleon changing color is not evidence of
    "intelligent design".
    "Intelligent design" implies a deliberate act by some entity that can
    pass a Turing test. If you want to pretend otherwise you're just
    obfuscating the issue.
     
    J. Clarke, Jan 16, 2014
    #13
  14. Dale

    Dale Guest

    there is something called "conservation of information"
    where did the information we have today come from and where will it go to?
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_information#Law_of_conservation_of_information
     
    Dale, Jan 16, 2014
    #14
  15. Dale

    Mayayana Guest

    | > To my mind, if nothing else, epigenetics and intelligent
    | > design both provide an important service: They allow us
    | > more space to actually reflect on these things without
    | > being reduced to simply choosing between dogmas.
    |
    | "Intelligent design" implies a deliberate act by some entity that can
    | pass a Turing test. If you want to pretend otherwise you're just
    | obfuscating the issue.

    From the point of view of dogma there's only "our side"
    and "the opposing side". Anything else is nonsense,
    obfuscation, or a stubborn refusal to fight. (You're
    saying that I must either accept your terms of battle
    or be dismissed as a fool talking nonsense.)

    I'm proposing that it could be useful to set aside the
    two extremes and think about other possibilities. But
    you need to actually try that before you can understand
    what I wrote.
     
    Mayayana, Jan 16, 2014
    #15
  16. Dale

    Jim Newman Guest

    I think they'd rather it went to alt.test
     
    Jim Newman, Jan 17, 2014
    #16
  17. Dale

    J. Clarke Guest

    In other words you want to redefine "intelligent" to "instinctive action
    by a fish" and "design" to "happened in reaction to instinctive action
    by a fish".
     
    J. Clarke, Jan 17, 2014
    #17
  18. Is there an alt.usenet.charters.dont.apply.to.me?
     
    Usenet Account, Jan 17, 2014
    #18
  19. Dale

    Martin Brown Guest

    [/QUOTE]

    Why do you want to always invent Goddidit magick to explain away
    everything that you do not understand? Superstitious medieval mindset!
    The "law" you quote is complete bollocks. Try hitting a hard disk with a
    sledgehammer as GCHQ are inclined to ask newspapers to do these days!

    The simplest self organising redox chemical reaction is so easy to do
    and tolerant of the mix ratios that it can be replicated in any high
    school chemical laboratory with fairly standard reagents.

    Reagents are :

    potassium perbromate (oxidiser)
    malonic acid (reducer)
    cerium sulphate (catalyst)
    1M sulphuric acid (solvent)
    Ferroin (indicator)

    You can run it without the indicator using the Ce(III) colourless and
    Ce(IV) yellow as a self indicator in a test tube but in a thin layer you
    really do need the indicator to make the rings more visible.

    Dissolve equal amounts of perbromate and malonic acid in the 1M
    sulphuric and then add a pinch of cerium sulphate and away it goes.



    The sad thing was that poor Belousov was not believed in the 1950's when
    he tried to publish a paper about his serendipitous discovery and never
    gained any credit for his novelty chemical clock reaction. A decade
    later Zhabotinsky stumbled on the same mix and it didn't become common
    knowledge in the western scientific community until nearly 1970.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belousov–Zhabotinsky_reaction

    Conway's game of life is another example of extremely simple rules
    leading to a dynamical system so complex that it is Turing complete.

    Liesgang rings are another well known in this case diffusion limited
    self organising structure that occurred in dichromate gelatine when
    accidentally contaminated with silver nitrate (actually on topic for
    some of the groups this superstitious nutter dross is cross posted to).

    http://www.insilico.hu/liesegang/history/history.html

    As a footnote autocatalytic reactions in the primordial soup of very
    short RNA fragments is one way that life quite possibly got started.
     
    Martin Brown, Jan 17, 2014
    #19
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.