The Triune system

[ippy]

Hi Gonnagle,

Actually most people here just pretend to know science.  They have read some books and taken it on authority. Coupled with their need to find atheistic and non mystical explanations....they get locked on to such explanations without thinking about it.

They like being skeptical but only in selected areas....they are themselves carried away by faith in scientific authority. They are as fanatical about their beliefs as religious followers are.

If some famous scientist suddenly rejects some idea or questions some long held scientific 'belief'....you'll find a angry and scornful reaction by all these science enthusiasts. They'll happily condemn the scientist rather than change their view point.  Its their memes fighting for survival. LOL!

Cheers.

Sriram

Just as I said in my original post.

Of course Sriram you're the one with all of the intellectual qualities needed to understand anything like evolution, so if you were to read Margaret Drabbles book I think you might be able to follow the evidence as presented, like BA says it's one of the more simple theories to get your head around.

Don't forget Sriram,"The Peppered Moth".

ippy

[Stranger]

Why is NS not just a reaction (adaptation) to an environment change and why is it a 'selection'?

Because in isn't a reaction to the environment. The (random) variation has to be there first to be selected. Changes don't arise for the purpose of surviving in the environment.

What is the law governing NS?
What is the predictability of the selected species?
What is the criterion to decide that some thing has been selected and some thing has not?

I don't even know what you mean by these. It's an amazingly simple concept that has now been explained to you multiple times...

Random gene variations should throw up virtually millions of phenotypes out of which some are 'selected' (according to you). Have such millions of mutations actually been observed?

Most variation isn't down to mutation.

Mutations happen over a long time. You never suddenly get millions of mutated phenotypes.

There are always genetic mutations but most don't do anything. (IIRC each human has about 100 mutations.)

The point is that when a mutation makes a difference to the phenotype, that is advantageous in the environment, it will spread through the population and become the norm. Advantageous mutations accumulate in the population.

Taking the case of the Peppered Moth....is it random gene variation and NS..... or it it active adaptation to the changed environment?

Random variation and natural selection - that's how it always works. DNA can't take a peak at the environment, work out what is needed and then change itself accordingly.

PS: The more personal remarks you make the more your weakness is shown, as a rule!

Well, seriously, what do you expect if you can't be bothered to find out the basics about a subject before trying to tell everybody else they are wrong?

This is easy science and there are many websites and books that explain it in detail. There really isn't an excuse for criticism from ignorance.

[Stranger]

I cannot understand why it seem so hard for some to understand.

In all of science, this has to be the simplest to get your head around.

I find this seriously puzzling. What's so hard...?

[Gonnagle]

Dear ippy,

This is evolution stuff, I get it but I haven't got it, yet! I know it works, there is to much evidence to deny it, but it should be questioned, science is there to be questioned, it is what scientists do, the thing is, science does not belong to scientists it belongs to everyone.

Your Peppered Moth, I read about this years ago, the thing that astounded me was I thought evolution was a slow process, as in millions of years to make any difference, apparently not.

Gonnagle.

[wigginhall]

I don't think it is hard, but some people really really wish that evolution was directed, that is, that there is some intelligence at work, deciding that moths would be better off being a bit darker, and so on.    There is no need for this intelligence however, Occam does his work as usual. 

[Gonnagle]

Dear Stranger and Berational,

Go for it gentlemen, I am sitting here a willing sponge, waiting to soak up your simple explanation of evolution.

Ooops, now we have the Saintly Wigs, go on gentlemen, for us less educated.

Gonnagle.

[Shaker]

I don't think it is hard, but some people really really wish that evolution was directed, that is, that there is some intelligence at work, deciding that moths would be better off being a bit darker, and so on.    There is no need for this intelligence however, Occam does his work as usual.

Yes, you see that in Sriram every time - desperately wanting the captain to be at the helm and conjuring up all sorts of twaddle in the process.

[Gonnagle]

Dear Sriram,

Actually most people here just pretend to know science.  They have read some books and taken it on authority. Coupled with their need to find atheistic and non mystical explanations....they get locked on to such explanations without thinking about it.

Atheistic, oh! you will be in trouble for that one, being an atheist does not affect your thinking, or so I am led to believe

Gonnagle.

[ippy]

Dear ippy,

This is evolution stuff, I get it but I haven't got it, yet! I know it works, there is to much evidence to deny it, but it should be questioned, science is there to be questioned, it is what scientists do, the thing is, science does not belong to scientists it belongs to everyone.

Your Peppered Moth, I read about this years ago, the thing that astounded me was I thought evolution was a slow process, as in millions of years to make any difference, apparently not.

Gonnagle.

I suppose if, say I'm an expert on evolution have been studying evolution for years and was at the forefront of evolutionary research, even if that were so Gonners, it isn't, there wouldn't be anything of major concern that would alter the basics of this theory and the likes of you and I Gonners more than likely would have some difficulty getting our heads around all that's left to challenge of this theory because it would be so minor.

The evolutionary theory is about it, even when Franklin Wilson and Crick discovered DNA, guess what it fitted Darwin's original theory like a glove, with the most minor ripple of a discrepancy.

So really the only discrepancy there is for argument comes from that lunatic fringe of mostly American creationists and they may a well be disregarded in the same way we now disregard the flat Earth lot, it's settled there is no controversy, no argument, so unless in the extremely unlikely event someone comes up with a legitimate challenge that's it we're there.

It doesn't matter how long evolutionary changes take, the basics don't alter.

ippy             

[Sriram]

Because in isn't a reaction to the environment. The (random) variation has to be there first to be selected. Changes don't arise for the purpose of surviving in the environment.

I don't even know what you mean by these. It's an amazingly simple concept that has now been explained to you multiple times...

Most variation isn't down to mutation.

Mutations happen over a long time. You never suddenly get millions of mutated phenotypes.

There are always genetic mutations but most don't do anything. (IIRC each human has about 100 mutations.)

The point is that when a mutation makes a difference to the phenotype, that is advantageous in the environment, it will spread through the population and become the norm. Advantageous mutations accumulate in the population.

Random variation and natural selection - that's how it always works. DNA can't take a peak at the environment, work out what is needed and then change itself accordingly.

Well, seriously, what do you expect if you can't be bothered to find out the basics about a subject before trying to tell everybody else they are wrong?

This is easy science and there are many websites and books that explain it in detail. There really isn't an excuse for criticism from ignorance.

1. You haven't heard of epigenetics and neo-lamarckism? Acquired characteristics can be passed on to progeny.

2. Every process needs to follow some  law of nature for it to be considered a natural process that is repeated again and again. If there is no known law that is being followed...it is not a process. It is just a random occurrence. 

3. You keep saying it is a simple concept but don't understand that there is no 'selection' being made. According to you, it is just random genetic variations out of which some manage to survive in a given environment. If the environment changes...it could change the survival scenario. So...no selection. Today something is 'selected' tomorrow something else is 'selected'. There is no predictability because environmental changes are random and happen all the time.

4. Taking the case of the Peppered Moth....as the environment became blackened the colour of the moth changed to black. This is obviously not because of millions of random genetic variations out of which black one arose by chance. It is a clear case of black being chosen by some inner process (possibly epigenetic).  The case is all the more interesting because when the environment changed back to normal, the colour of the moth changed back to its original colour.  You would claim that it is because once again millions of random variations where thrown up out of which the original  one managed to survive. That is very far fetched.

All these convoluted explanations are required because you people believe that 'DNA can't take a peak at the environment, work out what is needed and then change itself accordingly'.   That is the problem. Well...maybe it can. Epigenetics and its influence on gene expression could be the answer.

[BeRational]

Sriram,

There is no hope for you.

You are just too indoctrinated, or too stupid.

It's one or the other.

[Sriram]

Sriram,

There is no hope for you.

You are just too indoctrinated, or too stupid.

It's one or the other.

Thanks BR.  Who is indoctrinated I don't know.

[BeRational]

Thanks BR.  Who is indoctrinated I don't know.

You are as you fail to grasp the most simple concept.

[ippy]

1. You haven't heard of epigenetics and neo-lamarckism? Acquired characteristics can be passed on to progeny.

2. Every process needs to follow some  law of nature for it to be considered a natural process that is repeated again and again. If there is no known law that is being followed...it is not a process. It is just a random occurrence. 

3. You keep saying it is a simple concept but don't understand that there is no 'selection' being made. According to you, it is just random genetic variations out of which some manage to survive in a given environment. If the environment changes...it could change the survival scenario. So...no selection. Today something is 'selected' tomorrow something else is 'selected'. There is no predictability because environmental changes are random and happen all the time.

4. Taking the case of the Peppered Moth....as the environment became blackened the colour of the moth changed to black. This is obviously not because of millions of random genetic variations out of which black one arose by chance. It is a clear case of black being chosen by some inner process (possibly epigenetic).  The case is all the more interesting because when the environment changed back to normal, the colour of the moth changed back to its original colour.  You would claim that it is because once again millions of random variations where thrown up out of which the original  one managed to survive. That is very far fetched.

All these convoluted explanations are required because you people believe that 'DNA can't take a peak at the environment, work out what is needed and then change itself accordingly'.   That is the problem. Well...maybe it can. Epigenetics and its influence on gene expression could be the answer.

Supposed to be a serious post?

Why try to make something sound complicated when it isn't? I must admit the word epigenetics sounds important.

It's easier to see black on white or visa versa, it couldn't be the birds spotted the darker moths on the trees that were no longer had their bark being coated with industrial smoke/smog and the bark was gradually getting lighter.

The darker moths standing out more on the gradually lightening tree bark got eaten by the birds so any moth that happened to be born a bit lighter got missed, they then they reproduced and on and on the darker moths were not reproducing at he the same rate as the lighter ones because they were being eaten and guess what the darker ones died out, what a surprise.

ippy

[Stranger]

1. You haven't heard of epigenetics and neo-lamarckism? Acquired characteristics can be passed on to progeny.

Epigenetics is about possibly heritable changes in gene expression - it doesn't alter the genetic sequence, so cannot be the main process in evolution.

2. Every process needs to follow some  law of nature for it to be considered a natural process that is repeated again and again. If there is no known law that is being followed...it is not a process. It is just a random occurrence.

Sorry, I see lots of words but no relevant meaning.

3. You keep saying it is a simple concept but don't understand that there is no 'selection' being made. According to you, it is just random genetic variations out of which some manage to survive in a given environment. If the environment changes...it could change the survival scenario. So...no selection. Today something is 'selected' tomorrow something else is 'selected'. There is no predictability because environmental changes are random and happen all the time.

Of course selection changes when the enviroment changes - that doesn't mean no selection. Do you ever think before you type?

4. Taking the case of the Peppered Moth....as the environment became blackened the colour of the moth changed to black. This is obviously not because of millions of random genetic variations out of which black one arose by chance. It is a clear case of black being chosen by some inner process (possibly epigenetic).  The case is all the more interesting because when the environment changed back to normal, the colour of the moth changed back to its original colour.  You would claim that it is because once again millions of random variations where thrown up out of which the original  one managed to survive. That is very far fetched.

You still don't understand - I can only think because you don't want to understand. The peppered moth was not epigenetics, it was a change the the genome. The rest of this is blind-faith assertion.

Ilik Saccheri, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Liverpool, UK, and his colleagues have used molecular genetics to show that one mutation from a single ancestor causes increased dark pigment, called melanism, in the typically light-coloured moth.

http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110414/full/news.2011.238.html

All these convoluted explanations are required because you people believe that 'DNA can't take a peak at the environment, work out what is needed and then change itself accordingly'.   That is the problem. Well...maybe it can. Epigenetics and its influence on gene expression could be the answer.

I suggest learning just a little about the standard science of evolution and natural selection. In an earlier post you accused other posters of just reading some books. It would be nice if you could be arsed to even do that, before declaring that large parts of science (which you obviously haven't taken the time to study) is all wrong and the all-knowing Sriram has the answer.....

[torridon]

4. Taking the case of the Peppered Moth....as the environment became blackened the colour of the moth changed to black. This is obviously not because of millions of random genetic variations out of which black one arose by chance. It is a clear case of black being chosen by some inner process (possibly epigenetic).  The case is all the more interesting because when the environment changed back to normal, the colour of the moth changed back to its original colour.  You would claim that it is because once again millions of random variations where thrown up out of which the original  one managed to survive. That is very far fetched.

When trees were blackened by Victorian pollution, lighter coloured moths became more visible to predators, got eaten more, and so tended to die out whereas the darker coloured moths tended to be camoflaged and so tended to out survive the lighter moths, passing on their gene variants.  It is that simple at base.

[Sriram]

OK guys...... I may not be able to write at length today.

The point is simple.

Natural Selection, the way you people believe in it, is just a random process with no basis in law nor is there any clearly defined process and certainly no predictability. It is just a reaction to random environmental changes.

No way complexity could have arisen all the way up to humans  through this so called random 'method'!

'Natural Selection' to be meaningful at all (similar to artificial selection), should be governed by some purpose and objective  and should have some inner force providing it direction (Darwin believed that). 

The mechanism for this to happen (epigenetics) is now fairly well known although many people seem to be still stuck with their  random variation stuff.

Don't get stuck so religiously with authority guys. Think out of the box.

Cheers....have fun 

Sriram

[Stranger]

Natural Selection, the way you people believe in it, is just a random process with no basis in law nor is there any clearly defined process and certainly no predictability. It is just a reaction to random environmental changes.

Restate misunderstanding.

No way complexity could have arisen all the way up to humans  through this so called random 'method'!

Make baseless assertion.

'Natural Selection' to be meaningful at all (similar to artificial selection), should be governed by some purpose and objective  and should have some inner force providing it direction (Darwin believed that).

Assert superstition (and lie about Darwin).

The mechanism for this to happen (epigenetics) is now fairly well known although many people seem to be still stuck with their  random variation stuff.

Restate another misunderstanding.

Don't get stuck so religiously with authority guys. Think out of the box.

It's everybody else! Honest!

Repeat....

 

[SusanDoris]

Sriram

Believe any rubbish you like, but do NOT teach it to children, or tell them it is true.

[Sriram]

Sriram

Believe any rubbish you like, but do NOT teach it to children, or tell them it is true.

Susan....

Both my children are microbiologists and MBA's holding responsible positions in big companies.  I am myself a physics graduate with a MBA, worked in the aircraft and software industries for 35 years.

So...don't worry yourself, we know what to think and believe. You worry about yourself please.

In fact, if you support some idea I know I should  certainly go in the opposite direction. 

No offence....but thanks anyway. 

[BeRational]

Susan....

Both my children are microbiologists and MBA's holding responsible positions in big companies.  I am myself a physics graduate with a MBA, worked in the aircraft and software industries for 35 years.

So...don't worry yourself, we know what to think and believe. You worry about yourself please.

In fact, if you support some idea I know I should  certainly go in the opposite direction. 

No offence....but thanks anyway. 

I don't believe you.

[jeremyp]

Susan....

Both my children are microbiologists and MBA's holding responsible positions in big companies.

Remarkable. Did they leave microbiology because the crap you told them made them really bad at it?

I am myself a physics graduate with a MBA, worked in the aircraft and software industries for 35 years.

Hopefully not designing anything more critical than the toilets.

[torridon]

OK guys...... I may not be able to write at length today.

The point is simple.

Natural Selection, the way you people believe in it, is just a random process with no basis in law nor is there any clearly defined process and certainly no predictability. It is just a reaction to random environmental changes.

No way complexity could have arisen all the way up to humans  through this so called random 'method'!

'Natural Selection' to be meaningful at all (similar to artificial selection), should be governed by some purpose and objective  and should have some inner force providing it direction (Darwin believed that). 

The mechanism for this to happen (epigenetics) is now fairly well known although many people seem to be still stuck with their  random variation stuff.

Don't get stuck so religiously with authority guys. Think out of the box.

Cheers....have fun 

Sriram

You're just hopelessly confused about this it seems.  Maybe you've latched on to 'epigenetics' as a magic last hope for some sort of purpose in evolution.  Epigenetics doesn't confer any sort of direction or purpose to evolution, it is just another pathway in which the principle of inheritance operates in certain circumstances; it comes down to gene expression being 'selected' rather than gene mutations being 'selected'.  In neither case is there any hidden intelligence at work, just a multiplicity of ways in which life adapts and diversifies in response to (random) environmental change.

[ippy]

Susan....

Both my children are microbiologists and MBA's holding responsible positions in big companies.  I am myself a physics graduate with a MBA, worked in the aircraft and software industries for 35 years.

So...don't worry yourself, we know what to think and believe. You worry about yourself please.

In fact, if you support some idea I know I should  certainly go in the opposite direction. 

No offence....but thanks anyway. 

Going by the content of your posts Sriram, it doesn't show.

Darwin's theory is so proven and so beautiful in it's simplicity, how come its rather obviously gone right over your head?

ippy

[Sriram]

You're just hopelessly confused about this it seems.  Maybe you've latched on to 'epigenetics' as a magic last hope for some sort of purpose in evolution.  Epigenetics doesn't confer any sort of direction or purpose to evolution, it is just another pathway in which the principle of inheritance operates in certain circumstances; it comes down to gene expression being 'selected' rather than gene mutations being 'selected'.  In neither case is there any hidden intelligence at work, just a multiplicity of ways in which life adapts and diversifies in response to (random) environmental change.

I have no doubt at all about evolution having a direction. The fact that humans have arisen is testimony to that fact. No amount of random gene variation or 'natural selection' of your variety, can explain that.

The Triune system of the OP is a clear indicator of how structures jump from one stage to another to accommodate higher mental functions.  A clear case of biology being  created to match spiritual development. No doubt at all. 

Most people also tend to confuse 'science' with materialism. They think these two always go together. This may be a revelation to many here......but it is not necessary.

I don't know how educated most people here are (from the lack of knowledge and crass attitude exhibited here,  not much, I gather)...... but they obviously don't seem to realize that materialistic understanding of a process is only at one level. Life has many levels.

More and more into detail with no clue of the Big Picture or how things fit together!!!  That's the problem.

But then...that's too much for many people here to understand I realize.