Intelliget Life

Life: mass format of evolving naturally selected RNA nucleotide(s), which is life’s primal organism.

Natural selection: ubiquitous phenomenon of material that augments its energy constraint.

Mass-Energy: inert-moving graviton(s), the fundamental particle of the universe, inert extremely briefly at the pre-big-bang singularity .

Intelligence: learning from experience.

Intelligent Life

Life is an evolving system continuously undergoing natural selection i.e. continuously selecting, intelligently, opportunities to augment its energy constraint in order to survive i.e. in order to avoid/postpone its own mass format being re-converted to energy.

Dov Henis

(comments from 22nd century)

http://universe-life.com/

PS;
Genomes are formed by/for the genes and are continuously modified by them...

Alex, it's nice that you've conceded that.

You never disappoint with desperate juvenility, eh Roy?
;]

Poor Alex, still blabbering away. It's not working for him.

Dale is correct. As a physically weaker species, we developed better means of communicating with other humans to cooperate and survive. We developed a more complicated language and a better way to vocalize it, and in turn a newer section of the brain to handle a greater cultural capacity for sharing more abstract conceptions and more complicated behavior strategies. All of these relatively useful capacities must evolve together in any social species - and in a sense, all species have social ties to those that bear their members.

Roy Mills
There could be an interesting situation developing in that modern humans, with their supposed intelligence and communication abilities are mostly suited to a man-made or artificial environment.

An average Australian could not survive for more than a few days (or even a few hours) in the bush, and would quickly perish due to thirst, exhaustion or exposure.

We now spend most of the day in man-made boxes or artificial environments such as in a house, office room or car (which is a box on wheels), and those man made environments have to be air-conditioned, rain proof, block out sunlight, and they often have muzak supplied. They must also be connected to an artificial energy supply such as an electricity grid.

So in many ways, we are actually becoming more limited and less capable in time.

Dale, the average Australian may not do too well in the bush, but the Aborigines there would prosper, and they are in that sense more "survivably" intelligent than the average. They can go to school and learn to do what the more literate among us do, but we have no schools to go to, in turn, to teach us to do what they have done almost instinctively.
Apparently, if we don't practice what have become instinctive behaviors, over time we lose those instincts. My theory is of course that all instincts were initially learned, but those who believe they were granted to some of us who "fit" them by accident won't be likely to agree with the above.

Roy Niles,
Yes, our definition of intelligence is totally subjective.

We may consider ourselves intelligent and capable, but only within a particular environment, and the environment for humans is becoming more man-made or artificial.

Outside of that man-made or artificial environment that we ourselves create, we may not be so intelligent or capable.

Not so quick Danny,

"Researchers say the connectivity disturbances they saw in the study, particularly in the hippocampus and commissural fibres, may underlie the memory impairment and other cognitive deficits that are observed in long-term heavy cannabis users."

http://www.mcri.edu.au/news/2012/august/adolescents-most-at-risk-of-brain-damage-from-long-term,-heavy-cannabis-use.aspx

@Dale

That study only relates to the adolescent brain, of course you should not consume cannabis or alcohol before legal age limits. For adults, it is a different story[1].

Is it that hard to believe that being able to access more of our memories gave our species an edge? I hope this is not going down the spiral of reefer madness...

Peace :)

1. http://healthland.time.com/2011/07/19/study-marijuana-not-linked-with-long-term-cognitive-impairment/

Kim, thank you for your reply to my comment on Andrew's paper. May I recommend Peter MacNeilage's readable and persuasive book - The Origin of Speech, Oxford University Press, Cambridge, 2009 - where he argues that the physical capacity to enunciate words would have evolved step-by-step with the neural capacity for perceiving the meaning of words and making them up. The process would have grown from grimaces and lip smacking, through mandidular cyclicity, through to the refined speech we have today. In other words he says form frames content in speech. His book was in our local library, so you would be able to order it from yours. Peter MacNeilage's argument is firmly within the concept of evolution by natural selection so it is quite easy to get a handle on the process. It's a really good book. In fact the Broca Wernicke area in the brain is involved in gestures of the human head and in producing and understanding words.

Richard Dawkins' hypothesis of mimemes as patterns of neural substrates in the brain is, I understand. quite accepted now, but we'll have to wait for a future Watson and Crick team to demonstrate a meme. If you like Richard Dawkins, in my book (Why It's OK to Talk to Your Dog) I use his extended phenotype hypothesis to argue that the facial anatomy for enunciated speech could not have evolved in humans unless we were an extended phenotype with the dog: www.compositeconversationalist.com to read the first chapter and a few other things. Hope you like it. Best wishes.

David Paxton ~

Would Dawkins' meme concept fit the bill ('The Selfish Gene' 1976)?

As the Universe began as information that gained expression as matter, stars, planets, life and human culture, so the information that we drive feeds back into the shaping of our genes.

Kim Peart

Evolution is a trial and error process, where we take intelligent advantage of accidents. Our errors to that extent are sometimes made on purpose.

RoyN says:we use "trial and error process, where we take intelligent advantage of accidents"

Trial & error is by definition, not "intelligence". Iflife did that, it would evole slowly, if at all.

You must realize that many aspects of our genetics are not inherited as genes, but also 'inherited' as parental modification to the massive control structures that surround and modulate expressions of our genes?

This means that organisms come prepared for some environmental challenges in ways other than simply DNA codes.

All that "junk DNA" that was supposed to exist has functions that even span generations. We learned that too, but not by trial & error. Evolution occurs via variation for sure, but variation within definite bounds.

Intelligence was unintelligently selected, is that it?

A bit over stated, Dov. And, "the RNA nucleotide genes" is only partly correct -- RNA may well have been an orioguinal genetic substrate, but DNA overtook it in higher organisms for various biochemical reasons. We still use RNA, and many virusses do, but DNA has valuable properties that evolution has indeed preferred.

By the way, evolution isn't "intelligence" or anything subtle at all -- it's differential reproduction (and death), as Darwin & others knew well.

Evolution is also fully dependent on external influences, which is both why we have periodic mass extinctions and why there are meany dead species that could survive and evolve well today.

It might be instructive to realize that a number of tools exist to automate computer-program writing via 'natural' selection. One of Sony's robot dog toys was, in fact, made to walk more naturally just this way. Some communication devices have also been electronically designed using evolutionary algorithms -- the resulting designs are often strange to human engineers' original conceptions, but they work in the environments prescribed by the selection criteria and 'genetic' evolution algorithm.

As to the big bang and mass-energy conversion theory you mention -- no one knows what happened before the 1 micro-second after the big bang began. There are various equivalent theories about cyclic universes, one-time mystical creations, and intersections of branes in multi-universes. Conversion of mass-energy is not the driver, since we know not what mass is and we know energy is relative.

We remain ignorant, which excites us to discover more.

We do know old wisdom, like: "There's no substitute for human stupidity."

If humans are so superior brainwise, why have we created so many problems for us and all species?

Alex says "By the way, evolution isn't "intelligence" or anything subtle at all -- it's differential reproduction (and death), as Darwin & others knew well."
Darwin thought that an animal's "intelligent" reaction to experience drove its evolution, although he seemed to think the forms developed and the functions followed. He was apparently persuaded to change his mind in any case and give all credit to external influences.
More lately we have discovered that all evolution is driven by the intelligent devices life has found to take advantage of nature's accidents.
Even though both Dov and Alex seem to be arguing that it is accidents that take advantage of life in that respect - no intelligence needed on either side of the equation..

Excuse me, I just noted that Dov has amended his dissertation to include intelligence all up and down the line.

RoyN: "intelligent devices life has found to take advantage of nature's accidents"

How jas "life found" intelligent devices? Are bacteria "intelligent"? what about virusses -- they exploit bacteria & other cells to do work they can't -- sounds "intelligent", eh?

What seems to be the problem is that some of us can't ascribe life's properties to anything but some intelligence, grand or not.

What's wrong with simply admitting we don't know what intelligence is and that Nature has done very well without a definition in evolving all manner of life?

Decide, Humanity: Scientism Or Natural Selection
May 19, 2012

http://www.sciencemag.org/site/special/conflict/index.xhtml http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2012/05/roots-of-racism.html?ref=em

Scientism:

A doctrine and method characteristic of scientists, and the proposition that scientific doctrine and methods of studying natural sciences should be used in all areas of investigation and in conduct of politics-social-cultural-civil affairs in pursuit of an efficient practical, as fair as possible, civics framework.

Natural Selection:

All mass formats, inanimate and animate, follow natural selection, i.e. intake of energy or their energy taken in by other mass formats.

All politics and economics, local, national and international, are about evolutionary biology, about Darwinian evolution, about survival, about obtaining and maintaining and distributing energy.

Religion:

is a virtual factor-component in human’s natural selection. Its target-function is to preserve-proliferate specific cultural phenotypes.

Natural selection-religion are compatible with technology-capitalism but are obviously incompatible with science-scientism, that targets preservation-proliferation of the genotype.

Science-scientism is an obvious threat to the survival of a cultural phenotype.

Dov Henis (comments from 22nd century)
Universe-Energy-Mass-Life Compilation
http://universe-life.com/2012/02/03/universe-energy-mass-life-compilation/

For A Scientism Culture
http://universe-life.com/2011/06/11/for-a-scientism-culture/

"How would you use trial and error without intelligence?" -- 1st off, define "intelligence".

2nd, do you realize how maany deaths/failures to reproduce are involved in each evolutionary step that's sugject to selection?

Evolutionary "trial and error" is mostly error.

The same is true for artificial selection used in computing systems to design other systems. The Sony effort to have artificial selection revise how its robot toy dog walked yielded very many 'dogs' that wouldn't 'hunt'.

The same is true in the real world of nature. One doesn't need intelligence internal to evolution's processes.True intelligence would design the next 'improved' organism without delay & waste of selectively failed versions.

Alex says: "1st off, define "intelligence"."

intelligence |inˈtelijəns|
noun
1 the ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills

All life forms have some knowledge of what they need to do to survive, and all of them have acquired in one way or another the skills to try and occasionally succeed in doing so.

And to say that trial and error is mostly error does not change the fact that it's an intelligent and effective process, because everything we try has less than perfect results. Nothing is so intelligent that it makes no errors; if it were, it would have no need to learn and no need or reason to evolve.

Alex also says: "True intelligence would design the next 'improved' organism without delay & waste of selectively failed versions."
Unfortunately we have no evidence that such a perfect form of errorless intelligence yet exists, so that's a useless argument.

So Roy, do you see your conflation of trial & error with intelligence makes no sense?

"the ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills" doesn't say anything about how to attain "knowledge" or "skills".

"Trial & error" would be listed as an intelligent act, if true. But it's not. Tiral & error requires no intelligence, just the ability to sense an error and make some new try, perhaps randomly.

WWII buzz bombs did that, using very basic inertial course sensing and extremely rudimentary course correction system (repeatedly flipping a rudder one way or the other).

Intelligence? Well, more "intelligent than trying to find England randomly after launch.
;]

Forgot this, Roy: "we have no evidence that such a perfect form of errorless intelligence yet exists"

Never said intelligent decision making is errorless, it simply makes use of available information and knowledge. Trial & error doesn't do that.

Organisms, even you or I, aren't conscious of what mutations in our genetics may have occurred and what their effects are. Nor is Nature overseeing us individually.

Selection under serious mutation mostly results in individual death or failure to reproduce. In any case, the organism and its genes aren't making "trial & error" decisions.

Do you know which of the typically 2 germ-line mutations per year you've accumulated in 2012? Do you know what their effect(s) might be? Is some "intelligence" directing what happened and what the "error" will be of your 2012 "trial", whatever that is?

Where is the "intelligence?"

It seems you don't actually understand the definition you looked up, Roy...

"the ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills"

Do you know what "knowledge" means and requires? Do you know what "apply" means & requires?

Apparently, not.

Watch those mutations you got this past year, Roy!
;]

Alex, There are books and papers written up the scientific gazoo by biologists and other evolutionary scientists who have convinced even neo-Darwiniists that life forms from microbes on up the various trees of life have at least a minimum of intelligence, define it any way you like.
Your arguments that life doesn't need it to start with are simply silly. Your further arguments that life didn't acquire intelligence until much later in the game with, per your example, animals that were much closer to humans, begs the question of how intelligence evolved at all in life from what you claim was none in the beginning to a rather marvelous amount at present.
Of course you can't give up your rote learning and regurgitation of something you were taught by god knows who, but again, I don't know any accredited college where they deny life forms are at least minimally intelligent, even though they accept the stochastic selection theories that you also espouse.
But hey, like I said before, I don't care what you choose to think, I just wanted to hear how some people like you learned to answer these questions, and your answers have been as feeble as they come. Even the silly creationists have much better answers here than those from you.
But you can have the last word if you like.

Re evolution and intelligence

Humans are constituents of Life.
Life is simply another mass format, derived from naturally selected RNA nucleotides.
All mass formats derive from gravitons, the fundamental universe particles.
All mass formats are presently reconverting to energy, to gravitons/mass-formats in motion.
Intelligence is enhancing, based on experience, the energy constraint, for postponing this reconversion as long as possible.
See black holes and life…

Suggesting,

Dov Henis (comments from 22nd century)
http://universe-life.com/

Roy, Roy, Roy -- "life forms from microbes on up the various trees of life have at least a minimum of intelligence, define it any way you like"

Ok, I define it as not what our dictionaries define "intelligence".

Now how far, pray tell us, do we go down below bacteria to exit your "intelligent life"? Are virusses "intelligent"? They operate very effectively by co-opting other entities with reproductive abilities they lack.

So, Roy, are virusses "intelligent".

The definition includes "knowledge", remember? Do you know what "knowledge" requires?

Do you understand the concept of "representation"?

Do virusses have internal representations of bacyteria they can exploit via their "know;edge" that thus makes them "intelligent"?

Maybe we need go down further -- are molecules "intelligent"? They certainly have lots of interesting relations with one another -- relations rocks & life depend upon.

What about atoms?

What about protons & neutrons -- "intelligent"?

Quarks?

What you miss Roy is that your use of "intelligence" is equivalent to "nature".

Indeed, bacteria and even atoms do things that appear "intelligent" and rational, but where resides that "intelligence"? Nature.

So Roy, explain how virusses are intelligent, but the molecules that fold just right to serve all sorts of purposes aren't.

What you seem unable to realize is that your definition of "life" and intelligence" are the same.

You make no distinction, and distinctions are key to learning, and to...

"the ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills"

-- what you provided as the definition of "intelligence". So you conflate the definitions of both "life" and "intelligence".

Why two distinct words, then, Roy?

Doesn't sound intelligent. But, they way you proceed is indeed "trial & error". You just don't seem to see the "error" part.
;]

@Kim,
"If we accept that intelligence is the child of information via the evolution of life, then we don't need to think beyond that, but our conversation will remain puzzled by missing appreciations."

How did life intelligently use that information to develop intelligence that it supposedly, by your reckoning, didn't have to start with? That's the question that your proposal doesn't answer.

Kim, you miss that science only has knowledge of what appeared about 1 microsecond after the so-called Big Bang began.

There's no "singularity" proof, or any other conclusion, that can be made prior to our best knowledge of that microsecond..

There are, in fact, many theories that require no "singularity", no matter how appealing that word may be to readers of books hawked by science writers.

Roy Niles ~

Did life "intelligently" use cosmic information?

When we consider the birth of the cosmos, what state of being is driving all that is happening with expansion and matter, that opens the way for stars, planets, life and the machine makers.

I am suggesting that "intelligence" is the wrong term to apply to the functioning of natural law as expressed in matter and life.

I am suggesting that there is a higher state that transcends the cosmos and drives it.

Rather than "intelligence", I suggest that the transcendent state of being is a better candidate to blame for the cosmic dance that we marvel at.

When we accept the simple observation that natural law was in full working order at the dawn of time, then we are confounded with a puzzle, that the Universe is exceptionally detailed at its birth and all that happens subsequently is an expression of natural law.

If we claim that the cosmos just happened, then we are falling into magic thinking, which may lead us to an intellectual black hole.

If we use our intelligence, then we can consider the detail that there is a reality which transcends this minuscule off-shoot of the multiverse that we are in.

It is the transcendent state of being, the reality of the multiverse, that drives the cosmic details.

Is this a "proposal"?

Or is this a simple observation?

Kim Peart

Alex Cannara ~

Read again and you will see that is exactly what I am saying, that "science only has knowledge of what appeared about 1 microsecond after the so-called Big Bang began."

I am keen to know what is really going on in the cosmos.

Theories will whiplash all over the place.

Hubble did well to see that the Universe was expanding.

Views on cosmic origins are now drawn from a reverse of this expansion.

Through science we have discovered reality, but reality is also greater than science.

Kim Peart

Ok, Kim, you have your microsecond!

Alex Cannara ~

Thanks

Alex is a transcendentalist.

Roy, I'd rather be transcendent.
;]

Roy, it's now clear you have no biochemistry knowledge. Nor do you seem to have any scientific knowledge, when you say oddly meaningless things like...

"Did you presume that molecules have to fold just right, but serve all sorts of purposes, yet fold the same way every time; or if not, fold differently by pure accident? Or do they fold by the intelligence somewhere outside of their forms"

When you do learn some biochemistry and biology, write back.
;]

"Did you presume that molecules have to fold just right, but serve all sorts of purposes, yet fold the same way every time; or if not, fold differently by pure accident? Or do they fold by the intelligence somewhere outside of their forms"

Alex, I obviously know much more abut biology as well as biochemistry than you do, since you can't answer that simple question at all. Frankly, I don't know of any biologists that can't. (Biochemists are sometimes a different story.)
But then I don't know that you have any scientific education at all for that matter.

Well, Roy, we can play count science degrees if you like, but your question/statement:

"The molecules are folded intelligently by choices made and determined from the experiences of the life forms these complex molecules serve. "

Appears to have made you overconfident, despite its being meaningless. Proteins fold because of how their peptide constituent molecules relate chemically with one another,, as the protein forms from DNA transcription.

Outside molecules may well attach and modify shapes a bit, but like hemoglobin, the molecule's basic shape is dependent on its peptide sequence and by incorporated molecule, like CO2 or Iron in hemoglobin.

Your odd assertion that: " folded intelligently by choices made and determined from the experiences of the life forms " is false.

The 'choices' made by the evolution of a protein, like hemoglobin, were made by evolution through selection over many generations. No organism made any "choice" in the matter.

But, you know this.

Alex answered: "The 'choices' made by the evolution of a protein, like hemoglobin, were made by evolution through selection over many generations. No organism made any "choice" in the matter."

I knew that would be your answer, straight out of the neoDarwinist books. Which gave never even tried to explain how things are made by evolution but no choices are involved by anything, and especially not by the organisms.
All of this extremely complicated process evolved by accident, is that your answer? Or were mechanical choices made by a natural choice making process somewhere outside of the organism where intelligence does not exist because it isn't needed. Things just happen until they happen to fit. But wait, that sounds too much like trial and error, but then that's OK because trial and error is not intelligent. And fitness involves no form of trial by the organism - or does it? Well even if it did, it wouldn't be an intelligent trial, right?
Wow again because really, I didn't know that.

Finally your religious, unscientific belief shows, Roy!

" the ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills" -- "intelligence", remember?

"fitness involves no form of trial by the organism?" -- your last question.

So a bower bird built the 1st bower to lure a mate by trial? Or a heme group first folded from mutated-DNA peptide concatenation because the organism was "trying" something?

You reveal a profound belief that exposes a profound lack of biological, chemical and genetic knowledge & reality, Roy!

By the way, here's something for your equivalence of "trial & error" with "intelligence" -- methane molecules (CH4) are produced by living organisms, so represent an intention of those organisms' metabolisms to do so. Because of its biological origin, each CH4 'knows' (your theory) where it came from, and it 'knows' that the organism was either a photosynthesizer or Oxygen metabolizer. So, each CH4 'knows' there are 4 Oxygen atoms out there somewhere, that iit can combust with. In other words the biologically-created CH4 we get from gas wells 'knows' it may find some O2 to mate with and return the energy originally tied up in its structure by biological action.

Titan, Saturn's large moon, has an atmosphere 50% denser than ours. It rains there too. And there are 'lakes' and 'sands'. Methane is a large constituent of Titan;s atmosphere, as is Ethane. They're the molecules that evaporate, condense, rain, evaporate... And, they're the molecules that Titan's weak sunlight polymerizes into dust that 'snows' onto the surface, creating organic 'sands'.

So, are the CH4 molecules on Titan not 'aware' that they can burn with O2? There's no O2 there, of course.

If we brought some O2 to Titan and lit a match, would the methane molecules employ "trial & error" to determine if they have any reason or ways to combine with the O2?

Or, if we brought some Titan methane to Earth, would those molecules not 'know' how to use O2?

You get the drift, or at least others may, on how absurd your equation of "intelligence" (which stipulates the ability to "acquire and apply knowledge") and "trial & error" is, Roy.

.

So we now see

Roy Niles ~

There is that interesting detail that space and time stretched from the beginning, giving us the space-time continuum in which we dwell.

Being stretched, there is a primary oneness of space and time.

Being a stretched oneness, there is essentially no separation of any space or time in a higher order of existence.

How best to describe the dynamic of the cosmic driver that delivers up ever increasing levels of diversity?

Using the term intelligence, there is a risk of implying "intelligent design" which is essentially creationism in a world with a Biblical overlord.

If the divine can be demonstrated scientifically, no worries, the matter can be peer reviewed.

Short of working evidence of a divinity moving the cosmic chess pieces, we still have the conundrum of the dynamic of natural law driving amazing outcomes through all of time.

Accepting amazing natural function, the question is one of label and as there is, by current theory, a realm that transcends the cosmos that is often called the multiverse, we have a candidate to blame for driving the cosmic stampede to diversity and intelligence.

Our mind allows us to perceive reality, but if there is a higher level of function that we can aspire to, then we can transcend intelligence and cosmos, to connect with a transcendent reality.

In these potentials and in the context of cosmic oneness, we can wonder if there is a higher level being at work and we, being part of this, may then find that we are connected to the shaping of that which is shaped.

This would be more than intelligence, being transcendent.

Kim Peart

I wouldn't say that this is a theory, but a question that has been muddled upon for millennia in some parts.

I suggest that the term "intelligence" cannot address what is happening, especially as intelligence is more about the human experience and to project our small mind onto the function of the transcendent multiverse may simple be throwing up a smoke screen that hides a better view of reality.

This is where I prefer a term like transcendence, to refer to a state of being with a multiverse that is infinitely greater than the cosmos and which also works through the cosmos to animate the mysteries of life.

Whatever we are dealing with, for us it is a mystery, but a mystery that we are intimately connected with and which is the font of our intelligence.

Kim Peart

Roy, it takes $25 and 7 people who agree to meet once a week, to start a religion in Calif. How about checking your local govt? You already have as incomprehensible a liturgy as any established religion!

By the way, remember over a day ago, when you wanted me to "have the last word"? Let's try that on for size, to spare others, eh?.
;]

Not a man of your word, eh Roy? Are you really a Slitherin?
;]

Alex, It was supposed to be a last word, not a last insulting question. Go read up on adaptive mutation if you can. The level of abstract thought involved is a bit high for those who have your problems with the concept of intelligence.

I understand "adaptive mutation", Roy. It's not "intelligence" as in the dictionary you quoted.

You really are ready to lead a religion, or cult, Roy...

"It was supposed to be a last word, not a last insulting question"

Check how much it costs over there.
;]

Alex, now you're simply lying, although of course you haven't known what intelligence is to begin with. Check this from Mae-Wan Ho, Geneticist and Biophysicist, excerpted from The End of Bad Science and Beginning Again with Life:
“Finally, the ultimate neo-Darwinian taboo has been broken. Wiesmann’s barrier has been breached, and in many different forms, some of which I mentioned already (see box 2).
Box 2:
The inheritance of acquired characters
Epigenetic inheritance - inheritance of cellular or gene-expression states such as patterns of DNA methylation, cortical inheritance in ciliates, dauermodifications.
Inheritance of induced changes in genomic DNA - fertilizer treatment of flax and other plants; drug-resistance in mammalian cells insecticide- resistance in insect pests and herbicide-resistance in plants.
Feedback from somatic cells to germ cells - reverse transcription and insertion of cDNA into germ cells, eg. immunoglobulin V genes
'Adaptive' mutations in bacteria, yeast and other cells.”

“ -- others including myself have written on how those newly discovered processes seriously undermine neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory over 15 years ago10. The evidence against the natural selection of random mutations has grown overwhelming since. Simply stated, organisms can mutate their genes as they are selected; and there is a large degree of non-randomness to mutations.
Recently, molecular geneticist James Shapiro has joined the debate. He is critical of neo-Darwinians like Richard Dawkins and John Maynard Smith who are still clinging to the discredited paradigm. "Localized random mutation, selection operating "one gene at a time" (John Maynard Smith’s formulation), and gradual modification of individual functions are unable to provide satisfactory explanation for the molecular data, no matter how much time for change is assumed. There are simply too many potential degrees of freedom for random variability and too many interconnections to account for."
And yet, the variations are far from random. The processes responsible for the fluidity of the genome form a highly sophisticated regulatory system, which can provide hyper-variability or stability for genes or genomes as required. All organisms, from bacteria to human beings, possess a wide range of repair and proof-reading functions to remove accidental changes to DNA sequences and correct errors resulting from physiological and physical insults. The same cells also possess numerous biochemical mechanisms for changing and reorganizing DNA through ‘natural genetic engineering’ – processes that include cutting and splicing of DNA molecules into new sequence arrangements (like the immunoglobulin genes). Most frequently, natural genetic engineering involves mobile genetic elements, found in all genomes, which can move from one position to another, enabling organisms to respond to environmental challenges.”

And check out this excerpt from: A 21st Century View of Evolution, James A. Shapiro, Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL 60637:

“Molecular genetics has amply confirmed McClintock's discovery that living organisms actively reorganize their genomes. It has also supported her view that the genome can "sense danger" and respond accordingly.
The recognition of the fundamentally biological nature of genetic change and of cellular potentials for information processing frees our thinking about evolution. In particular, our conceptual formulations are no longer dependent on the operation of stochastic processes. Thus, we can now envision a role for computational inputs and adaptive feedbacks into the evolution of life as a complex system. Indeed, it is possible that we will eventually see such information-processing capabilities as essential to life itself."

Tell me there's no intelligence evolved there, because of course I know you will.

"Alex, now you're simply lying" -- Roy, don't you get that when polemics are the resort, your argument is lost?

Really, don't pass up the opportunity to see what it takes there to set up a religion -- you're obviously qualified to lead folks willing to drink the Koolaid you brew,
;]
And, when you get some time, have a sit down talk with your 10 trillion or so cells and try to find out why their adaptive "choices" took so long -- several millions of years -- to reach the intellect you have. They really should be castigated for their laziness in making past choices to influence your "intelligence".
;]

Roy, you shortchange both yourself -- ~10 trillion cells -- and the ability you claim they have for choice.

But do get the paperwork going for your religion/cult!
;]

Alex,
Again in your babbling you give me too much credit for the evolving nature of our evolutionary philosophies. And I haven't even told you about the most interesting new parts. They involve the function that you claim you've never had, or if you've had, you've never used.

Roy, have you nothing better to do?

Alex,
You're just a foil that helps us spread the word. is that a problem for you?

Roy, it's always good to help cults expose themselves!

Apex, does that mean that you're giving up the mother nature myth?

Alex, Oops I called you apex. You don't really have a pointy head, or do you?

Keep pumping it out, Roy. You may hook someone wyet, with your misinterpretation of Shapiro, etc!

Remember, get those papers started for your new religion!

Did someone who's afraid to criticize Shapiro just say that I had misinterpreted him? How did I misinterpret a direct quote? He couldn't say. But in a way, this person is recommending that Shapiro's book be read, apparently because it somehow disproves my points and proves his.
And that's fine with me, because if you read it, you'll learn something either way.

Careful when you read Niles' stuff, Yoron, epi-genetics and the influences of parent's extra-genetic systems on offspring & their gene expression is indeed known to exist, and is a very important research topic.

Niles, however, is not about the science.
;]

Yoron, Alex knows adaptive mutation is not simply epigenetics that's replacing the older neoDarwinian version of stochasticism. He doesn't seem to have the knowledge to honestly defend the system that he's been somehow indoctrinated with.

And, Yoron, notice how carefully Roy evades the full content of what I said, and focuses on just "epi-genetics". Remember, Roy is no scientist, though he tries to fake it with big fluggy words.

Good try, Roy.
;]

Yoron, Alex is babbling again so he won't have to admit he has no knowledge at all about the latest discoveries in evolutionary science. He's not a scientist OR a philosopher, or even a good student of the subject. He has no authorities to cite who can counter the authoritative texts that I've cited. He simply cannot argue honestly, so resorts to deceptive commentary and accuses others of the same tactics as part of his shtick. Pitiful.
A very good book to read on the subject is here:
Evolution: A View from the 21st Century (FT Press Science) [Kindle Edition]
James A. Shapiro

You won't have to wade through Alex and his drivel in the bargain. He's been afraid to talk about it.

Ah, Yoron, see how easily Roy traps himself? He's no idea you & I have known of each other and discussed various issues in science.

Keep trying, Roy!

Yoron, if you know Alex, all the better. Maybe you can let him borrow Shapiro's book.

Yoron, here's the 1st reviewer for the Shapiro book...

"Genomes, it seems, are built to evolve ---not at the petty pace of classical genetics, but in leaps that entail rearrangement of the genetic architecture or the import of foreign information...The central question for me turns on that supple word, "random", which commonly means precisely what the user wants it to mean. When cells sense danger, they restructure their genome by natural genetic engineering; but the variations so generated are still "random" in the sense that they are products of chance, not directed by the needs of the organism. There seem to be no truly adaptive mutations, targeted genetic changes that respond in a specific manner to a particular environmental stress or opportunity."

This is all fine. The problem for Roy is that he believes all this proves that organisms indeed "choose" their genetic futures "intelligently" -- that last word is what got him thinking he'd find disciples on this article's comments.

So Roy, again, now that you know you've actually got ~10 trillion cells, really do discuss with them why it took so long for them to evolve you. You can even take the question up with your many more mitochondria, which have even separate genomes to make "intelligent choices" via.
;]
PS, The publisher for Shapiro's book is The Financial Times.

Yoron, I've actually read the book and have actually quoted Shapiro's writing on its subject here.
Alex has cherry picked a review because he's afraid to quote Shaipiro and disagree with what he actually said. He can't protect himself from revealing his ignorance if he does that. He's stuck with what he's written here so profusely and can't let his associates see the evidence of how wrong he's been. This is of course what dishonest people do when they're caught pretending to know something that they don't.
So I suggest again that you read the book, and not a review that may or may not have found it to their liking Lots of reviewers have had a problem with the stuff that disagrees with Dawkins, for example.
But that's science and I invite you to make up your own mind. Read the scientist, and ignore the arguments between the non-scientists about what that scientist says. And especially ignore the dishonest attempts to divert you from reading these books at all.

Roy, unfortunately, is emotionally involved, so makes false statements about what Shapiro wrote. Shapiro does not say what Roy says about our genetic structures making "intelligent decisions".

But Roy has another agenda than fact.

Yoron, read the book and find out what Shapiro says, not what Alex so desperately says he doesn't say. While you're at it, read this easy to download paper by Shapiro:

James A. Shapiro, Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology,
University of Chicago:
Bacteria are small but not stupid: Cognition, natural genetic engineering, and sociobacteriology.
http://shapiro.bsd.uchicago.edu/2006.ExeterMeeting.pdf

Shapiro also wrote this: “The realization that most DNA changes in bacteria (and eukaryotes, too) occur by the action of natural genetic engineering systems removes the source of variation in the genome from the category of stochastic events or unpredictable accidents and places it in the context of cellular biochemistry. This reclassification has major conceptual consequences because cellular biochemistry is subject to regulation and operates in predictable ways.”

And again he wrote this: “Molecular genetics has amply confirmed McClintock's discovery that living organisms actively reorganize their genomes. It has also supported her view that the genome can "sense danger" and respond accordingly.
The recognition of the fundamentally biological nature of genetic change and of cellular potentials for information processing frees our thinking about evolution. In particular, our conceptual formulations are no longer dependent on the operation of stochastic processes. Thus, we can now envision a role for computational inputs and adaptive feedbacks into the evolution of life as a complex system. Indeed, it is possible that we will eventually see such information-processing capabilities as essential to life itself."

Don't worry Roy, I trust Yoron completely.
;]

Yoron, if you completely trust Alex in return, perhaps you should skip the book. But everyone else that may be still reading this should give it a good look.

From Roy, desperately: "Yoron, if you completely trust Alex in return, perhaps you should skip the book. But everyone else that may be still reading this should give it a good look"

Poor Roy, "still blabbering away. It's not working for him." -- who said that?
;]

Yoron, Don't you hate it when someone says LMAO. But that last non sequitur from Alex was a gooser. Anyway the data from the scientists, James Shapiro and also Mae-Wan Ho, have been presented here for anyone who is interested to follow up on. Stuff you'll note that Alex has studiously pretended wasn't there to read. He really is afraid that the mistakes he has repeatedly made here will be hard to erase if Shapiro's very professional work is recognized by readers for what it is. Note that he won't say directly that Shapiro is wrong. Only that he didn't really say what he obviously has said in my quotes and in the paper and the book I've cited. He's afraid of Shapiro, that's certain. (He doesn't know that I've been corresponding with Shapiro either, but that's nether here nor there.)
Next thing he'll try is to say that I've printed some false quotes from Shapiro and Ho. Except that he should have done that earlier if he thought that was true, and he knows it wasn't. Stay tuned. He never knows when to let well enough alone.