Evolution: what the left never talks about! (spokesman, independence, states)

[bluepacific]

Originally Posted by Gplex

First off, all information is based in material origin. Inside our brains, written down, but it is always in some sort of materialist storage.
Knowing this, your entire argument falls apart. Until you can understand this, you are only arguing with yourself.

When your god, it's prophets and holy men are challenged, and when it's sacred scriptures are attacked and under fire, it must cut like a knife, burn like a fire and sting like an Africanized bee colony. When one's envisioned utopian worldview is seen as eventually disintegrating, ignorance must be the perfect safe-haven. Other religious adherents from various faiths do it all the time.

I believe the technical scientific term for this phenomena is called - (WCD) "WorldView Collaspe Disorder"

Originally Posted by Gplex

It will be a very unusual coincident when all the racist have the exact same IQ. There will always be on average one race with a lower/higher IQ then another.
Stating facts is not scientific racism. The flynn effect shows that black IQ is increase faster then any other race and will most likely equal, or overtake other races in the next 100 years, instead of pretending this isn't happening, and label it with "scientific racism", we could try and understand why it is happening, and maybe find a way to increase everyone's IQ at a faster rate..
To do otherwise is to be foolish as those who wanted to keep believing that the sun rotates around the earth.

Plus it is not my fault that most people don't seem to understand the meaning of "average".

"An IQ is a Terrible Thing to Waste" , brought to you by the "United Maori College Fund"

[Thaskateguy]

I have made up a test, for those Jokers who make up IQ tests. any bets on how they do??

[bluepacific]

Originally Posted by Braunwyn

bluepacific, I don't have time right now since I have an appointment this morning, but I have been looking into computational science and bioinformatics (a little). We use it quite a bit at work. I just didn't recognize the terminology. I've always been an advocate for in silico tools since I'm a veg.

Well to get back on track again in a more interesting vein.

My specific interest in this DNA language and the information contained in it started with just how the overall workings within any specific ecosystem work and function and what interrelationship is there between all of the organisms that live within it. For example, what would the information read like if we had an actual book of the symbyosis between one of my favourite Mycorrhizae Pisolithus tinctorius and it's host trees. What does the information say on both sides ??? PT Mycorrhizae is what is called host specific, meaning it does not colonize every tree, only certain types. Oddly enough, with regard PT and it's hosts, the hosts are not necessarily of the same species. In the southwest where I come from, it seems to prefer Pines (Pinus) , Firs (Abies) , Spruce (Picea) and Oaks (Quercus) to name a few. From those few, it would be obvious there are similarities such as pitches and tannins they produce and perhaps this is an attractant for PT. However, what does the information in it's DNA have to say about this if we could read it like in a book ???

But it also pursues other different hosts in these genera as well, (Poplus) cottonwoods, aspens, poplar, etc. (Alnus) Alders , (Salix) willows, (Arbutus) (Eucalyptus) , etc, etc and on and on. But again, how would the information read, because it will not attach itsellf to Maples, Sycamores, etc. This specific symbiotic fungus is pretty much found throughout the Earth, with the exception maybe being the poles.

What specific information is contained inside the DNA of all the host species of trees accepting this necessary infection for survival. What about the information from all the other organsims that share any one specific ecosystems and how they work and cooperate with other lifeforms. Again the informative read would be incredible.

DNA has as real a language as any other communications system we know of with an encoder - messenger - decoder. They at least know somewhat how these work, but there is so much more. The challenge for the researchers would be to really identify this language, it's grammer, syntax, semantics, etc. It must have been similar when the first modern day archealogists started trying to unlock the simple secrets of Egyptian hieroglyphs, however in this case it's far more complex and sophisticated. If they can actually go beyond a simple 3 letter codes and identify a simple sentence, how will they make sense of the sentence ??? The meaning would have to deal with the context of other sentences and paragraphs, and indeed the entire story and it's theme. Perhaps it would be beneficial to consider the context of the ecosystem in which the organism exist, any symbiosys it may or may not have.

As far as an example of context, if I make the statement, "the light is green", then what did I really actually mean by that statement ??? It may mean I or someone else is holding an actual green lightbulb in their hand. Or perhaps it means I'm in a car with someone and direct their attention to the fact that the Stop Light has just turned green and they can now drive on. So perhaps I have acted as a driving assistant or regulator link just as some genes do with regards regulating. Perhaps I recieved a question and I made a simple reply on a particular color of light bulb I want manufactured. ??? Again, finding out the context in which the instructions or statement was given will give the reader the correct answer and understanding.

Another challenge would be translating this language into English (as an exmple or any other language). Translating has it's own challenges with not just words but meanings of expressions. Another risk is the honesty and integrity of the translator. Would any personal beliefs of dogma enter into his/her interpretation ??? That would be a mistake which in turn would have grave consequences, especially in the natural world.

Take the bible as an example. Back in the early days after the death of the apostles, they had warned about an apostacy entering in and trying to corrupt beliefs. Many unscriptural teachings such as Hellfire, Immortality of the Soul, Trinity, etc entered into the new dogma borrowed from surrounding pagan nations. What they did in translation was to change the meanings of words to justify the belief. Take the Hebrew word sheol and the Greek word hades for which many churches apply the meaning of a firey healfire and damnation dogma. The originally bible never did teach such a thing. The original meanings of those words translate as the common grave of mankind and never have anything to do with suffering in torment in some afterlife. It's simply a lie promoted as a result of diliberate mistranslation. The original meaning also harmonizes with the contex throughout other verses on the subject of death.
Sheol and Hades.

Another example is the meaning of the word Soul Hebrew (nephesh) & Greek (Psyche). The original meaning is simply the life enjoyed of any moving organism living on Earth while alive. It had a literal physical meaning, not some afterlife spirit meaning of floating off into some netherworld spirit realm after death. That original meaning also harmonizes with what other scriptures say about the condition of a dead person being just that, simply Dead , opposite of life. That later interpretation was also borrowed from pagan mythlogy. But it's purpose was to keep a powerful grip on people and it's worked for centuries.
Nephesh - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Scholarly men such as William Wiston (Translator of Josephus works), Sir Issac Newton, William Tyndale and others also pointed out these translation flaws. Many lost their lives because of this.

But a correct translation of the DNA would indeed for me be a cool thing. another challenge would be to make it's actual meaning interesting and easily understood by everyone, and not just a pius group of intellectuals. That's where the churches originally went wrong.

[Braunwyn]

Originally Posted by bluepacific

Well to get back on track again in a more interesting vein.

I've had a crazy week. Sorry for not getting back sooner. I tried to read your post, and I'm confused. It could be the Sake, or maybe it's just over my head. Just the same, as far as bioinformatics and computational science goes, as I use it in biomedical science, I'm feeling a bit reserved about its scope here; or at least to the extent that we wouldn't want to assume it's more than it is. I understand that there are algorithms that may establish/note correlations not obvious to the viewer, but I fail to see the correlation with DNA as instructional code. Perhaps a simple example of similarity could be presented? I stress simple! lol

[Gplex]

Originally Posted by bluepacific

When your god, it's prophets and holy men are challenged, and when it's sacred scriptures are attacked and under fire, it must cut like a knife, burn like a fire and sting like an Africanized bee colony. When one's envisioned utopian worldview is seen as eventually disintegrating, ignorance must be the perfect safe-haven. Other religious adherents from various faiths do it all the time.

I believe the technical scientific term for this phenomena is called - (WCD) "WorldView Collaspe Disorder"

You fail to address my points.

Originally Posted by bluepacific

"An IQ is a Terrible Thing to Waste" , brought to you by the "United Maori College Fund"

I agree, if you have an high IQ don't waste it. How does this have anything to do with what I said?

You claim that information is not materialistic is just plain silly. Name one peace of information that is not stored in a physical medium?

You are unable to defend any of your claims, and have resorted to quote mining, and ridiculous claims that science is a religion.

[bluepacific]

Originally Posted by Gplex

You fail to address my points.

You have never had one valid point to address period. You have diliberately deflected from the discussion with the usual nonsense.

Originally Posted by Gplex

You claim that information is not materialistic is just plain silly. Name one peace of information that is not stored in a physical medium?

Playing dumb as to what an informational code is, is tiring. The best you've come up with is your version of your own personal Three Letter Code.

Originally Posted by Gplex

WTF?

This example above only reinforces the fact that you actually really do understand the points I have made regarding codes and the information they contain. I think all of us understand your derogatory codes and the informational intent, purpose and meaning which they contain also.

[bluepacific]

Originally Posted by Braunwyn

I've had a crazy week. Sorry for not getting back sooner. I tried to read your post, and I'm confused. It could be the Sake, or maybe it's just over my head. Just the same, as far as bioinformatics and computational science goes, as I use it in biomedical science, I'm feeling a bit reserved about its scope here; or at least to the extent that we wouldn't want to assume it's more than it is. I understand that there are algorithms that may establish/note correlations not obvious to the viewer, but I fail to see the correlation with DNA as instructional code. Perhaps a simple example of similarity could be presented? I stress simple! lol

Please understand that I have not invented the terminology used for describing what DNA actually is and how it works. The terms themselves are from scientists who actually work with it and have discovered the functioning of it's mechanisms. Why do they use such terminology ??? Because it is identical to the digital way any communications system works and they use such technology to explain how and why it works. But as far as the word "Information" as you'd find in any book being used, look at some of these quotes from well known sources. First off we have a quote from everyone's favourite Rev.

The Blind Watchmaker, by Richard Dawkins, on page 116
"There is enough storage capacity in the DNA of a single lily seed or a single salamander sperm to store the Encyclopædia Britannica 60 times over. Some species of the unjustly called 'primitive' amoebas have as much information in their DNA as 1,000 Encyclopædia Britannicas."

Now why in the world would this man and others like National Geographic, etc use such word/nouns such as Encyclopaedia Britannica (which physically is a book or set of books) when almost always dealing with the simplest known single celled organism ??? Because their is real information to be found and translated from a language we don't know into a language (English, Spanish, chinese etc) that we do undertand. Fast forward to the more complex human DNA and it becomes even more sophisticated and the informational content even greater.

Originally Posted by Human Genome Project

"The genetic code is a dictionary whose "words" are formed by sequences of three nucleotides called "codons." Each codon defines or codes for a specific amino acid. This genetic dictionary consists of a grand total of 64 codons. Since there are only 20 amino acids, many codons must have the same meaning (some codons or pairs of codons signal "stop" or "go" during the process of translation). Despite this limited vocabulary, the genetic code can transmit a tremendous amount of information. Stored in a typical molecule of human DNA is enough "text" to fill 200 Manhattan telephone directories or three years worth of New York Times newspapers (Sunday editions included!). A series of codons is arranged to form messages, called "genes". Genes are the individual "recipes" in the genome recipe book, listing the amino acid ingredients and telling how to combine them in order to make a specific kind of protein.

Machines and the Human Genome Project

It should be noted All those highlighted terms are the assigned names/terms given by scientists for describing what actually is taking place within the genetic system of communication. If these terms were untrue and are indeed incorrect, then apparently it would appear we blessed with a wealth of intellectual genius on this board and other discussion venues elsewhere on the Net who should immediately contact these researchers with the Human Genome Project and inform them that their understanding far surpasses anything that they have accomplished thus far and that these codes contain absolutely no information. They're just patterns accidentally created by chemicals and physics.

As far as a simple illustration, I would have to go back to the example of the computer because the communication is exactly the same. All of the same intelligent formulas and communications tools that have given us our computers in this communications age also apply to DNA. Data encoding, transmission, error correction, translation/decoding etc. These very computer communications tools are used for the very purpose of translating information into an understandable language for science to invent things. Insurance companies are interested in info on their customers to determine rate of pay. (BTW- It's the job of an insurance company no to have to back the claim) But the list goes on and yet we still need to know about that information in order to accomplish those things. Hence we need translators. How someone would attempt to translate nothing more stupid blind random patterns is beyond me.

Back again to your keyboard or mine. These letters we see are the typical western European Alphabet. They go through the ASCII system (American Standard Code for Information Interchange) and get converted to codes of 1s and 0s. So when your finger presses "A" , your computer translates it into 1000001 then decodes it onto your screen as "A". If you type a small "a" , then we have 1100001 and so it goes on down the alphabet. The same is done when posting here on a forum, in an email, etc. Any DNA does and accomplishes the same thing. Encoded information from DNA alphabet goes straight to an RNA messaging alphabet to the decoding mechanism in the Ribosome for translation of the formula/recipe involving the making of a protein for a specific purpose. Those triple letter codes you see assigned on the charts like GGG is simply the simbolic informational instructions (formula/recipe) for making Glycine. It's not just a pattern of letters men have assigned to it. It's a real instructional code of information with purpose. It's all the same language with rules of grammer, etc just like any other language. If it was'nt, then the Genome project that gets raved about would be an utter failure and further typical waste of taxpayer monies.

Beyond this, to understand that it's real information, you've got to dump the religious dogma. Stop thinking in terms of religions like Christendom, Islam, Buddhist, Hindu, Mormon, even Dawkinian Philosophy and think in terms of what Carl Sagan said with regards the differences between Astronomy & Astrology.

Originally Posted by Carl Sagan

There are two ways to view the stars. The way they really are and the way we wish them to be."

Translated we could say the same about genetics.

Originally Posted by DNA

"There are two ways to view DNA. The way it really is and the way we wish it to be."

Beyond this you are going to have to decide for yourself. If you are in the medical profession, then looking at the human body as a bundle of mistaken lucky compromises as opposed to something complex and engineered would be a huge mistake. As I've already pointed out from two sources who have nothing to do with religion, Yockey & Shapiro (evolutionists) this is an intelligently engineered mechanism, not a random bundle of lucky dice tossing. Random mutations DO NOT add new information they destroy information. Your computer as well as all communications systems works exactly the same way. They are all subject to errors (mutations/mistakes/imperfections) , that's why they have errror corrections and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redunda...rmation_theory)

Your DNA has the exact same error correction and redundancy functions as well. Again, any adaptation is information that was already there and incorporated through an available algoithmic engineered process. I've tried to give the links here, yet as noted, I'm damned if I do and damned if I don't by all the big mouth critics here. Just hope they work for you.

[Thaskateguy]

Is it true, that Meth will make one Mad as a Hatter? A Good Friend wants to know.

[rifleman]

Yo, blue... but wouldn't the ease with which DNA crosses species barriers (if indeed there are any) strongly suggest that some of the tree DNA basics are identical, which would speak to them having had a very common ancestor? Why alter everything within the DNA setup just to claim speciation? I'd think a super Creator would have not necessarily adhered to a systematized DNA setup, instead going sorta artistically hog-wild, one species having DNA, the other some different code-carrying molecule, perhaps less simple. I mean, why bother with a logical, simple and typical structure across all species lines? Who would care, much less a supremely creative Creator?

So, IMHO, the ease by which your PT attacks markedly different "types" of tree indicates to me it may have attacked them long bfore they differentiated, and it may well offer some intrinsic value to boot, hence there's been no obvious advantage to developing resistance to it.

Imagine if we hominids were resistant to e. coli, huh? Ouch!

As usual, good hi-IQ post. SOooooo much better than "There's no such thing as DNA or adaption or anything! Just a super-uber God!".

[bluepacific]

Originally Posted by rifleman

Yo, blue... but wouldn't the ease with which DNA crosses species barriers (if indeed there are any) strongly suggest that some of the tree DNA basics are identical, which would speak to them having had a very common ancestor? Why alter everything within the DNA setup just to claim speciation? I'd think a super Creator would have not necessarily adhered to a systematized DNA setup, instead going sorta artistically hog-wild, one species having DNA, the other some different code-carrying molecule, perhaps less simple. I mean, why bother with a logical, simple and typical structure across all species lines? Who would care, much less a supremely creative Creator?

I'm not exactly sure what you're wanting or saying here. It looks like asking a questions, but also making statements with a writting style of riddles in between ???

If you are talking about, "Are there such a thing as species barriers?" , then yes of course there are. These are natural laws for the health of our planet. Are you asking, "Can they be crossed?" , well yes of course they can. Monsanto does it all the time with their money making GMO research. Should they have done so ? Absolutely not! For the most part, if science admits they have only a remote understanding of 3% of the genes in DNA and then labeling the other 97% as nothing more than evolutionary "JUNK DNA" as they did in the past, then they have no business messing and screwing with something they are in the dark about. Some of those other genes regulate other genes, so what will they do and how will they react with a foreign informational bit forced on them ??? How will they react to a foreign informational code not engineered into their system orignally ??? Were these questions even asked in the first place ??? Are or have there been any consequences ??? Of course there have been and we've got several University studies that have shown so. Are they seriously accepted and taken into consideration ??? Absolutey not because the pumping out of their product continues down the production line. Stock and Share Holders won't stand for waiting for all the testing to be done to see a healthy return on investment. Do companies like Monsanto know the dangers ??? Based on passed performances and history of lawsuits, the answer is a big fat YES and the only way to find out for sure is to wait for catastrophic events to take place and sue the pants off them to get the documents released for peer/legal review. Unfortunately the US government is a sort of silent partner in the affair and who knows what action can or will be taken if any.

IMO, it is the pollen from these GMO Frankenplants that have created this Bee "Colony Collaspe Disorder" and I only say that because of the wild bee populations far away from agriculture and of course it would be natural to blame pesticides as the logical blame game. But pesticides in the air would dissipate, where pollen could carry over to wild plant species and wreak havoc. I have no real proof, but others are speculating the same thing. I only hold to that because I know of 6 or 7 wild beehives in rock outcroppings on a mountain where I grew up in San Diego that I know for a FACT have existed since the late 1950s in the same exact location for decades and all died out the same exact year in 2004. What are the chances of that ??? These colonies are no where near any city or agricultual areas, with the exception of being on the fringes.

The only other way to illustrate whether or not species barriers should be crossed is that we have what are called moral laws. Okay, not everyone agrees with so-called moral laws. But can moral laws be crossed ??? Yes of course they can. But what have been the consequences of humans crossing those barriers presently ??? Again, you have to dump religion (which has'nt been the best example), and consider such a thing as common sense with regards a decently trained conscience.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

So, IMHO, the ease by which your PT attacks markedly different "types" of tree indicates to me it may have attacked them long bfore they differentiated, and it may well offer some intrinsic value to boot, hence there's been no obvious advantage to developing resistance to it.

Actually when I spoke about it's abilities, I was speaking from the standpoint of reading all the technical details of it's information in a book. Which I still want and which I still would like to read, though I'm sure it will still take decades and decades to compile. The P.T. Mycorrhizae are really a major connective Ecto fungus of which there are thousands. I mentioned it because it is one of the most abundant in nature and most popular types found in many of the innoculant products put out by Mycoflora producing companies. But in any of these ecosystems a bio-diversity of fungal varieties is most desirable.

Those riparian species (alnus, salix, populus, etc) I mentioned and Oaks are both endo and ecto which is kool because they are valuable water link connections for trees and shrubs not directly linked or connected to a water source. I can only speak from a southwestern perspective, but I've seen oaks, Big-cone Doug Fir, all types of pines on a steep southern exposure functioning just fine based on a healthy grid of these fungal systems and they were a couple hundred meters up a mountainside and away from any of these hydrological sources for long extended 40+ degrees summer survival periods. I guess the point of all of this is that you cannot just look at and argue one component as an engineering marvel, it's also an entire system that is engineered. Remember, I'm not the one that used that term, it was intelligent individuals such as Barbara McClintock, James Shapiro, Hubert Yockey and others. In most science today, they are so busy looking for the intellectual response and explanation for it all, that one of the most important tools of research thrown out the window is "common sense". Sometimes it's just really not all that complicated as some would like to promote it. Seriously, the Clergy do the same thing. It's called power and control and "Layman" are expected to shut up and except without question from learned ones. That's why it's called faith based and any intelligent human owes it to themselves to find out FACTS for themselves as opposed to laziness.

I just had something come across my desk a couple days ago regarding weed management in California. Specifically it dealt with the title "Rapid evolution of morphology and adaptive life history in the invasive California wild radish (Raphanus sativus) and the implications for management". In a nutshell, they are trying to study how the weeds evolutionarily morph and apply some type "Evolution Application" methods for controlling and managing weeds. Now exactly how would you do that ??? Randomly without rhyme or reason throw numerous types of plant eating bugs at them ??? Spray it with every chemical known to mankind and observe if that is the magic key ??? Again, where is the common sense employed ??? So what exactly do we know about the nature of weeds ??? Weeds proliferate on disturbed soil. All they are programmed to do is replicate excessively. Most of their system is designed for production of seed and that is all. They even sacrifice pest control defense mechanisms for reproduction to cover bare soil. In times of drought, you will see small weeds with only a couple of leaves, but lots of seeds. It's their informational programming. But we also know that the biggest cause of weed growth and spread is the ignorance and idiocy of human fingerprints. Seriously, it's the same major cause of all these diseases adapting and spreading across the planet and for anyone to cheer those bacterial/viral morphings as some wonderful proof of someone's god is just stupidity. It prevents and shackles the genius of mankind from finding a solution to correcting as opposed to accepting it.

Fortunately, if it were'nt for the interest in drought tolerant plants in the landscape for the Southwestern United States back in the early beginnings of the 1970s and the turning our attention towards native southwestern plants and growing conditions at nurseries, we'd still be in the dark. One of the things learned was that the conventional thinking of old time gardening methods for plants imported from back East and Europe just did'nt work on the natives out west. Why ??? Because we found they are a dependent mycorrhizal based system in the wild. It's also been learned that anytime human fingerprints enter into the picture through urban developement or agriculture, the system turns from a natural mycorrhizal system to a bacterial one. A bacterial system favours weeds. They are ruderals which have bacterial base on their roots and non mycorrhizal as far as root associations. Healthy mycorrhizal systems will actually create an allelopathic signature in the ground which is detrimental to weed growth. Visit any old growth forest (if there are any left) and you don't really find weeds. Even a young forest system will have some weeds, but a good illustration is like a gang infested neighbourhood. Adults are better suited for repelling a gang's foothold in the neighbourhood than helpless young kids. Once again, it's part of an overview of a complete engineered system. I know that's not the fad or in Vogue, but it's the truth.

Interestingly, science has found most of this out, but they rarely employ methods at replicating a doable natural control system. Oh they do on a small scale, and we here many popular ideas and schemes promoted these days, but as far as practice you just don't see it. Why ??? Because first and foremost it does'nt make money. Chemical pesticides and chemical fertilizers make money, not a mostly free healthy system of natural maintenance controls. Well there is some money, but not enough for an economic and financial system based solely on consumption, consumption, consumption. And you know I am not just saying this, but speak from authority for having practiced this for 30+ years.

So back to the books. Can you imagine the size of the informational library of an entire ecosystem if the information from just one DNA of some unknown lowly protozoa would fill the size of a master bedroom ???

Originally Posted by Rifleman

Imagine if we hominids were resistant to e. coli, huh? Ouch!

Resistant ??? No, we just need it all in the right places like our bowl and not our mouth. Those waste disposal services of the wonderful lowly E.coli we need for our poopin . What we need is for humans to do the right thing to prevent it from ending up in our food processing. It's called balance and common sense.