Re: this is the time to pray

From: Beth (BethStone21_at_hotmail.NOSPICEDHAM.com)
Date: 02/01/05 

Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2005 17:31:27 GMT

JGCASEY wrote:
> Beth wrote:
> [...]
> > You _CAN_ - and arguably it's already happened -
> > prove "natural selection" as a general concept...
> > work on showing it exists in Nature as a later
> > "extension"...perhaps, so to speak, less of the
> > enthusiasm to "kill God" (leave this kind of
> > thing to Nietzsche, eh? He is better at it ;)
> > and more concentration on the _science_ here?
> > Let _reality_ tell you the truth rather than
> > try to tell reality what it should be...it's
> > a good idea, seeing as reality is "deaf" to
> > such demands and ignores them completely, anyway
> > ...I've been shouting at this lump of lead all
> > day and telling it to turn into gold...but it
> > just won't "play ball"...perhaps I should try
> > praying instead...it has been statistically
> > shown to help people recover from illness, at
> > least...who said "religion" was bad for your
> > health? ;)...
>
> If you had to make the choice would it be
> prayer or penicillin for an infection known
> to be curable by penicillin?

Simple; There is no mutual exclusion involved here...

Hence: _BOTH_ :)...

Why, if there is a God, then He _CREATED_ the world the way it is...if
penicillin works, then this is by the Grace of God that it is so...

It is an illusion that there exists "mutual exclusion"...we can BOTH pray
and take penicillin...we can BOTH believe in God and believe in the good
practice of doctors...

Indeed, the use of prayer has been shown to help people's recovery...a
disbeliever may wish to credit this, of course, as merely being
"psychological"...but, regardless, it still _WORKS_ and demonstratably
so...recovery is, indeed, often as much mental as physical so the
penicillin is for the bodily ailment, the comfort of prayer is for the
mental comfort that _AIDS_ the healing process...reality - especially for
humans - is NOT solely "materialistic" only...

Hence, denying prayer's recovery potential would be rejecting useful
treatment on the grounds of "disbelief" in exactly the same way that
rejecting penicillin because "you don't believe in it" would lessen your
recovery...

There is no mutual exclusion...we can choose BOTH...and whatever _true_
"science" demonstrates is, by definition, what the Creator created...it, by
definition, can never "oppose God"...and the existence of God does not in
the slightest way "invalidate" science at all...

The notion of "mutual exclusion" is just an illusion...there is no need to
choose between science and the Creator...

> My understanding is that speciation occurs
> when a species breaks into two groups due
> to something like geographical isolation
> and their dna evolves along different lines
> until they become incompatible as regards
> reproduction. The actual mechanics of how
> dna can change like this is unclear to me.

Yes; That's right...but it should be noted that many "species" were defined
_BEFORE_ Darwin (indeed, as noted, Darwin titled his work "On The Origin Of
Species"...hence, "species" existed prior to Darwin as a concept...before
"natural selection" was understood to be the mechanism for these "species"
evolving)...hence, not all "species" are actually defined this way in
practice...it's not possible, often, to get the historical evidence to know
how two "species" might have (or might not have) undergone such a
process...

Hence, one has to be careful of assuming that because "species" categories
and "speciation" come from the same stem word, that they are automatically
"linked" and consistent with each other...due to "historical reasons", this
isn't necessarily always so...

Plus, it takes a _LOT_ of "evolutionary distance" to start to become
"sexually incompatible"...for instance, look at horses and donkeys...they
_can_ produce offspring - mules - but these are usually born infertile (it
is very rare indeed but sometimes a female mule _CAN_ be fertile, though
not often the case...indeed, the Romans used to say "Cum mula peperit",
meaning "when a mule has offspring" and was their equivalent of "once in a
blue moon" to denote things that were very rare in happening :)...hence,
this is at the "boundary" of "sexual compatibility", so to speak...

Indeed, the way to comprehend the "speciation" thing is to realise that
"sexual compatibility" naturally defines the "boundaries" of the
"genepool"...that is, your genes simply _CAN'T_ have any effect on the
giraffe "genepool" (or vice versa) because of "sexual incompatibility"...it
is a natural "wall" between "genepools"...

Hence, any "evolution" that occurs to these species is now _SEPARATED_ off
from the other "genepools"...thus, this point is considered the point at
which the two "genepools" _split_ from one another and start to evolve
independently...

BUT, as always, the definitions are "fuzzy edged" (indeed, MOST THINGS ARE
"fuzzy edged"...one always has to remember to differeniate our "words for
things" and the actual processes and facts we're looking at...for instance,
mathematicians deal with negative numbers all the time...but, well, point
to a physical example of negative numbers in reality somewhere...gather
together -5 blocks in front of you on a table...exactly, can't be done...we
have our words and notations but this doesn't mean that reality always
matches them...these are just "conveniences" for talking about reality
:)...

Such as the mules, "sexual incompatibility" sets in rather gradually, in
fact...a female mule _could_ - though it's rare - be fertile and, thus,
does this still represent a "link" - though at the very bounds of "sexual
compatibility" - between the two? Does this make them "different species"
or not? The females are very rarely fertile and male mules appear to be
completely infertile in all cases (it's not been witnessed anywhere,
anyway...but, then again, it _would_ be trickier to detect)...though mules
could not, apparently, carry on, due to the infertility, a fertile female
could continue to have offspring with horses and donkeys...this going very
far has all the odds stacked against it, so, really, we're looking at the
"parting" of these two...but the "separation" isn't totally complete...when
do we "count it"? Remembering that many have often presumed it's already
happened then - BANG! - a fertile female mule still (rarely)
appears...again, it's the old problem of doing this all "visually"...it
becomes less and less likely to have a fertile female mule...but, just
going by the evidence of one's eyes, how do you know the "point" at which
the two are completely separate? You can't actually _see_ this
directly...you can only see the _opposite_ when a fertile female mule, once
in a blue moon, appears and then you can say "oh, okay...still not totally
separated just yet"...

Plus, this example also confuses our definitions in asking "what do we mean
by sexually compatible?"...after all, they _ARE_ "compatible" in the sense
that they can have offspring...this offspring is quite invariably infertile
that this "can't go anywhere" thereafter...but they _can_ have
"children"...so what exactly do we mean by "sexually compatible"? Just
"having children" seems inadequate or the existence of mules makes them
"sexually compatible"...BUT these children themselves are mostly invariably
infertile, so does this really count? Worse, sometimes fertile female mules
_DO_ show up...so, ummm, do we count it or do we not? But not fertile
males, so no chance of "mules" evolving off by themselves or anything...

As I say, "fuzzy edged"...remember, humans are the ones that like to put
things into "categories"...reality almost invariably refuses to do so...the
process just "flow" into each other...there is no actual "neat dividing
line" naturally occurring...

Of course, being "fuzzy edged" doesn't mean it's all futile...for instance,
if horses and donkeys "evolve" sufficiently that they can't even have mule
offspring at all anymore, then this would be far enough along to say "okay,
_NOW_ we can be totally sure that the two have completely divided"...that
is, the edges are "fuzzy" but if it goes a sufficient distance, then it
passes over the "fuzziness" and becomes clearly "different", indisputably
so...for instance, humans and dolphins? Yeah, totally no connection anymore
at all...different "branches" of evolution long, long separate and divorced
from one another...there's no "fuzzy edge" problems there because the
distance has so far along that we're not talking about "edges"...

My point is, in fact, that there isn't any "point" in this process where
one moves from one "category" to another...what we have is "10% in, 90%
out", "20% in, 80% out" and it slowly moves across the "fuzzy edged"
boundary...and you can't really ask "in" or "out" for these intermediate
steps because they are _BOTH_...they exhibit a touch of "duality" between
the two...at some point, though, they become "100% out" and then, okay,
that's now "out" and we can say so clearly...and they all did start as
"100% in" so that causes no "category" problems...

Basically, to look at it in a pseudo-mathematical way, the "membership" is
NOT a binary "Boolean" thing...we'd like it to be because that makes life
so much simpler when you can say "that is that and this is this" rather
than half-confused: "10% confidence that it might be slightly half-way
across...maybe"...but, well, reality conforms to itself, not to our words
and categories...

Indeed, that's why I say "fuzzy" because it isn't boolean logic that really
works here but "fuzzy logic" (note: Boolean binary logic is, in fact, just
a "special case" of a wider "universe" of many "fuzzy logics"...the
"special case" when it does all fall neatly into line with perfect binary
"inclusion / exclusion"...humans tend to think in "boolean logic" terms but
reality tends to actually be operating with "fuzzy logic" :)...look up
"fuzzy logic", if you don't know about it already...it's a rather amusing
and actually quite simple concept...indeed, human thinking (when not being
very "scientific") is a form of "fuzzy logic"...in simplest form, imagine
all the usual binary logic stuff - "AND", "OR", etc. - but not with "binary
digits" (bits) but on real (floating-point, if you like :) values
instead...and non-numeric comparisons (e.g. "small < big" but neither word
"small" or "big" is numerically defined...for instance, the Earth is
"small" relative to Jupiter but it's hardly "small" relative to ants...and
working out "fuzzy logic" based on relative non-numeric
relationships)...it's one of those things that is essentially simple but
can really do your head in trying to follow along, giving you headaches
:)...

Indeed, regards this "speciation", then I have a "theory" that works to the
opposite conclusion to perhaps _explain_ where all the "missing links" and
"intermediate species" we see could have gone to...this isn't established
theory, though...it's my own little "personal theory"...it also explains
the _purpose_ of "sexual reproduction" (as opposed to mushroom "asexual
reproduction") and why supposed "selfish genes" would not only engage but
initiate (as it all comes from those genes, in the end, after all :) the
sexual reproduction process...

Because, if you think about it, when you have two parents - call them A and
B - then half the genes of A and half the genes of B are combined to create
child C...now, if you look at this from the perspective of an _individual
gene_, they are willing engaging in a process that only gives each gene a
50 / 50 chance of survival...this would be crap odds, yes? A flip of the
coin whether any particular gene survives...half the genetic information
_known_ to be "lost" in child C...

Why on Earth would "selfish genes" ever put themselves through such a
process? Why is sexual reproduction _preferred_ over asexual reproduction
(mushrooms just "clone" themselves but the vast majority of plants and
animals do the whole "male / female" thing :)? Remembering too that this,
in a sense, _originates_ from the genes themselves...they really are
_responsible_ for the sexual reproduction...for it to have "evolved", it
MUST be serving a useful evolutionary purpose...

And it does...some suggest (I think erroneously) that "sexual reproduction"
is about "introducing variety"...I have come to the conclusion that, on the
contrary, it's the _TOTAL OPPOSITE_...it is about _STAMPING OUT
MUTATION_...it is acting as a "second line of defence" (the "first line of
defence" is that usually unbelievably good "perfect copy fidelity" process
of "digital" genetics in the first place...that is, that the copying
process very, very rarely "goes wrong" to cause "mutations" in the first
place, anyway..."digital genes" is the "first line of defence" for genetic
information...to make as sure as possible to _copy it correctly_ in the
first place that no "mutants" should spring up...this "line of defence",
though, _CAN_ fail)...

And, sorry Dawkins, it operates _socially_...the "genepool" works together
to stamp out "mutants" amongst their number...now, imagine our parents A
and B again...and we're particularly interested in gene #568749 for
both...we want to look at that individual gene's chances of survival...now,
for parent A, their gene #568749 is G (what "G" represents here is not
really that important, as we'll see)...and, for parent B, their gene
#568749 is also "G"...

Ah-ha! Then gene #568749 has NO FEAR of engaging in a process only giving
the gene a 50 / 50 chance...because whether parent A or parent B's gene
#568749 wins out, the child's gene #568749 is _guaranteed_ to be "G"
also...so, where genes "match up" between parents, it's not really 50 / 50
at all...or, at least, it is a 50 / 50 chance between choosing "G" or
choosing "G"...in practice, this actually means "no choice at all"...it
_will_ end up as "G" and the odds are not 50 / 50 of survival, they are
100%...

On the other hand, along comes parent C with a "mutant" gene #568749 which
is "K", not "G" (again, what "K" represents is not important for the
moment...we're looking at the process overall, not the exact details)...if
they have children with Parent B, then it's a 50 / 50 chance that the child
has "G" or "K" for their gene #568749...now, 50 / 50 chance of the "mutant"
"K" being completely wiped out? That's pretty harsh...

And, if we imagine that, ooh, 99% of parents in the "genepool" have "G" and
just 1% have "mutant K" then K's chance of survival to the next generation
is a 50 / 50 toss of a coin...this is a means to _stamp out_ "mutants" in a
pretty harsh way...a game of "Russian Roulette" where the gun only has two
barrels and one bullet...50 / 50 chance...get it wrong and we're talking
_extinction_...this is the "second line of defence" for the "selfish genes"
to attempt to preserve themselves from "mutant threats"...

[ Arguably, the "third line of defence" is instinctual: Xenophobia...look
after one's own, club together to attack outside "threats"...all humans
have such instincts to a greater or lesser degree...indeed, those who are
not racist tend to simply be "inclusive" - we're all humans so none of
these people are actually "outside" - rather than directly counter that
xenophobia itself is wrong...it's an instinct we all have - the "third line
of defence" - hence its "validity" is almost never questioned...and looking
at wars and genocides and such, the power of the instinct is, indeed,
almost as powerful as the sexual urge...indeed, "sex and violence" are
almost always listed together like that...if the "third line of defence",
then this actually is begun to be explained ]

Another way to look at this is that "sexual reproduction" is effectively
producing a "running average" of the "genepool" as a whole; Take a palette
with lots of different colour paints - red, yellow, green, blue, orange,
etc. - then randomly mix any two of the paints together that you like
(taking 50% of one and 50% of the other) then move this onto a new
palette...the new colours will be "muddier" but still distinct...do the
process again...the colours become even more "muddier" and less and less
distinct...repeat this process over and over and, in the end, you end up
with a palette with (effectively) _identical_ colours on it...and that
colour will be the "average" of those original colours (indeed, go back to
the original palette and mix an equal amount of all the original colours
together...put this next to the final "averaged" colour and be prepared to
be amazed by how close they will be :)...

Okay, paints and genes "mix" in a different way but the basic point holds:
"Sexual reproduction" is working a "running average" of the
"genepool"...that they are _ATTRACTED_ together inside that
"genepool"...it's there to counter "mutants" penetrating the
"genepool"...because if a "mutant gene" spontaneously appears then the
constant "averaging" process - giving it 50 / 50 chance of survival each
time - stamps it out...it's the "second line of defence"...

BUT, one interesting aspect of my little "theory" here is that this is an
evolution-like self-evident thing that the process of sexual reproduction
itself is _ATTRACTING_ the "genepool" together towards its "average"...this
can be compared to pulling the wagons into a circle to counter the
"outside"...Dawkins will hate this because it's, yes, "social evolution"
which he tried to counter with "selfish gene" thinking BUT, ironically,
it's because of such "selfishness" that this emerges as the
reason...indeed, "altruism" and "selfishness" are flip sides of the same
coin...to be "altruistic" to one's own country or family or "genepool" is
to be "selfish" against those outside that "circle"...in order to counter
"mutants" and "threats", the "genepool" pulls together like this for
"mutual selfish" benefit, if you like...you scratch my back, I scratch
yours (hmm, isn't that a kind of "grooming", part of many a mating ritual?
Spotting the connections yet? ;)...

Anyway, the little "insight" is realising the "averaging" nature of sexual
reproduction...that it "tends towards the average"...indeed, there are two
ways to work out an "average" (to be more precise, a "mean average" as
there are different "types" of "average" :)...you can simply add up every
single instance and divide by how many instances you have...but then
there's a "running average" method...where you repeat "current_average(i+1)
= current_average(i) + value / 2" over and over...this "running average"
means you can process the "average" on-the-fly, as "values" appear...and
the comparison to sexual reproduction as "(parent_A + parent_B) / 2" (or,
re-written: "(parent_A / 2) + (Parent_B / 2)" looks an awful lot like a
strange mathematical version of "meiosis" :), roughly speaking, is very
interesting...

This suggests there's actually an "attractor" at work in the
"genepool"...they are all slowly - pair by pair - "averaging" the
"genepool"...this counters "mutants" spontaneously appearing in the
"genepool" naturally enough...

But, here's my greatest "contraversy" in this little "theory": Where did
"missing link" go? Where are all those "intermediate species" (not just of
humans but there should be tons of them for all animals everywhere :)?

Well, the concept that Homo Sapiens "competed" or "clubbed to death" all
Neanderthal...I've never liked the sound of that, as it sounds grossly
unlikely...I mean, even if we presume that, for no particular reason, they
all got together to do this "clubbing to death" thing, then how didn't some
simply run away? It would have to be a _complete_ "genocide"...no, this
strikes me as being people putting their own "opinions" into things and
trying to _force_ things that way...you know, this thing humans like to do
of flailing themselves as the "most awful thing in the whole
universe"...and, hence, they have to kind of "prove" we're all "inherently
evil"...

This "theory" is completely blown apart though in simply asking "okay,
maybe that explains things there but surely Giraffe Sapiens didn't pick up
bone clubs and bash Neanderthal Giraffe to extinction?"...after all,
giraffes can't pick up bone clubs...and we're to believe that all species
automatically practice "genocide" of the last species? Always? Without
fail? Without "missing a spot"? Sorry, sounds like complete
nonsense...grabbing at any old straws to try to explain what can't be
explained...

Taking a more objective approach, let's look at the facts...if we presume
there is "evolution" as stipulated then the lack of "intermediate species",
logically enough, MUST be caused by some natural "clean up" that's _part of
the process_ itself...and this "averaging" and "attraction" theory of mine
covers that...

It is _faster acting_ than evolution...this is happening _every single
generation_...and the "genepool" is _attracting_ to itself...falling in
towards a kind of "centre of gravity" to the "genepool" from all the
"averaging"...the "second line of defence" from "mutants" is also
responsible for "sucking up" the "genepool" into the "centre"...

Worked out where "Neanderthal man" went? Yes, that's right...absolutely
NOWHERE...here's the contraversy explicitly: Homo Sapiens and Neanderthal
were "sexually compatible" (and emerging evidence confirms this)...indeed,
the "closest relatives" of a species would be...being a gradual process to
"evolve" and to lose "sexual compatibility", while the "averaging" is much
faster acting, then it is able to generally "keep up" with the evolution of
a species...and, simply, we're _WRONG_ to say "Neanderthal" and "Homo
Sapiens" in the first place (wow! Told you it was "contravertial"!
;)...that is born of a misunderstanding of the process...there was the
Neanderthal "genepool" and it "evolved" slowly a "Homo Sapiens"-like
branch...and then the _CENTRE WAS MOVED_...the "average" is now
half-Neanderthal, half-Homo Sapiens...and the "genepool" attracts towards
that "centre of gravity"...this happens every generation - a little step
closer together - while "evolution" is rather slow in comparison...

That the "average" of the group _MOVES_ if "mutants" manage to counter the
"lines of defences" and actually manage to "evolve" the group...and when
the centre moves, the "attraction" also moves to this new centre...and
rather Homo Sapiens "evolving" from Neanderthals in the traditional sense
that is current theory (and the current theory can't explain why the
"intermediate species" are missing and invent totally implausible
"genocides" to explain it)...my theory is that when individuals in the
"genepool" (which is defined by _sexual compatibility_ so, in that sense,
the "genepool" of Neanderthal and Homo Sapiens would have been _SHARED_,
not separate...oh, yes, which also means living together and having
children together, at least to _some_ extent...how much is open to
speculation) "evolve", as this progresses, the "genepool" itself
_moves_...the "centre" is now in a different place but the "sexual
reproduction" is still doing that "running average" and will attract to the
_new centre_...

And, simply, where are Neanderthal man and all the "intermediate species"?
Right _HERE_...they _ARE_ inside of us...the process of "evolution" itself
naturally "attracts" members of the "genepool" together and this "sucks up"
the "intermediate species" into a new _moved_ "genepool" that itself has
"evolved" overall...and as the "averaging" happens every generation but
"evolution" is much slower then it "keeps up" easily and can "clean up" the
"genepool" towards the new average before the next "evolution" moves it
forward again...

And the "intermediate species" can't be found because once an "evolution"
happens in a "genepool" then all members of that "genepool" are "attracted"
towards the "average" of that group...once the "genepool" starts becoming
"Homo Sapiens" then all the members tend towards becoming increasingly so
too...and this happens, unlike evolution, comparatively _QUICKLY_...every
"generation" the "averaging" happens...hence, to "strike lucky" in finding
these "intermediate states" in digging up ancient corpses, you've got a
comparatively _small_ areas of time to hit...

Another way to look at it...one parent is Homo Sapiens, another parent is
Neanderthal...they have children...those children are "Homo Neanderthal",
if you like (half and half)...now, they meet up with other Homo Sapiens or
Neanderthals and have children themselves: These are either "Homo Homo
Neanderthal" or "Homo Neanderthal Neanderthal"...then their children do the
same and we can end up with: "Homo Homo Neanderthal Neanderthal", which
"reduces" to just "Homo Neanderthal" again...if the "Homo Sapiens" mutation
can _survive_ the attempts to "stamp it out" then it succeeds to "win over"
the "genepool"...the very same process that tried to stamp it out, changes
around when it survives long enough to be "accepted" into the
"genepool"...now the very same "averaging" process - with enough "Homo
Sapiens" genes in the "genepool" - becomes the new "centre"...it is
_propogated_, not stamped out, by the very same process...eventually, the
majority of the "genepool" is "Homo Neanderthal" (though using the current
_mistaken_ labels actually confuses the issue because this is actually what
we'd call "Homo Sapiens"...the point was that "Homo Sapiens" _didn't_
"evolve" - woah! contraversy central or what? ;) - but that the changes
evolved and were "consumed" by the "genepool"...and the "Homo Sapiens" is
the _AVERAGE_ that resulted...which _INCLUDES_ our "Neanderthal" ancestors
_inside_ it...genetically, they didn't go anywhere at all...they are right
here and right now...we _are_ them...and the process of "merging" (though,
indeed, it's NOT really that at all, in the sense that the "averaging" is
constantly on-going and there never was any "separation" of the traditional
sense) "sucked up" all those "intermediate species"...this, unlike
evolution, happens at a much faster pace (indeed, the smaller the
population in the "genepool", the faster still...and there was a much
smaller population and a lot more "children having" going on at the
time)...so, the chances of digging up a preserved "intermediate state"
corpse from this period? Possible, but the odds are stacked against
you...it, in evolutionary and historical terms, happens in a comparative
"blink of an eye" (yes, ages from the point of view of an actual individual
but superfast in the long evolutionary terms)...

They're looking at it wrong and trying to find something that, in a sense,
isn't there (well, there are "intermediate states" BUT these are "cleaned
up"...as it is _NOT_ gradual with "genepool attraction" pulling it all
together and "cleaning up" as it goes...so finding these _IS_ going to be
grossly difficult and unlikely...after all, most corpses this old are not
pulled up "on demand"...they get coincidentally preserved by dry climate or
sinking into bogs that natural "preserve" these corpses...we're not seeing
the "general picture" but the "coincidentally preserved" picture...for
instance, just because the oldest corpse found was in Africa doesn't
necessarily mean we all came from that specific spot...that's a "best
guess" from the evidence...but maybe there were humans elsewhere and it's
just that only in Africa are the conditions naturally dry and preservative
for such anicent bones to survive...you know, if there had been even
earlier people in Japan then the rains, tsunamis, storms, earthquakes, etc.
would, over such a long period, have totally wiped them out, anyway)...

> Something like one programmer writing his
> own GA program derived from some other
> programmer but modified so that they are
> incompatible as regards the "dna" sequence
> and translation mechanisms.

Yes, something like that...the two programs would be "sexually
incompatible", in the sense that because the programmer has modified it so
that "genes" from the original program just won't work in the new program,
then "cross-species" stuff ain't posssible...something like, simply, the
second programmer "extends" the length of the "chromosomes" (the strings of
individual genes :)...well, now the old 10-long "genes" aren't enough to
fit into the 20-long new Genetic Algorithm program...they are
"incompatible"...so, now these two programs can't "cross over" in any way
and they "evolve" separately...and, at this point, they are effectively -
_BECAUSE_ of this "barrier" of "incompatibility" between them - "different
species" of genetic algorithm program...

Well, yes, _something_ like that...this analogy does have its problems but
I know what you mean by it :)...

> For me the question remains, why was it
> that atoms just happened to have whatever
> is required for them to evolve into ever
> more complex systems in order to remain
> stable.

Yes, the biggest problem with "evolution", I'd say, stems from a little
paradox: In order to "evolve", the "entities" (I'd call them this rather
than "things", as "things" is impolite ;) must have reproduction...how does
one "evolve" reproduction itself, though? In order to "evolve", one needs
"reproduction"...in order to "reproduce", one needs to "evolve" the
capacity to do so...

It's paradoxical...BUT, this doesn't mean it didn't happen...indeed, we can
ironically note that this is a "the chicken and the egg" problem (almost
literally)...chickens come from eggs, eggs come from chickens...how did
that first egg or chicken emerge?

There's something similar in OS development (or Rene's RosAsm
"auto-compilation" stuff that RosAsm is written in itself :) and that shows
us the possible answer to this...something _different_ is used to "start
off" the "loop" and then it continues by itself thereafter...RosAsm was
first written in Asm32, then Rene re-wrote RosAsm in RosAsm and then it
becomes "auto-compilable"...and the apparent "impossible paradox" is quite
possible...the answer is simply that "the chicken and the egg" may create
each other but this does NOT mean that only eggs can create chickens and
only chickens can create eggs...

By "evolution", of course, what happened was that there was a
"proto-chicken" ("Chicken Neanderthal" ;)...and this proto-chicken had a
"mutated" egg that just so happened to be the chicken egg...it hatched into
a chicken (not a "proto-chicken") and its eggs will be chicken eggs, not
proto-chicken eggs...and the same thing happened to proto-chickens too
(with "proto-proto-chickens" :)...all the way back through the evolutionary
progression...because not only chickens can produce chicken eggs,
"proto-chickens" with "mutations" can also create chicken eggs too...and
one of these "started off" the "chicken and egg" loop, which, thereafter,
is simply self-propogating...

And how did non-living organisms "evolve" into living organisms? Well, the
evolutionists simply say: "well, same deal"...which, yes, means "evolution"
applying to _non-living_ things too...but can that happen? Well, yes, it
can...I refer you to that "genetic algorithm" program you were just
hypothetically running...where is the organic matter in that? Where is the
physical DNA and RNA process? Oh, they aren't there...computers and
computer programs are "non-living" but yet, so long as there's
"reproduction" and "natural selection", then "evolution" can apply to
_ANYTHING_...indeed, because Darwin spotted "natural selection" in the
context of species and living beings, then it has been associated with
being a "biological" thing...BUT "natural selection" _only_ requires
"reproduction" (of some kind) and "environmental selection" (which happens
naturally: You _can't_ escape that...whatever you are, if you're part of
this reality, then "outside" things can come along and smash you up into
pieces to stop you "reproducing"...non-living things don't "die" but that's
not what actually counts...it's just about _reproduction_...death is just a
means that stops reproduction (mind you, so do some diseases and the
menopause and so forth too)...non-living things can be "smashed" to pieces
or chemically altered or something which stops them reproducing...and that
would "naturally select" them just the same)...

In fact, "memeticists" have "evolved" out of "geneticists"...the "meme" is
the realisation that human _knowledge_ also "reproduces" (we talk to each
other, tell children not to run into the road just like we ourselves were
told, the Hollywood studios film Homer's epics and his stories "survive"
for another day, etc.)...and that it is also subject to "natural
selection"...the Earth is flat? Nope, scientific knowledge has "naturally
selected" that particular "meme" concept out of the "memepool" (what humans
believe :)...well, except for the "flat Earth society" people but I suspect
that they aren't all completely serious about that and it's not really a
"meme" they believe but just enjoy going around projecting "false memes"
for fun...well, it is funny, even if not "memetically beneficial" ;)...and
that the way science and technology has progressed, _IS_ a kind of
"evolution"...

Indeed, one of the mistakes Darwin and many others made was to associate
"natives" and "tribes" they saw as being "less evolved" because they didn't
live the "civilised" lives of Europeans...this has been shown to be a
completely mistaken thought because they are biologically no different -
they are human just like the rest of us - and that the "difference" was
_memetic_, not genetic...that is, the people in these "tribes" are not
driving around in cars and following "polite" Western "civilised" customs,
just because their _MEMEPOOL_ is different, not because their genes are
different...and there have been many scientific tests that have proved
this...they created "culturally unbiased" intelligence tests - like IQ
tests used to be...all "blue squares / red triangles" and pattern
recognition and so forth - and these "natives" in their "tribes" were
indistinguishable in the results from similarly tested Westerners...their
brains ain't different: Their "Memepool" is...they have not heard of Newton
and his laws, they have not heard the wisdoms of Aesop or read the works of
Shakespeare...they have not gone on "car mechanics" course or done
"compulsory maths" at school...BUT, indeed, if you were to take a baby from
that tribe, then bring them up just as any kid native to the Western
country, then, well, it's happened...we know the results...bring them up in
Texas and they grow up with a Texan accent (completely indistinguishable
from other Texans)...they are "patriotic" to Texas (though, when they find
out about coming originally from somewhere else, they might be
"curious"...but then we all would be...children who later discover they
were adopted, do exactly the same thing in being interested sometimes in
their "roots")...they could become a rocket scientist or a brain
surgeon...that's the "nuture" part..."memetics"...they are brought up in
our "memepool" then, culturally, they _ARE_ us...

Every person is, indeed, part genetic and part memetic..."nature" and
"nuture"...but the influence of "genetics" is often overstated, I feel...I
don't doubt that it has influences, for sure...but the most major
differences between people happen _memetically_, not genetically...if you
like, you can have some "hyperactive gene" that, yeah, might make you get
bored quicker and, thus, you have a statistical "1% greater chance of
becoming a criminal"...but, in comparison to being in poverty with no
apparent means that you can see to get out of it with friends who are
dealing drugs and _that_ does appear to be getting them money and getting
them _out_ of the "ghetto", then, hmmm, they just might consider following
suit...now, _THAT_ kind of thing makes someone a lot more than 1% more
likely to do something criminal...both play a part...and, in both cases,
it's NOT the be-all and end-all...some people, no matter what you throw at
them, won't ever do anything criminal...and you can find people with
supposed "criminal genes" who are anything but...we all have one more
component: Our _brains_...and we can "override" both instinct and what
might be surrounding us by using _rational thought_ with our brains...

Anyway, the contention is that non-living things can and do "bump into each
other" and can bond together...and that, well, right at the beginning, the
right things just happened to "bump into each other" to form the basic
"building blocks" and then they bumped into each other to form the most
basic "living thing"...and so forth...this is, indeed, grossly
unlikely...and the amazing "coincidences" of reproduction of some sort just
happening to "appear" does stretch the imagination...

But none of it couldn't have happened...and, thus, as much as evolutionists
should postpone "killing God" for a lack of evidence, the courtesy must be
returned in kind...you can't say it _didn't_ happen...you can completely
doubt that it did...but there is a "possibility" there...it _could_ have
happened that way...

Descartesean principle: No evidence? No conclusion...this might be
personally unsatisfactory to everyone who wants an "answer" but that's the
way these things work in science (and, to be honest, scientific principle
only extends "natural logic"...even non-scientists apply "seeing is
believing" and such without prompting...you tell them an unlikely story and
they don't believe you until you pull out some other "witness" or proof of
your story...science just "formalised" it all in a strict
"discipline"...but, really, it's only based on "logic" and natural "common
sense" about dealing with things you don't know about it, that people do
actually do quite naturally, anyway :)...

No evidence -> No conclusion...and that doesn't ever change whether you
claim to be a scientist or a Jehovah's witness or that, like David Icke,
that you're the "Son of Godhead" (whatever that means) or whatever...none
of us, really, much like that because it means we can't put these things to
rest...BUT we can't do so and we shouldn't do so...anything else...well,
"it just isn't tennis" :)...

> I know of no GA program that does
> this.

Though, they can "evolve" solutions from complete randomness by "natural
selection"...admittedly, the genetic algorithm program themselves don't
appear from nowhere...but, then again, if we left them alone to do their
own thing for a few million years or so, then perhaps they _could_ end up
"evolving" themselves...typically, though, most genetic algorithm programs
aren't written in the right form...you know, they can't "mutate" from their
deterministic programming nor "pick up" things from "outside
influences"...but if we created one that was capable of being "modified" by
"mutations" and "outside influence", give it a few million years and then,
well, could we see it develop? Well, we don't have a few million years or
the correct program for doing to know...but "theory" suggests that it could
be _POSSIBLE_...

Again, "possible" does mean "it would happen" or that "it did
happen!"...but just that it isn't "impossible" to happen, if the "theory"
is correct...

Indeed, even if evolutionists prove that such-and-such "amino acids"
_could_ have "evolved" and then chart out the entire evolutionary tree from
there right up to humans then this still only suggests
_POSSIBLE_...admittedly, with such an overwhelming weight of evidence as to
be "totally and utterly convincing", perhaps...but this is still NOT
"proof"...it simply proves that it _COULD_ have happened that way, not that
it did...you would also need proof which demonstrates that it _COULDN'T_
have happened any other way too..._THEN_ you have "proof"...

Considering what we're talking about here, then, pragmatically, one wonders
if "proof" of the utterly "strict" variety is ever possible? Possibly
not...of course, something that isn't "proven" _ISN'T_ necessarily
"wrong"...it is just "not yet proven"...indeed, it's like in a court of
law: There is "guilty" and there's "not guilty"...but the court never uses
the verdict "innocent"...they can attempt to prove, as best they are able,
whether you are "guilty" or not of the crime you're charged with...but they
correctly avoid being "philosophical" about whether you are an "innocent
person" generally speaking...hence, the words are actually chosen
specifically as "guilty" and "not guilty" to attempt to correctly
demonstrate so...

Again, one can "suspect" all you like, you can "be convinced" of something,
something can be "possible", something that isn't "proven" isn't
necessarily "wrong"...all this is great...but NONE of it constitutes
"proof"...not of the strict, rigorous scientific Descartesean / Aristotlean
/ Bacon-esque type, anyway...and that works for _EVERYONE_ in _ALL_
situations (the univeral applicability of the "principles" is the
foundation upon which all of science rests...its _single_ "presumption"
that was determined without "evidence"...which, by the way, might itself be
wrong too...but it seems very unlikely with the "weight of evidence" that
the scientific process does tend to get things right...you know, perhaps
mathematics is "wrong" but, if it is, then the trillions upon trillions of
"applications" of it - buildings, bridges, space flight, cars, financial
transactions, etc., etc. - suggest quite, quite the opposite...it is
grossly doubtful that it's wrong...maths has "proved itself" to a degree
but, well, you can't trust the "testimony" of the very thing under
scrutiny...many a prisoner in jail claims "innocence"...one suspects they
aren't all telling the truth, though ;)...

No evidence -> no conclusion...that's a bit "pants", admittedly...but
that's the way things are...neither "science" nor "religion" nor the
shampoo salesman can alter this, I'm afraid...it's just the way things work
in this multiverse...perhaps you could try jumping to some other "alternate
dimension" that has different rules of reality instead...

> To say that some system is evolving
> via the mechanism of selection and random
> variation is one thing. To elaborate on
> the physical requirements for this is
> another problem.

Agreed; I don't doubt "natural selection" at all personally...but,
correctly, it has not been "proved"...not in the sense that is often
attributed to it, anyway...you know, they prove a fruitfly "evolves" and,
suddenly, this is "proof" that God doesn't exist and that the Moon is made
of cheese and other "opinions" they've had for a while...ummm, no...it's
proof of fruitfly evolution in that situation...indeed, it's going to take
a lot of evidence of lots of different things to "prove" all of
evolution...

This concept is never a problem for true scientists...this is, after all,
their _belief_ in this system when a _true_ scientist...but, well, everyone
likes to jump on a popular bandwagon...everyone wants to be "an expert by
proxy"...and so forth...anyone can _claim_ practically anything...but
"circumstantial evidence" is NOT sufficient to reach "beyond all reasonable
doubt"...no conviction this time, sorry...but, note, unlike like a court of
law, you are permitted to "re-try" scientific principle any number of times
you like...just keep looking...we wish you well :)...

> Random mutation and natural selection do
> not in themselves mean a system will evolve
> into an even more complex system.

Actually, depends what you mean exactly...does it _guarantee_ so? No, it
doesn't...but is it _POSSIBLE_ and does "natural selection" guide the
process towards being more likely than less likely for such a thing to
happen...sorry, yes, it _DOES_...self-evidently so...and I've _seen it
happen_ in microcosm with, as I say, computer simulations (which,
admittedly, says absolutely NOTHING about "biological evolution" but it can
be used, as I say, to test "natural selection" as a concept as and of
itself...because "natural selection" does technically have a wider
application than solely biological...the "biological" bit is just "most
interesting" because it could help us explain "where we come from" and that
question is a very interesting question that most people would be
interested to hear the answer to...hence, a touch of "personal bias"
there...BUT "natural selection" itself _does_ do so)...

Although, saying so, as I mentioned, don't make the mistake of going to the
other extreme either...does "evolution" guarantee "best solutions"? No, NOT
AT ALL...does "evolution" guarantee no "dead ends"? No, ABSOLUTELY NOT...

Personally, I feel that "evolution" is quite, quite "incomplete" in its
present form...lots isn't known...there's many things that appear to "defy"
it in the record...but that, due to an enthusiasm to "kill God", there's an
over-enthusiasm to "push" it for that personal reason...I reckon there's a
lot more to be discovered...and, to be honest, I'm tired of it being used
as a "political football", so to speak...

The truth is, "evolution" was the first thing to be a serious "threat" to
many a religion's opinions...and, hence, the aethists and agnostics have
grabbed it with _over-enthusiasm_...kind of "getting revenge" by trying to
"Bible Bash" religious people with a copy of the "On The Origin of
Species"...

And this disappoints me because evolution is, thus, full of people with
axes to grind...political points to push...that many "theories" are clearly
"veiled politics" (such as "Homo Sapiens clubbed all Neanderthal to death
because humans are inherently evil creatures...so, we should realise we're
all evil and stop climate change" and that kind of thing)...and stem more
from wanting to _MAKE_ things as they've pre-determined, not letting the
evidence speak for itself...that is what disappoints me: I'm sure the field
of evolutionary theory and the _science_ would actually be _MORE ADVANCED_
by now, if it wasn't full of "pushers" and that every time someone
discusses it, it all becomes "but does God exist?"...

Just like government, the "good theory" of it all starts to fall apart when
you add in those bloody "politicians" ;)...

Beth :)