2. Cosmic Consciousness-the experimental evidence

This is a follow up to my previous OP  Is Cosmic Consciousness responsible for reality?

There seems to be some confusion regarding the causes of collapse of wave function(which seems to creates reality) whether a conscious observer can collapse the wave function ONLY or can a designed robot/computer perform the same role. Instead of pointing out the facts, I’d like “the seekers of truth” to do it for themselves. Since apparently ‘a picture is worth 1000 words’, I attach 2 videos that cover 2 breakthrough experiments in the understanding of well known double-slit experiment and the implications of collapse of wave function by an observer on the nature of reality…

Things to watch for in the second video: At 13 min and 15 min mark the experiment identifies the difference between robot/Linux systems and humans’ effect on the double-slit experiment. At 32 min mark we can see the implications of the experiments on reductive materialism and materialistic philosophy as well as why the obvious change is necessary that resisted by the scientific community…

Things to watch for in the first video: At 2:30 min mark it is explained what exactly causes the collapse of wave function. Does an act of observing alone cause the collapse of wave function? Or rather, does the knowledge of which path determined by a conscious observer or knower do that?

The last part of the second video talks about  implications of the experiment that are so mind boggling that I’m going to leave them out for another OP. For those who have curious minds, please pay a close attention to “behavior” of 2 entangled particles which either involves their knowledge of the future or we fully do not understand the concept of time…

463 Replies to “2. Cosmic Consciousness-the experimental evidence”

  1. CharlieM CharlieM
    Ignored
    says:

    Corneel: You are smarter than a bird, Charlie, if that is what you want to hear, but I fail to see that ability carries more weight than other abilities from a biological point of view.

    Yes I do believe that I am more intelligent than an individual ostrich, but I also believe that I am less intelligent than the group intelligence of the species ostrich.

  2. CharlieM CharlieM
    Ignored
    says:

    GlenDavidson: There’s no question that birds haven’t mastered intelligence in the manner that humans have, but it’s remarkable what they can do with their relatively small brains.

    It is possible that the main reason birds haven’t won the intelligence game is that most of them continue to fly, so cannot grow their brains very large (but then that may also be why their brains are rather intelligent per ounce). Efficiency matters, but to have intelligence like ours requires a good-sized mass of brain tissue as well.

    I think you have hit upon a truth here. It is not so much individual random mutations which determines the course of bird evolution, but their behaviour and lifestyle. The fact that flying birds are designed to fly restricts their brain development. Their niche is constrictive to further development in this regard.

  3. colewd
    Ignored
    says:

    Gordon Davisson,

    But that’s true of a lot of of fringe/crackpot stuff, and they have a tendency not to hold up under close examination. If you read his wikipedia page, he’s been pretty roundly criticized for all the usual sorts of crackpottish problems. Now, I haven’t actually checked into any of this, so I can’t claim an informed opinion, but my prejudice is that he’s probably just plain wrong. Your opinion may of course be different.

    First: Thank you for your comments. I don’t know at this point if this experiment is showing consciousness collapsing the wave function.

    The negative press in Wikipedia means little to me. This is simply an ad hominem attack from a biased group IMO. Time will tell if this experiment is opening up a new gateway to reality.

  4. colewd
    Ignored
    says:

    Corneel,

    So what exactly do paragraph A, paragraph B, the 3rd paragraph of A and paragraph P represent in his example? gpuccio didn’t make it explicit and I could not think of a proper match for this analogy in protein evolution, but it appears you could.

    It could represent two protein families isolated in sequence space. The ubiquitin system and the spliceosome would be examples two systems that require very different sequences and contain proteins that are highly conserved.

    Trying to find a selectable random path between these two would be like trying to find a selectable random path between these two paragraphs.

    In both cases we are dealing with exceedingly large sequence spaces.

    Like the paragraphs, the sequences that build these protein groups require conscious intelligence to generate the observed function IMO.

  5. Corneel Corneel
    Ignored
    says:

    colewd: It could represent two protein families isolated in sequence space. The ubiquitin system and the spliceosome would be examples two systems that require very different sequences and contain proteins that are highly conserved.

    Trying to find a selectable random path between these two would be like trying to find a selectable random path between these two paragraphs.

    If that is what gpuccio is trying to show, then his OP is irrelevant to protein evolution. Nobody is saying that the modern ubiquitin system evolved from the modern spliceosome or vice versa. They both evolved independently from simpler precursors.

  6. Rumraket Rumraket
    Ignored
    says:

    Mung: Rumraket: Now it’s your turn to actually answer my questions.

    Your post did not contain any questions. Neither did your post before that one. Nor your post before that one. So we’re down to two digits remaining.

    You must either be blind or have a bad memory.

    Mung: And how does he know that you ought not be a liar?
    Rumraket: How does anyone?

    Mung:Is lying evil?
    Rumraket: Define “evil”.

  7. Rumraket Rumraket
    Ignored
    says:

    colewd: Like the paragraphs, the sequences that build these protein groups require conscious intelligence to generate the observed function IMO.

    But your opinion is worth nothing. What you need are some good arguments and evidence, not just statements of opinion.

  8. CharlieM CharlieM
    Ignored
    says:

    Corneel to Colewd: If that is what gpuccio is trying to show, then his OP is irrelevant to protein evolution. Nobody is saying that the modern ubiquitin system evolved from the modern spliceosome or vice versa. They both evolved independently from simpler precursors.

    As soon as ubiquitin and spliceosome systems can be found within a single organism then they cannot be said to evolve independently.

  9. Rumraket Rumraket
    Ignored
    says:

    CharlieM: As soon as ubiquitin and spliceosome systems can be found within a single organism then they cannot be said to evolve independently.

    In some respects that is true, in that their individual effects on the fitness of the host organism are tied together. If and when mutations occur in both systems simultaneously in the same carrier, the conjunction of their fitness effects will likely determine the overall fate of those mutants.

    Though it is still entirely possible for either system to evolve for a time without any significant effects on the other, due to factors such as mutation rate, genome size, selection coefficient of mutants and so on, in the sense that it is generally unlikely for an organism to suffer mutations with significant fitness effect in genes encoding components of both systems simultaneously.

    It is worth considering here that both systems are candidates for systems having evovled largely by constructive neutral evolution (CNE). Particularly the spliceosomal complex seems to have evolved mainly by a neutral ratchet of gene duplications. As more and more deleterious mutations occurred in spliceosomal proteins, duplications of supressing helper proteins became necessary to keep the system functioning and were thus retained. These in turn also became targets for further deleterious mutations, again leading to duplications of compensating supressor proteins being favored.

  10. CharlieM CharlieM
    Ignored
    says:

    Rumraket,

    These sort of speculations about protein evolution are all based on genes being mostly separate lumps of matter just like the components that comprise a machine. But things look very different from a point of view that think of fields as more fundamental than the conventional view of matter. IMO interacting, interpenetrating fields better explain the complex processes we find in inter-cellular and intra-cellular networks.

    I believe that this point of view will become more recognised in the future. There are some initial signs of this

  11. colewd
    Ignored
    says:

    Corneel,

    Nobody is saying that the modern ubiquitin system evolved from the modern spliceosome or vice versa. They both evolved independently from simpler precursors.

    This is the story but there are several obvious holes in it.
    -what simpler precursors
    -how did the precursors fit together to form a single function
    -Where did the DNA sequence come from that would allow these pieces to be assembled as a coherent whole.

    How did that ubiquitin system evolve independently of the spliceosome as it contains proteins with splice variants.

    How would something that is “simple” become complex on its own given complexity means additional genetic information?

  12. colewd
    Ignored
    says:

    Rumraket,

    Particularly the spliceosomal complex seems to have evolved mainly by a neutral ratchet of gene duplications

    This is just duplication of the same information. Both the spliceosome and the ubiquitin system require gobs of new genetic information. Gpuccio’s post shows how difficult it is to generate new information from existing information.

  13. Mung Mung
    Ignored
    says:

    GlenDavidson: Well, except for one problem, which is that birds no longer have hands that function at all like our own.

    Why assume that they ever had hands that function at all like our own?

    What evidence do you have for that assertion?

  14. Mung Mung
    Ignored
    says:

    Rumraket: But your opinion is worth nothing. What you need are some good arguments and evidence, not just statements of opinion.

    Is it just his opinion that is worth nothing? Because I see a lot of people sharing their opinions.

    Why does he need are some good arguments and evidence, not just statements of opinion? What kind of world do you think you a are living in Rumraket?

    If people fail to live up to your moral expectations don’t blame them, blame evolution.

  15. John Harshman John Harshman
    Ignored
    says:

    Mung: Why assume that they ever had hands that function at all like our own?

    What evidence do you have for that assertion?

    That would be the fossil record of theropods, which shows that they once had forelimbs chiefly used for grasping prey.

  16. Corneel Corneel
    Ignored
    says:

    colewd: This is the story but there are several obvious holes in it.
    gallop
    gallop
    gallop
    … means additional genetic information?

    These are all mighty interesting questions, but shall we first agree that gpuccio’s two paragraph analogy isn’t useful for any of those questions and therefore utterly irrelevant?

  17. walto walto
    Ignored
    says:

    Mung: Is it just his opinion that is worth nothing?

    No. Also his pants.

  18. OMagain
    Ignored
    says:

    colewd: This is the story but there are several obvious holes in it.
    -what simpler precursors
    -how did the precursors fit together to form a single function
    -Where did the DNA sequence come from that would allow these pieces to be assembled as a coherent whole.

    How did that ubiquitin system evolve independently of the spliceosome as it contains proteins with splice variants.

    How would something that is “simple” become complex on its own given complexity means additional genetic information?

    And your answer is what? How many repetitions of the word “design” would it take to “explain” all those things?

    What people wonder is why you prefer a story that is all hole to a story with holes?

  19. Mung Mung
    Ignored
    says:

    OMagain: What people wonder is why you prefer a story that is all hole to a story with holes?

    And you (and those other people) think he ought not do that?

    tsk tsk.

    ETA:

    What kind of world do you think you are living in OMagain?

    If people fail to live up to your moral expectations don’t blame them, blame evolution.

  20. colewd
    Ignored
    says:

    Corneel,

    These are all mighty interesting questions, but shall we first agree that gpuccio’s two paragraph analogy isn’t useful for any of those questions and therefore utterly irrelevant?

    I think it is useful to all the questions. It shows how tough it is to get a functional sequence of a different function from an original function especially if the functions are different. Selectable random change does not appear to create functional information in his example.

    Notice I am granting for argument sake the existence of the copied function.

  21. colewd
    Ignored
    says:

    OMagain,

    What people wonder is why you prefer a story that is all hole to a story with holes?

    I prefer a simple explanation that has a chance to be right over a detailed one that is almost certainly wrong.

  22. colewd
    Ignored
    says:

    Mung,

    blame them, blame evolution.

    I see a new movie coming out:

    Blame it on evolution

  23. Adapa
    Ignored
    says:

    colewd:
    OMagain,

    I prefer a simple explanation that has a chance to be right over a detailed one that is almost certainly wrong.

    You mean you prefer willful ignorance which protects your religious beliefs over scientific knowledge which refutes your Young Earth Creationism religious mythology.

  24. keiths keiths
    Ignored
    says:

    OMagain, to colewd:

    And your answer is what? How many repetitions of the word “design” would it take to “explain” all those things?

    What people wonder is why you prefer a story that is all hole to a story with holes?

    colewd:

    I prefer a simple explanation that has a chance to be right over a detailed one that is almost certainly wrong.

    As I asked once before:

    Given Bill Cole’s track record, why do you grant any credence at all to Bill Cole’s evaluation of the evidence?

  25. GlenDavidson
    Ignored
    says:

    colewd:
    OMagain,

    I prefer a simple explanation that has a chance to be right over a detailed one that is almost certainly wrong.

    You’d rather stick with a simple-minded “explanation” without meaningful evidence that leads to no discoveries, than to seriously consider a detailed one that actually derives from the evidence and that explains what intelligence never could.

    Interest in furthering knowledge has never been the reason for ID.

    Glen Davidson

  26. Rumraket Rumraket
    Ignored
    says:

    Mung: Is it just his opinion that is worth nothing? Because I see a lot of people sharing their opinions.

    It doesn’t just apply to Bill Cole. It is a generalization regarding arguments about science and facts. I’d hope the discussion wouldn’t just constitute the different sides taking turns stating unsubstantiated opinions.

    Why does he need are some good arguments and evidence, not just statements of opinion?

    Assuming Bill Cole is attempting to persuade other people that ID is a superior scientific hypothesis, I’m just informing him what has better odds of accomplishing that goal.

    What kind of world do you think you a are living in Rumraket?

    I believe we live in a world where both of us are members of this debating forum and we some times attempt to persuade others to see things a certain way.

    If people fail to live up to your moral expectations don’t blame them, blame evolution.

    Why blame the process that made the moral agent/entity come into existence, rather than the agent/entity making the actual decisions?

    If I should be blaming evolution for people’s decisions if they were created by an evolutionary process, I should just as well blame God for people’s decisions if they were created by a God. Right? If not, why?

  27. Corneel Corneel
    Ignored
    says:

    colewd: I think it is useful to all the questions.

    So let me get this straight. You think that changing this piece of text:

    The Bhagavati Sutra had the first mention of a combinatorics problem; the problem asked how many possible combinations of tastes were possible from selecting tastes in ones, twos, threes, etc. from a selection of six different tastes (sweet, pungent, astringent, sour, salt, and bitter). The Bhagavati is also the first text to mention the choose function. In the second century BC, Pingala included an enumeration problem in the Chanda Sutra (also Chandahsutra) which asked how many ways a six-syllable meter could be made from short and long notes. Pingala found the number of meters that had n long notes and k short notes; this is equivalent to finding the binomial coefficients.

    to this one

    the philosopher and astronomer rabbi abraham ibn ezra, c. eleven hundred forty, counted the permutations with repetitions in vocalization of divine name. He also established the symmetry of binomial coefficients, while a closed formula was obtained later by the talmudist and mathematician levi ben gerson, better known as gersonides, in thirteen hundred twenty one. wow, creationists choose such crappy analogies. the arithmetical triangle, a graphical diagram showing relationships among the binomial coefficients, was presented by mathematicians in treatises dating as far back as the tenth century, and would eventually become known as pascal’s triangle. later, in medieval england, campanology provided examples of what is now known as hamiltonian cycles in certain cayley graphs on permutations.

    by substituting single letters ONLY, and all the time fullfilling the requirement that intermediates have well expressed meaning in the English language, is a proper analogy for the evolution of a large modern protein complex from a simple precursor because it purportedly shows “how tough it is to get a functional sequence of a different function from an original function especially if the functions are different.”?

    Are you very surprised if I tell you that I don’t buy that? Perhaps you’d better ask gpuccio what exactly this is supposed to be an analogy for, preferrably with a concrete example.

  28. Rumraket Rumraket
    Ignored
    says:

    It’s not possible in english, so it can’t be possible with biochemistry.

    Sorry, total nonsequitur.

  29. GlenDavidson
    Ignored
    says:

    Corneel,

    Yes, I’ll accept that “analogy” when words in texts are regulated in frequency by stochastic processes, when they exist in various alleles across the populations of words, and when words sexually pair off.

    As usual, it’s the creationists claiming that DNA (code) is a language (if it is, it’s hardly a human one), then coming up with “analogies” without paying attention to the vast differences. Well, they’re not going to do actual science, are they?

    Glen Davidson

  30. Corneel Corneel
    Ignored
    says:

    GlenDavidson: Yes, I’ll accept that “analogy” when words in texts are regulated in frequency by stochastic processes, when they exist in various alleles across the populations of words, and when words sexually pair off.

    Not in the English language they don’t, but I understand that German and French nouns have sex.

  31. Mung Mung
    Ignored
    says:

    Rumraket: It’s not possible in english, so it can’t be possible with biochemistry.

    Sorry, total nonsequitur.

    So much for evolution then.

  32. Mung Mung
    Ignored
    says:

    GlenDavidson: Interest in furthering knowledge has never been the reason for ID.

    So?

  33. Mung Mung
    Ignored
    says:

    Rumraket: Why blame the process that made the moral agent/entity come into existence, rather than the agent/entity making the actual decisions?

    If I should be blaming evolution for people’s decisions if they were created by an evolutionary process, I should just as well blame God for people’s decisions if they were created by a God. Right? If not, why?

    Exactly! You are acting as if people were created by a morally perfect being and that they therefore ought to act as if they were created by a morally perfect being.

    Yet you don’t actually believe that people were created by a morally perfect being. You believe they were created by an amoral process from which what they ought to do or ought not do cannot be derived.

    Why do you do that?

    You’re faulting people for exhibiting the “morals” that they were provided with by the evolutionary process. And that’s just silly. It’s not their fault. OF course, it’s not your fault for doing what you are doing either. Blame evolution. It’s the real culprit.

  34. Mung Mung
    Ignored
    says:

    Rumraket: I believe we live in a world where both of us are members of this debating forum and we some times attempt to persuade others to see things a certain way.

    Sure, but why do we do that? I don’t plan on marrying anyone here and having children with them. Do you?

    We do it because we think people ought to believe certain things and act in certain ways, and we get upset if they don’t. But what people ought to believe and what they ought to do is a moral judgment. I thought you all were turned off by the morality police.

  35. Mung Mung
    Ignored
    says:

    GlenDavidson: As usual, it’s the creationists claiming that DNA (code) is a language (if it is, it’s hardly a human one), then coming up with “analogies” without paying attention to the vast differences.

    This is hilarious coming from the author of the following OP:

    http://theskepticalzone.com/wp/the-genetic-code-expected-before-it-was-found/

  36. newton
    Ignored
    says:

    colewd: I prefer a simple explanation that has a chance to be right over a detailed one that is almost certainly wrong.

    One has the advantage of actually being an explanation.

  37. colewd
    Ignored
    says:

    Corneel,

    Let me make it simpler.

    Evolve this:

    The Bhagavati Sutra had the first mention of a combinatorics problem; the problem asked how many possible combinations of tastes were possible from selecting tastes in ones,

    Into this:

    The Bhagavati Sutra had the first mention of a combinatorics problem; the problem asked how many possible combinations of tastes were possible from selecting tastes in ones, twos, threes, etc. from a selection of six different tastes (sweet, pungent, astringent, sour, salt, and bitter). The Bhagavati is also the first text to mention the choose function. In the second century BC, Pingala included an enumeration problem in the Chanda Sutra (also Chandahsutra) which asked how many ways a six-syllable meter could be made from short and long notes. Pingala found the number of meters that had n long notes and k short notes; this is equivalent to finding the binomial coefficients.

    Feel free to use multiple copies and a copier that generates errors every 10^-9 letters. Also, copy and words you want from the first paragraph. Select copies that evolve new words and purge the rest. My guess after 10^12 tries you will generate gibberish.

  38. Mung Mung
    Ignored
    says:

    colewd,

    What’s the point if no one accepts the analogy?

  39. dazz dazz
    Ignored
    says:

    It’s a stupid analogy, why should anybody care other than ignorant creotards?

  40. colewd
    Ignored
    says:

    Mung,

    What’s the point if no one accepts the analogy?

    Why do you think people are not accepting the analogy?

    I have not seen any real critiques that explain the objection other then assertion that it is not a valid analogy. Certainly most at UD are fine with the analogy.

  41. GlenDavidson
    Ignored
    says:

    colewd: I have not seen any real critiques that explain the objection other then assertion that it is not a valid analogy.

    CompIete nonsense. It disanalogous, and I noted some reasons why:

    Yes, I’ll accept that “analogy” when words in texts are regulated in frequency by stochastic processes, when they exist in various alleles across the populations of words, and when words sexually pair off.

    So you don’t care about the facts. What’s new?

    Certainly most at UD are fine with the analogy.

    Certainly most at UD are no more knowledgeable about it than you are.

    Glen Davidson

  42. colewd
    Ignored
    says:

    GlenDavidson,

    Yes, I’ll accept that “analogy” when words in texts are regulated in frequency by stochastic processes, when they exist in various alleles across the populations of words, and when words sexually pair off.

    Do you really think that you are the criteria setter for a useful analogy?

    So are you also discounting all experiments that include a sexual animals like bacteria as evidence for evolution.

  43. GlenDavidson
    Ignored
    says:

    colewd:
    GlenDavidson,

    Do you really think that you are the criteria setter for a useful analogy?

    I can discuss it intelligently, while all you can do is throw ad hominems. You have been wrong about nearly everything, from the scientific method to the idiocy of “a flying animal requires precise engineering, not the co-option of parts designed for something else.”

    Having failed to get much of anything right, you attempt to sneer at those who have told you the truth. Because you don’t like the truth.

    So are you also discounting all experiments that include a sexual animals like bacteria as evidence for evolution.

    What a dumb question. But then you’re not interested in the differences, just in denying that you were quite wrong yet again. You agree with those you like, though–the generally ignorant crowd at UD–and you dislike being told the truth.

    Glen Davidson

  44. Rumraket Rumraket
    Ignored
    says:

    Mung: Exactly! You are acting as if people were created by a morally perfect being and that they therefore ought to act as if they were created by a morally perfect being.

    Not at all. Essentially it comes down to the kind of world I want to live in. My desire for people to act in certain ways has nothing to do with how people came to exist, but it has to do with how their actions affect or are likely to affect myself and other people I care about.

    Yet you don’t actually believe that people were created by a morally perfect being. You believe they were created by an amoral process from which what they ought to do or ought not do cannot be derived.

    Why do you do that?

    Because I can feel happiness, sadness, pain, and pleasure. And I don’t want to be sad or in pain, but I do want to be happy and pleased. And other people’s actions affect my likelihood of experiencing those sensations and emotions. And other people’s mental states affect their behavior, and thus affect mine too. I care about myself and other people, so my own mental and physical state and the states of those I care about are affected by mine and their actions.

    That’s all I need in order to try to motivate other people to engage in or abstain from certain behaviors. Because I understand from experience and through reason that those behaviors affect me and people I care about, and thus my own likelihood of experiencing happiness or sadness, pain or pleasure.

    Origins is simply not a factor in how I determine what is or isn’t desirable behavior.

    You’re faulting people for exhibiting the “morals” that they were provided with by the evolutionary process. And that’s just silly.

    As just explained, not at all.

    It’s not their fault. OF course, it’s not your fault for doing what you are doing either. Blame evolution. It’s the real culprit.

    If that is really your view, then the same would have to be true if we were made by God. The fault must lie at the creator for creating flawed beings that act according to the nature with which they were created, right?

    I happen to completely reject the idea that origins is a factor that decides how human beings should (or ought to) act, but I find it curious that you seem to disagree as your disagreement appears to completely undermine your own position.

    The origins question might explain WHY human beings act the way we do. But it doesn’t follow from the fact that we came to exist through some particular process or event, that we OUGHT TO act a certain way.

    You seem to be insinuating basically something like this: We came to exist through a blind amoral process – therefore we OUGHT TO act blind and amorally.

    Or alternatively; We came to exist through a blind and amoral process – therefore we can’t be expected to act morally.

    But that doesn’t follow. None of those follow.

  45. Corneel Corneel
    Ignored
    says:

    colewd: Let me make it simpler.

    Evolve this:

    The Bhagavati Sutra had the first mention of a combinatorics problem; the problem asked how many possible combinations of tastes were possible from selecting tastes in ones,

    Into this: [snip]

    What would be the point? I don’t think the analogy is relevant for protein evolution. Mung gets that, so why can’t you? In fact, you cannot even tell me what it is supposed to be an analogy for.

    There are several reasons why I think the analogy is inappropriate, but let’s start with one that gpuccio concedes himself:

    I am not suggesting here that the functional space of language is the same as the functional space of proteins

    Indeed it is not. I suspect it is far more stringent. Case in point: the starting paragraph you gave me cuts off halfway through a sentence and therefore fails to convey its meaning. You gave me a nonfunctional string to start with Bill. 🙂

    ETA: corrections

  46. Corneel Corneel
    Ignored
    says:

    colewd: I have not seen any real critiques that explain the objection other then assertion that it is not a valid analogy.

    Then you have not been paying attention. Both Glen and I have offered reasons for that. I also note that you have not answered my question what it is supposed to be an analogy for, after I rejected your initial suggestion, but instead tried to hack gpuccio’s scenario 1.

  47. GlenDavidson
    Ignored
    says:

    The redundancy of the genetic code and the relatively independent nature of genes and their products are some of the larger differences between the paragraph “analogy” and protein evolution.

    Of course it’s true that the context of genes does matter, but they really aren’t required to make any kind of sense within anything like linear sentence structures. That is probably the greatest disanalogy between morphing a paragraph and evolving proteins in a biologic context. Indeed, one of the important characteristics of information in life is that it is rather more capable of evolving than is something like computer code, or paragraphs. I would mention that I did note that fact once, and Bill tried to claim that this was due to “design” (no argument for that, but when does he really argue for meaningful design, ever?), yet here he’s blithely claiming that morphing a paragraph is a reasonable analogy for protein evolution (believers in pseudoscience don’t have a problem with it, so that settles that for colewd).

    DNA and its products simply aren’t ordered into long linear sequences whose units (words, genes) have meanings dependent on the rest of the units of the sequences. We have different versions of the “same genes” in many cases, and typically one version does not significantly change the overall “meaning” versus the “meaning” of the other one. They are just variants that work similarly, but with somewhat different outcomes.

    The set of genes from your mother is not a different “book” than the set of genes from your father. That’s because different versions of genes can slide in or out of the gene combinations without dramatically changing the overall situation, whereas with words that is rarely the case. Genes usually affect biology far more independently of other genes in their context than words do in their own context.

    Glen Davidson

  48. GlenDavidson
    Ignored
    says:

    Of course, like DNA, many languages don’t depend so heavily on word order in sentences as English does.

    I suspect that a paragraph in Latin probably would be easier to morph “analogically” into a different one than would one in English. Nevertheless, even there the cases, etc., mean that words still depend much more heavily for their meaning on their relationships to other words in a sentence than genes depend on other genes for how they are expressed (the amount that genes are expressed might depend a lot on other genes, however).

    Glen Davidson

  49. petrushka
    Ignored
    says:

    Quick question for wannabe life designers. Explain how one knows the effects of a particular change being considered.

  50. Mung Mung
    Ignored
    says:

    GlenDavidson: So you don’t care about the facts.

    In your perfect world everyone would care about “the facts”?

    People ought to care about “the facts” because …

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.