My sense of things (wrong as I might be) is that Natural Selection (survival of
the most fortunate) is true. What is more fascinating to me is the idea of
Marchal, Tegmark, Steinhart, Von Newmann, Gödel, Schmidhuber and yes, Plato and
Plotinus, that underneath the real world is a realer world of programs,
cellular automata, numbers, calculations, that support a near infinite
universe, or the multiverse. Its not that reality is unreal (like in The
Matrix) but the foundations of spacetime are produced by a an underlying
integral process with pipelines, transfers and promotions, just like software
engineering. It shouldn't get in the way of either atheism or religion, its
just an answer(s) to the How questions of science. Or what's a Heaven for?
----Original Message-----
From: Alberto G. Corona <agocor...@gmail.com>
To: everything-list <everything-list@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Thu, Mar 19, 2015 12:24 pm
Subject: Re: Looks like this isn't a spandrell after all
By the way number 2: The theory of evolution is the most biased name for
natural selection. "Theory of tradition" would have been a better name by far.
Since practically 100% of the traits are inherited from generation to
generation
"Theory of evolution" is not only biased, but ideologically biased to hide this
fact
2015-03-19 15:29 GMT+01:00 Alberto G. Corona <agocor...@gmail.com>:
good or bad for what circunstances and for what unit of evolution in what
amount of time? . If I say "sexual reproduction is bad, because, mitosis is a
delicate process that may fail and produce many problems. cloning is better
because it is simpler. therefore natural selection do it wrong"
obviously that is the simplistic reasoning of an ignorant. The correct
scientific attitude is to keep studying why sexual reproduction is worth for
natural selection. And this is also an open question.
In the same way a design , like natural selection or the eye is something for
which particular circunstances can not reverse it. For example if an specie
live in an ambient with a lot of radiation, it may be true that cloning would
be the best way to reproduce for a million year (until the species get extinct
due to other effects) but this does not mean that sexual reproduction is wrong
in any way. It should be better to develop some secundary defenses against
mutations, and when the species ambient change, It can continue enjoying the
advantages of sexual reproduction.
In the same way, that when some specie becomes nocturnal for some million
years, maybe the eye of the octopus would have been nicer in that
circunstances . So what? if this is good for most of their genera and for most
of the existence of that clade?
Moreover, the vertebrate eye is able to move better (think it the eye of the
chameleon) and thus to focus and point better with less sensitive cells.
By the way I have to go to work. Look I don´t develop wings!. How much better
would have been t fly to my work. Thar proves that natural selection do it
wrong.
2015-03-19 4:51 GMT+01:00 meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net>:
On 3/18/2015 5:08 PM, LizR wrote:
Damn it, I've often cited this as an example of unintelligent design and now
the creationists get the last laugh. Oh well that's science!
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-purpose-of-our-eyes-strange-wiring-is-unveiled
I don't think you need to rush to change your examples just yet. This sounds
more like development of the glial cells to compensate for the initial bad
design that put the receptors on the back side of the retina. The authors say
it helps color vision during the day without hurting night (non-color) vision
too much. But many vertebrates don't even have color vision. Are their eyes
wired the other way around...No. Do they have the same glial cell disposition?
And if the color receptors were in on the front side of the retina then they
wouldn't need sequences of glial cells to guide the photons to them.
Brent
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to
everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
Alberto.
--
Alberto.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
