Thank you.
And if we are talking genetic powered deviation, that would apply .
Richard
All the crazy ideas are from emotional and motivated reasoning, the former is they key to the latter: affect.
No need to over anylise. Sometimes left field is just that.
And sometimes it is just fun to throw around some ideas.
Perhaps people should not take this forum so deadly seriously?
Richard
Just because you do not want to believe in alien abductions does not mean they donât happen.
The ID folks are religiously motivated.
Some are. ID can come first and even stand as part of a package of the fallacy of incredulity, of cognitive dysfunction, no religion is necessary, apart from folk beliefs.
So you accept evolution as long as it happens twice? But the existing system would have been an improvement of a yet earlier system. So where does the chain begin? How is this any different from the normal definition of evolution? And if the improved system is IC how did it evolve? And why wouldnât this apply to the evolution of any system?
You appear to not understand cancer at all. How is cancer propagated to future generations?
I am well aware of the predisposition. Problem being it is a predisposition to form abnormal cells. Richard wants it to form functional cells.
1 Like
Yeahhh. Thatâs on the left of the Dunning-Kruger twin peaks.
Just shows you have never understood my position. I have never denied basic evolution.
Just forget it! You clearly are not interested in throwing around an idea, just asserting what you (think) you know.
Stop trying to defeat me. That should not be the issue here (or anywhere else for that matter)
Or is it a case of
Itâs not the winning but the taking apart that counts!
Richard
What counts is scientific evidence and peer-review.
1 Like
All of your other definitions are wrong, so I donât think defining evolution would be a good idea.
The parasite and host are two different species, by definition. Therefore, a baby can not be a parasite because a baby is the same species as the mother. By definition. If you find anyone claiming that a fetus is a parasite then they are wrong. If you claim oneâs own cells are parasites then you are wrong.
Repeating these false definitions does not make them true.
A cancer is a group of cells that divide uncontrollably. If a group of cells divides during development and have controlled growth thereafter, like normal tissues, then it is not a cancer. Calling it a cancer does not make it so. Defining words however you like does not change the reality.
The next problem you appear to have is in thinking that certain structures were the goal of a process. I suspect this is why you describe any changes to these systems as bad, cancerous, or parasitic. The connotation is that any change deviates from some grand plan or intention. If you throw out this assumption you will start to understand where we are coming from.
A change in phenotype just is. If the change causes lower fitness then we may define the change as a genetic disease. If the change is neutral or beneficial then it is just a change. Period.
Why couldnât the initial change add to functionality from the start?
4 Likes
Complex yes, mechanical no.
The point being that the analogy to machines just doesnât work.
Take the human eye for example. It is only like a piece of optical equipment on the surface. In reality is composed of living organisms. Its operation and origins is nothing like a piece of machinery. Complex? Yeah sure. Far far far more complex than any optical equipment is or needs to be because it is building and maintaining itself. So what I am having trouble comprehending is how such a thing can be an irreducible system when it builds itself up from nothing. Sure the real issue is the origin of the genes that govern that building. But simply comparing it to a machine is absurd.
What donât you understand about irreducible?
And all the rest of your post is rigid thinking. You are not prepared to think beyond what you think you know
Like I said there is a differene between a parasite and parasitism. The first is a creature, the second is a principle (But you seem to have difficulty with principles)
Look, I do not want arguments or derision, so perhaps you had better leave this now.
(see above about taking apart)
Richard
No, that may be true if this had any importance. I have been trying to lighten it up but that seems beyond you and others.
Richard
I understand it just fine.
Why couldnât the change be beneficial from the start?
Instead of attacking me, why donât you address my arguments?
You are wrong.
Parasitism is defined as the relationship between two species.
Nothing I have written is derisive. If you donât want to know what is wrong with your idea, then why are you here?
2 Likes
I am fed up with people who know they are right.
That is not the point here. Besides, on this occasionâŚ
Aw forget it. I keep trying to diffuse this and it fails every time.
Richard
Yes I know you accept micro-evolution. But this current idea of yours appears to use micro-evolution to create a new IC system that micro-evolution is incapable of creating. Or have I read you wrong?
You asked for discussion. That would include pointing out the problems with your ideas. Unless of course you are only interested in talking with people that agree with you.
3 Likes
Physician, heal thyself.
3 Likes
There are multiple ways an irreducible biological system can evolve. The most obvious one is from a reducible system with the same function, which then lost or modified parts until it was irreducible. Given the looseness in defining what counts as a part of the system and what the function is, identifying particular systems as IC is usually problematic, but their existence is not a challenge to evolution.
Regarding your proposal, I find it too vague to assess very well, and Iâm not sure when youâre using terms metaphorically. Speaking generally, however, complex, functional systems are highly unlikely to evolve unless their function is of use to the organism â theyâre just too improbable. (On the other hand, it is possible for a genuine parasite to evolve to become part of its host. Itâs not common but it has happened on at least several occasions.)
1 Like