Category: Science, Physics, and Philosophy of Science

  • SORRY ALL BUT, NO. RATE OF MUTATION TELLS US LITTLE OTHER THAN TIME. (a) mutatio

    SORRY ALL BUT, NO. RATE OF MUTATION TELLS US LITTLE OTHER THAN TIME.

    (a) mutation rate != yardage (or any other linear measure)

    (b) some mutations (cortical scale) are profoundly differentiating – just one gene. (20% of neurons in the cortex are regulatory That number increases by region. The same is true for genes. It certainly appears that the vast majority are either dead (not expressed) or regulatory. We don’t know what percent are expressed. So all mutation rate tells us is time difference it does not tell us difference in genetic expression.

    (c) some are profoundly consequential (delay in maturity : neoteny – just hormonal development is largely what varies between human races)

    (d) Genes do not produce linear effects (machine parts) but are causally dense (program code) with anything from zero consequence (noise, or regulatory), some of tiny consequence (rates of expression), and some profound.

    (e) One Single Additional Protein (molecular machine) may cause billions of consequences.

    So;

    (f) Of our evolutionary history, regardless of the RATE of migration, it could be only .001% of those mutations that cause 99.999% of competitive evolutionary variations.

    (g) we make a big deal out of 3% difference from chimpanzees but we have no idea the scale of difference provided by each of those variations. intelligence appears to be affected by hundreds if not thousands (a concert problem). Neoteny appears not to be (a small number of hormonal channels). Yet together the effect of these two sets is profound with just small changes.

    (h) As far as I know almost all evolutionary change is driven by:

    – demand for success in the local environment (ie: black resistance to malaria).

    – failure in the local environment (loss of height in southeast islands, loss of fire making, tool making, by austronesians.)

    – utility (white consumption of milk adding 40% more calories to the diet)

    – social animal sortition (variations in demand for competitive traits)

    – age of the carriers (rate of mutation or degradation)

    – errors in replication (genes – which happen all the time – cancer etc )

    – conflicts in integration (male and female genes)

    – random mutations.

    – combinations of all of the above.

    On statistics:

    There isn’t much evidence that we are capable of using statistics on any causally dense phenomenon with any greater precision than a single regression. Period.

    YOU CAN’T AVERAGE AN AVERAGE, and STATISTICS MUST BE OPERATIONALLY EXPLICABLE OR THEY’RE MEANINGLESS. (correlation is not causation, and operations produce correlations)

    You have to explain both to make a truth claim.


    Source date (UTC): 2019-08-25 12:33:00 UTC

  • On Intelligent Design: I Support Truthful Speech

    On Intelligent Design: I Support Truthful Speech https://ift.tt/30Hk5z6


    Source date (UTC): 2019-08-24 15:18:41 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1165282284246839297

  • On Intelligent Design: I Support Truthful Speech

    —“Are you saying you support darwanism over Christianity or intelligent design?”—Mark E. Haney

    1 – I cannot falsify evolution, and every single evidence from the fundamental structure of the universe to the imagination of man is a product of a very small number of possibilities in very great permutation, just as limited numbers of sounds, characters, and numbers can be arranged in infinitely complex permutations. 2 – The five rules of christianity are,logically, rationally(incentives), scientifically(empirically) the optimum prisoner’s dilemma (trust building) strategy, and I cannot falsify either or their relation. There is a reason christians are wealthier than competing cults. 3 – Information can only be stored in some memory or other, information stored must be abstracted (generalized) in order to consume less calories and volume that the original matter and its changes in state over time. I cannot falsify that statement – it’s a physical and logical impossibility. As to what I ‘Support’: I support truthful speech. Truthful speech can only consist of what I can testify to. I can only testify to that which is: … – categorically consistent … – logically consistent … – empirically(observably) consistent … – operationally consistent … – rationally consistent … – reciprocally consistent where it is: … – parsimonious … – scope consistent … – and fully accounted … – within stated limits and where … – due diligence has been demonstrated, and where … – one’s statements are warrantied by restitution if one errs. I cannot testify to anything other than. 1. Realism, 2. Naturalism, 3. Operationalism Christianity survives under natural law as does all literature under natural law, in that the parables advocate natural law, despite being stated in language and grammar of myth, instead of the language and grammar of Testimony (law). Deliver faith and obedience to any gods compatible with natural law. Deliver Truth, Duty, and Reciprocity to mankind because Truth, Duty, and Reciprocity ARE the natural law.

    —“The point is, you don’t have to believe in anything supernatural to understand why natural law works. In fact, it hinders you. But as long as we both believe in the natural law, regardless of where it comes from, we can still be allies. I have to have faith in that law to deliver but that’s all. You believe whatever you want but in reality, evolution is the most intelligent design possible.”—Martin Štěpán

  • That’s nonsense. Every single advance we make in genetics only supports darwin’s

    That’s nonsense. Every single advance we make in genetics only supports darwin’s initial observations. Last year nature vs nurture fell. Right now we are ending indifference between genders and races. The postmodern attempt to create a pseudoscientific cult is coming to an end.


    Source date (UTC): 2019-08-24 03:40:06 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1165106483136290817

    Reply addressees: @RufusTFireflyJr @clairlemon

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1165031742547419142


    IN REPLY TO:

    @RufusTFireflyJr

    @clairlemon Surprising to hear you say that, Claire. Perhaps spending too much time on twitter has made you beholden to your own orthodoxies. Gelerneter is a skeptic, and Darwinism has, uh, evolved from being a theory to being a an academic cult with tribes, rites and heresies.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1165031742547419142

  • There is a moronic bit of innumeracy going around ‘intelligent design’ circles r

    There is a moronic bit of innumeracy going around ‘intelligent design’ circles right now and he’s bit apparently taken the bait. The answer to their query is: evolutionary progress includes loss of intermediary information: it’s hard to reverse engineer cellular evolution.


    Source date (UTC): 2019-08-24 03:23:21 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1165102264937324544

    Reply addressees: @clairlemon

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1165101703483539456


    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    @clairlemon I write about this subject quite a bit because there are two origins to pervasive sophism in western civilization, regardless of field: mathematical idealism, and scriptural interpretation. Both of which stem from the same error.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1165101703483539456


    IN REPLY TO:

    @curtdoolittle

    @clairlemon I write about this subject quite a bit because there are two origins to pervasive sophism in western civilization, regardless of field: mathematical idealism, and scriptural interpretation. Both of which stem from the same error.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1165101703483539456

  • EVOLUTION VS INTELLIGENT DESIGN (core) —“Are you saying you support Darwanism

    EVOLUTION VS INTELLIGENT DESIGN

    (core)

    —“Are you saying you support Darwanism over Christianity or intelligent design?”—Mark E. Haney

    1 – I cannot falsify evolution and every single evidence from the fundamental structure of the universe to the imagination of man is a product of a very small number of possibilities in very great permutation, just as limited numbers of sounds, characters, and numbers can be arranged in infinitely complex permutations.

    2 – The five rules of christianity are,logically, rationally(incentives), scientifically(empirically) the optimum prisoner’s dilemma (trust building) strategy, and I cannot falsify either or their relation. There is a reason christians are wealthier than competing cults.

    3 – Information can only be stored in some memory or other, information stored must be abstracted (generalized) in order to consume less calories and volume that the original matter and its changes in state over time. I cannot falsify that statement – it’s a physical and logical impossibility.

    As to what I ‘Support’:

    I support truthful speech.

    Truthful speech can only consist of what I can testify to.

    I can only testify to that which is:

    – categorically consistent

    – Logically consistent

    – empirically(observably) consistent

    – operationally consistent

    – rationally consistent

    – reciprocally consistent

    where

    – parsimonious

    – scope consistent

    – and fully accounted

    – within stated limits

    and where

    – due diligence has been demonstrated,

    and where

    – one’s statements are warrantied by restitution if one errs.

    I cannot testify to anything other than.

    1. Realism,

    2. Naturalism,

    3. Operationalism

    Nor can anyone else.


    Source date (UTC): 2019-08-24 02:47:00 UTC

  • RT @Outsideness: … “… sometimes the body communicates with itself by message

    RT @Outsideness: … “… sometimes the body communicates with itself by messages written with radioactive ink on asbestos-laced paper, in…


    Source date (UTC): 2019-08-20 15:18:39 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1163832725318623233

  • I think you are confusing yourselves. (a) epigenetic effects are minimal, and li

    I think you are confusing yourselves.

    (a) epigenetic effects are minimal, and limited to expression of proteins, by the alteration of tags, but these tags are removed prior to dna division… https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=450262895570606&id=100017606988153


    Source date (UTC): 2019-08-17 21:28:11 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1162838557498728451

  • Equality is pseudoscience. I do science. 1. Pseudoscience: Marx, Boaz, Freud, Ad

    Equality is pseudoscience. I do science.
    1. Pseudoscience: Marx, Boaz, Freud, Adorno
    2. Sophism: Derrida, Postmodernism, Neoliberalism
    3. Denialism: Feminism, Political Correctness.
    4. Abrahamism: False promise, Bait into Hazard, Pilpul, Critique, Heaping undue Praise, “GSRRM”


    Source date (UTC): 2019-08-17 19:42:12 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1162811888415248384

    Reply addressees: @WellsCarina @_grendan

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1162810178141601798


    IN REPLY TO:

    Original post on X

    Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1162810178141601798

  • I think you are confusing yourselves. (a) epigenetic effects are minimal, and li

    I think you are confusing yourselves.

    (a) epigenetic effects are minimal, and limited to expression of proteins, by the alteration of tags, but these tags are removed prior to dna division between sperm and egg. There are some patterns of intergenerational transfer of defects given poor ancestral nutrition, but we have no idea if such tags are the cause (that I know of).

    (b) to make the claim ‘genetic’, where genes produce proteins, which as a consequence provide resources to cells, serves only as a demarcation between genetic information, in utero development, early childhood development (prior to age two) and subsequent LEARNING (training).

    (c) for example, vulnerability to homosexuality (a developmental disorder) is genetic; it’s expression is dependent upon in utero conditions; and if not immediately expressed, it can be triggered by developmental trauma.

    in other words, in the nature, developmental, nurture debate, genetic means deterministic result of the random sortition of mother and father gene formation, and subsequent gene expression – and therefore ‘not something we can do much about’.

    Disambiguation in everything.


    Source date (UTC): 2019-08-17 17:28:00 UTC