failure

It is certainly possible - but not necessarily plausible, and, as you say, not "needed" to give a solid rational explanation of evolution. It is probably fair to say dramatic mutations are a thing of the past - "gale-in-a-scrapyard" stuff is part of most scientific theories of the origin of life (if the scrapyard is the size of the earth, the gale blows for hundreds of millions of years, and there is no other competition for resources, then you're going to get something interesting eventually).

One "independent" in each the House and Senate. Both my congress critters, unfortunately (Senate: Jeffords, House: Sanders).

and have fertile offspring (donkey*horse=mule), though the big cats seem to stretch this definition too (lion*tiger=liger is often fertile).

See: salmon.

Heaven forbid they find a couple of arrow heads.

That's another comic-book version of evolution. Evolution by variation is ongoing every day, even when things are pleasant.

Like most successful poiticians, he is on the right side fo the local issues.

On Thu, 29 Sep 2005 18:15:05 GMT, Jonathan Kirwan wrote: \\

The same way it "knows" about eating and flying: by natural selection. There's nothing abstract about extinction. All the DNA of extinct species is observably gone.

Clearly warfare exists between pathogens and their lunch, and the offense and defense are complex and interactive. As I said, DNA need not be conscious to adapt to situations. Isn't that Darwin's exact point, that all you need to create complex systems is variance and selection?

It's enough that it's possible and useful. DNA will find a way.

I have no objection to evolutionary theory, I just seem to have more respect for what it can do than some other people. If I can build fiendishly clever mechanisms with a few flipflops, and Conway's game can build self-replicating structures with simple rules, why wouldn't DNA evolve complex meta-mechanisms that transcend simple Darwinian evolution, given, say, 1e18 experiments per second over a billion years?

Damn, is all your thinking this sterile? Creepy.

The first step to discovering something is admitting it's possible.

What's interesting in this discourse is not biology (hardly my first concern) but how few people are interested in playing with an idea, and how many are eager to trash it, or demand peer-reviewed verification before they even consider it. I guess that's why I take away so much business from other companies.

Translation: you can't brainstorm in a newsgroup.

John

Incompetent, both. The third (Leahy) is at least sane, even if I dislike his politics (to put it mildly).

Sanders is left of the lunatic left fringe. He ran on the socialist party ticket when he was mayor of Burlington. He is on the left edge of all scales, even ones you can't imagine.

There is talk of Jeffords having Alzheimer's (he appeared in the House chamber and had to be told he was in the wrong place). He rarely speaks in public and when he does he's usually incoherent. Jeffords is not running for another term and will be out next year (likely replaced by Sanders). Jeffords was a Republican (in name only) and switched to "independent" right after his last reelection, changing control of the Senate. He's since voted entirely as a 'D'. It's hard to place him on the L/R-U/D scale, because he makes no sense. ...though he now votes with the far left.

How common are free votes on social issues in the UK?

Best regards, Spehro Pefhany

I read in sci.electronics.design that David Brown wrote (in ) about 'failure', on Thu, 29 Sep 2005:

Not at all; that's just pre-judgement. Consider, for example, an undersea vent, one of the sites where evolution seems to be going really quickly. If the acidity of the emitted fluid changes, as it can quite quickly, the more acidophilic or acidophobic organisms die out in days, and others of the same species take over.

I read in sci.electronics.design that Paul Burke wrote (in ) about 'failure', on Thu, 29 Sep

Isn't that really what I said?

Wikipedia has an entry on this. It's actually not so straightforward. ;-)

Anyone who has ever tried to devise a categorization system for electronic components or suppliers can probably sympathize.

Best regards, Spehro Pefhany

They're like the Boy Scouts: prepared.

It's all magic to everybody. Who understands how DNA works to assemble a kidney?

You've got to have them before you can winnow through them. This is a "design" group, not an "analyze" or "copy reference designs" group.

Of course.

If you're not interested in somebody's ideas, that's your choice. I would not pursue this, or similar threads, except that single-line, sometimes whimsical suggestions get denounced with such enthusiasm. I find that interesting enough to stir the pot and see what happens.

No, I opened an idea *for discussion*. I only suggested that certain algorithms were possible and, in my opinion, consequently likely.

It's the automatic reaction to reject ideas as unproven, rather to consider and maybe embellish tham, that amuses me. I meet a lot of engineers like that. They tend to attack the *source* of new ideas as threats somehow.

I think there's evidence that some organisms increase their mutation rate when stressed. That's one simple meta-evolutionary mechanism. I suspect there are a lot more. My concept is simple: evolution can itself be optimized.

If you don't want to play, don't. How much you are unconvinced matters zip to me, except as it reflects a certain mentality.

John

Be prepared That's the Boy Scout Marching Song Be prepared If you should meet a Girl Scout who is suitably inclined Be prepared

;-)

...Jim Thompson

-- | James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens | | Analog Innovations, Inc. | et | | Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus | | Phoenix, Arizona Voice:(480)460-2350 | | | E-mail Address at Website Fax:(480)460-2142 | Brass Rat | |

Where MPs are not necessarily expected to vote the party line.

Best regards, Spehro Pefhany

I don't find this a convincing way of saying so, John. A simple statement doesn't cut it.

While I do agree that bacteria will very well already have a number of variations upon which introducing an antibiotic, for example, can operate and act as a system of rigorous selection on bacteria. I didn't disagree with John Larkin on that point, at all.

I just felt it was important to point out that bacteria have means of adaptation that go beyond the usual model for higher animals, as I understand it. They can directly exchange fragments of DNA (and RNA, I suppose.)

Many bacteria have additional small pieces of self-replicating DNA called plasmids, which contain just a few genes and can move freely around. As I gather it, some plasmids can be incorporated or integrated into the DNA molecule of the bacterium while other plasmids remain in the bacterial cytoplasm. Plasmids that incorporate into the bacterial DNA molecule will be replicated along with the DNA molecule. Integrated plasmids can also be excised to become free in the cytoplasm of the cell or re-integrate into new positions. I think these are called transposons. Also, a plasmid that has incorporated into the bacterial genome may include a portion of the bacterium's DNA when it is excised, and can carry that DNA when it moves into a new bacterium. It's possible for the DNA it brings with it to undergo recombination with the new cell's DNA if it incorporates into the new cell's genome.

My central point is that such recombination is a means for obtaining genetic variation that higher animals generally don't possess. Which is why I brought it up.

However, as I understand the mechanisms, it's not _always_ the case that such acquired plasmids are passed on in duplication. Sometimes, they weren't inserted in such a way as to become part of the machinery involved in replication.

Or perhaps I misunderstand your question and haven't either answered you well or understood what I've read before and mangled my earlier statement.

First, I want to be clear that I don't imagine that plasmids are only related to antibiotic immunities. We've both mentioned it, but that isn't the definition of plasmid, as I understand it.

It's true that I don't think all plasmids exchange only involves transposons. I could be wrong about that, but my earlier reading clearly pointed out to me what I'm saying here. However, feel free to call me on this point and I'll research it, again.

But even if I'm wrong about that part of my recollection, the central point remains -- which is that bacteria can adapt at very fast rates due to recombination (or, as I also believe, plasmid exchange alone.) And this is a means for obtaining genetic variation, beyond the usual random mutation means, that higher animals generally don't possess.

Jon

On Thu, 29 Sep 2005 08:19:29 -0700, John Larkin wrote in Msg.

What's wrong with the idea of minority opinions proportionally represented in parliament?

robert

On Thu, 29 Sep 2005 08:27:36 -0700, John Larkin wrote in Msg.

Given your generally poor grasp of non-technical issues I tend to think that she can't define "species" on a level that is intellectually appropriate for you.

Right.

robert

Thee is a lot of that. The state has a large percentage of out-of-state (AKA flat-landers) types, in the mold of Kennedy/Kerry/Striesand with million-dollar (plus) summer homes. Some areas have a large percentage on welfare. Many believe they're owed a living for managing to breathe. Sanders appeals to both groups.

Jeffords and Leahy are mostly just good at carrying hogs back from Washington.

Nah, Jeffords is to stupid to be manipulated. Sanders isn't much smarter. He has done quite well for his family though.

This "a species is optimized for its environment," as I read it anyway, is actually of a kind with the old-style utilitarian arguments that were systematized by Paley and were then used to _prove_ the existence of god (the famous 'watchmaker' argument) back in 1802 -- in a work called "Natural Theology." And Paley made an intelligent case.

He was entirely wrong, of course. And Darwin specifically dealt with it in 'Origin.' You can read a summary here:

I think John Larkin should, in fact, read William Paley's work and then read the Bridgewater Treatises (called that because the Earl of Bridgewater commissioned them, at his death.) Both of these will inform John of the details of their arguments, which I am thinking he may largely agree with. He will think more clearly about his own views, I think. But then he should try and read Darwin's Origin of Species, which will do a targeted and good job of tearing down these arguments from fact and much better theory.

Paley's utilitarian arguments fail because they cannot even begin to account for and predict what patterns would be found. And, being wedded to the idea of providential design, they are embarrassed by evidence of clearly imperfect planning. In contrast, nature's large scale similarities are explained by Darwin through descent, while nature's vagaries are explained by adaptive modifications developed through random mutation and natural selection. Darwin's theory does not apply ad hoc tinkering to explain evidence as utilitarian views do. And, unlike Paley, Darwin was able to propose a theory which presaged the discovery of fusion (really, it did do that through a serious conflict proposed by Lord Kelvin), DNA, etc. It was a powerful idea that only become more thoroughly cross-supported over time.

Jon