failure

Let's see. According to his website, he is opposed to the Patriot act, supports credit unions, supports low-priced pharmaceuticals (imports from Canada if necessary), is opposed to the war in Iraq, is opposed to runaway ATM fees.

I can see why his opponents call him a Communist.

The only question I have is, why are you one of his opponents? Which of his policies do you disagree with?

Arrow heads as in 'Twang!' or arrow heads as in 'snake'?

I read in sci.electronics.design that John Larkin wrote (in ) about 'failure', on Thu,

Please enlarge on that. In what way transcend? You seem to be saying that DNA can be purposive and creative - intentionally creating new genes that did not exist before. Effectively, you've given DNA god-like powers!

Twang.

-- Keith

scales,

You, perhaps. But not John.

No, Sanders is a sieze-all-corporations, kill-all-capitalists, communist.

Given what Italy has achieved with Berlusconi and stability, perhaps fragile coalitions are just as well.

Paolo Burcchi

I have to absolutely disagree with that. All that's needed is a mechanism. The mechanism could have evolved a lot easier than, say, the structure of your ear.

My computer doesn't have to be intelligent to run Spice. And if you argue that Spice is a product of human intelligence, I counter that human intelligence is a product of, indeed a side effect of, the complexity of DNA.

I have no doubt that DNA uses parallel processing. The question, in this narrow case, is whether DNA continuously synthesizes antitoxins at random (some fraction of which would kill its host cell on the spot) or whether there are triggerable, adaptive mechanisms to manage the process when it's needed.

So, why not? Because you don't like the idea? Because it's impossible?

There is a dire need: competition to survive.

For Pete's sake, hold your hand in front of your face and wiggle your fingers. DNA did that.

John

And defects, and cancer.

So, it would seem to be advantageous to slow down evolution when things are stable, but be able to crank up the rate radically in times of threat. Does that sound reasonable? Does that sound impossible?

John

If I were the standard C library, I'd re-write my string handling functions to avoid the possibility of buffer overflows!

Normally, I don't like to ridicule other posters even if I disagree with them, but sometimes you really do say the daftest things.

mvh.,

David

It is Darwinian selection. It's just that humans form part of their selective environment.

And we've developed it so recently that we don't know what it will do- especiallty the unintended side effects. Nature can be very perverse at times.

Paul Burke

I have several points here. First off, fast evolution is not necessarily a good thing - it can lead to over-specialisation, in which a species is ideally suited for its current environment, but is not general enough to deal with changes as an individual. This has lead to the demise of many species, even with seemingly minor environmental changes.

Secondly, RNA/DNA is a very complex and subtle system. It took a long time before it developed in the early days of Earth's history, and was the rest of a lot of lucky combinations (with a big enough chemistry set, and a long enough time, even events with very low probabilities can turn up eventually). It is reasonable to suppose that some hypothetical new improved method of transmitting inherited genetic material is likely to be more complex. By the time DNA-based bacteria had spread throughout the world, the chances of other mechanisms having the time and space to developer dropped dramatically (it may well be that there were other mechanisms at one time - but DNA-based bacteria came along and ate them before they really got going). Small changes in the DNA mechanism have occurred, and will continue to occur, but don't expect anything dramatic.

As an analogy, you have used the Game of Life regularly. While the analogy is not that great (you can design self-replicating "lifeforms" in the Game of Life, but the emphasis is on the "you" - they don't evolve by themselves), your ideas about DNA changing itself are analogous to a Game of Life "organism" changing the rules of the Game of Life - a sort of "meta evolution". That doesn't mean it is absolutely impossible, just incredibly unlikely.

Actually, if you want to think about it in a particular way, there is a way for DNA to "evolve complex meta-mechanisms that transcend simple Darwinian evolution", which has already occurred. Humans evolved by natural selection to the point where we could play with species and introduce "unnatural selection". Even before genetic engineering, selective breeding has widely changed the species of animals and plants used by humans, far faster than "natural" evolution would have done. With genetic engineering, we are learning such god-like powers. It's pretty indirect evolution, but normal Darwinian evolution is sometimes indirect too (like the evolution of the "granny").

So, do you have any evidence of this, or are you just parroting the party line?

Thanks, Rich

I read in sci.electronics.design that Richard the Dreaded Libertarian wrote (in ) about 'failure', on Fri,

s/manager/architect/all

First time I've heard that the Brits have a Bill of Rights. ;-)

Cheers! Rich

I read in sci.electronics.design that Richard the Dreaded Libertarian wrote (in ) about 'failure', on Fri,

I assumed you were cross-examining under US law. But we do have a right not to self-incriminate in Britain. A question from a lawyer that invites a person to incriminate themselves is inadmissible as a question, and will be struck down by the judge, so we don't need the person to plead for protection.

I read in sci.electronics.design that Paul Burke wrote (in ) about 'failure', on Fri, 30 Sep

Nah, my invisible kangaroo friend is always on my right. (;-)

I read in sci.electronics.design that David Brown wrote (in ) about 'failure', on Fri, 30 Sep 2005:

You appear to be saying that DNA caused humans to evolve so as to do selective breeding.

Grannies evolved?