inverted retina

Of course it is. All experimentally-veridies science, and all electronic designs, begin as unproved speculation, often as lots of wild and mostly wrong speculation. It's a process of generating lots of ideas, exploring the possibility space, and then sifting out any that are real.

And unless you feel that this is an inevitable

It is rational, and there are several ways it might be operating now. I think it's overwhelmingly likely that evolution is quasi-intelligent, not just random mutation and incremental selection. The best argument for some sort of meta-evolution is that there are pressures for such a thing to evolve. Just believe in evolution, and consider the possibilities.

If you refuse to consider ideas, you define yourself.

saying that all science was once science fiction. That implies that you feel being classified as "science fiction" is a step towards being classified as "science".

designs, begin as unproved speculation, often as lots of wild and mostly wr ong speculation. It's a process of generating lots of ideas, exploring the possibility space, and then sifting out any that are real.

None of which has anything to do with science fiction, which is a very diff erent kind of speculation, with distinctly different rules about what plaus ible or useful.

course, then your statement was pointless.

inevitably leads to "science", because I know you are a smart guy despite a few odd ideas about evolution, I assume your claim was a misstatement that sounded good when you wrote it, but doesn't actually mean what you thought. If this had been a verbal conversation, rather than written, it would have been overlooked long ago.

enjoyed many of your posts in this group. I am not arguing against /you/, I am arguing against your particular idea about evolution being guided. In particular, I am arguing that it is not scientific or rational - if it were a religious belief (not necessarily involving any sort of god), then I would accept that. But in science, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence - and that is what I am challenging you for.)

hink it's overwhelmingly likely that evolution is quasi-intelligent, not ju st random mutation and incremental selection.

That's absolutely nothing rational behind it. The only way that John Larkin can think that evolution is "quasi-intelligent" is by being ignorant of th e numerous examples where it isn't, which have been dredged up to put the " creation science" nutters back where they belong.

ures for such a thing to evolve. Just believe in evolution, and consider th e possibilities.

Do that, and stop trying to imagine computers built with DNA. They aren't n ecessary, and DNA isn't what biological systems would use for computation ( as opposed to storing the results of computation if there was any going on, as opposed to huge - and very dumb - field trials).

ers) merely imagine.

If he's refusing to consider very silly ideas without a shred of supporting evidence, he's defined himself as a tolerably rational non-sucker.

You should try to do as well. You clearly read some "intelligent design" pr opaganda, failed to recognise it as propaganda, and internalised it as an " interesting idea" rather than bogus rubbish.

First, "speculative ideas" are not remotely the same thing as "science fiction", though there might be a small overlap. Secondly, most scientific ideas and progress does /not/ come through unproven speculation or wild ideas. And thirdly, that certainly does not apply to electronic designs.

Most progress is made by small steps building on existing knowledge and systems, with occasional leaps into the unknown. Invention is 1% inspiration, 99% perspiration. This applies to the natural (and unnatural) evolution of species, inventions, design, and science.

Clearly the 1% of jumps is vital for dramatic changes in systems, but it is a minor part of the overall process.

There is no such pressure - natural evolution has been doing fine without being able to predict the future (which is what a "quasi-intelligent" process would need). On the other hand, anyone who has ever done any soldering knows there is great pressure to evolve a third hand - yet that has not happened.

You could argue that once a "quasi-intelligent" species evolved which was capable of guiding evolution (such as by animal and plant breeding) for specific targets, that we /do/ have "quasi-intelligent evolution". But such human-guided evolution is not normally viewed as natural evolution, and I don't think it is the idea you are thinking of. And it is certainly not inevitable or necessary as part of "normal" evolution, and is not something that comes from DNA or the genetic basis of life.

I /do/ consider ideas - and I have considered your idea. I simply reject it as unnecessary, unscientific, lacking in evidence, and - since it requires DNA to consider the future - highly unlikely. Come back with /evidence/, and I will happily re-consider the idea.

Like tweaking phlogiston theory. Or refining the math of earth-centric orbits.

with occasional leaps into the unknown. Invention is 1%

And 100% cliche' ?

As I said, most progress is made by small steps with occasional leaps into the unknown. Did you have difficulty parsing that?

To fill you in, the step from phlogiston to oxidation was a leap, inspired by gradual progress in more and more accurate measurements of more and more burning experiments. And to the maths of earth-centric orbits has been a gradual refinement based on gradually more accurate measurements, gradually more sophisticated mathematics, gradually more accurate theories about gravity and celestial mechanics - punctuated by occasional leaps such moving the centre of frame from the earth to the sun.

But I am already convinced that this is how science works - you don't need to provide examples demonstrating my point. Of course, if /you/ have a countering point here, and can make a solid case for it, then go ahead. I am not sure how long I can be bothered refuting you case for case - especially when I know you could do it yourself if you bothered to think about what I wrote and what you wrote.

didn't think it necessary to add the attribution to Edison - who was a rather successful developer and businessman, and understood the nature of invention.)

God did it. We might be a science project of some long-gone non-carbon life form. The idea is NOT improbable. When we start to seriously understand DN A, there may be some surprises in there.

ious> belief as any other creator myth.

ce was once science fiction", "all science fiction will eventually become s cience".

was pointless.

by saying that all science was once science fiction. That implies that yo u feel being classified as "science fiction" is a step towards being classi fied as "science".

ic designs, begin as unproved speculation, often as lots of wild and mostly wrong speculation. It's a process of generating lots of ideas, exploring t he possibility space, and then sifting out any that are real.

iction", though there might be a small overlap. Secondly, most scientific ideas and progress does /not/ come through unproven speculation or wild ide as. And thirdly, that certainly does not apply to electronic designs.

systems,

Phlogiston theory was never well enough developed to be tweaked. Once peopl e started weighing metal before burning and the metal oxide remaining after it had been allowed to oxidise, the penny dropped very quickly.

The refinement of orbital math was driven by Tycho Brahe's very precise ast ronomical observations. Kepler had to make the orbits elliptical - which m eans "not exactly sun-centered" to get them to fit Brahe's observations. Ep icycles didn't work.

Brahe wanted all the other planets to be seen as orbiting the sun, with the sun orbiting the earth, which is logically exactly equivalent to Copernicu s, but less likely to get you into trouble with the Vatican.

It took Newton's maths (and Hooke and Wren's inverse square gravity) to mak e a case for having all the planets circling the - much heavier - sun. With out Brahe and Kepler, Newton wouldn't have had the data to test his hypothe sis.

Edison's comment may now be a cliche', but it captures a real point. I pref er "in the fields of observation chance favors only the prepared mind" but it probably wouldn't mean anything to you, since you don't seem to apprecia te that a mind can be prepared for inspiration by study. What Pasteur actua lly said was "Dans les champs de l'observation le hasard ne favorise que le

Being not an expert of humar retina it came to my mind why we are switching to 'back illuminated' photosensors and I found an interesting paragraph on Wikipedia

A traditional, front-illuminated digital camera is constructed in a fashion similar to the human eye, with a lens at the front, wiring in the middle, and photodetectors at the back. This traditional orientation of the sensor places the active matrix of the digital camera image sensor -- a matrix of individual picture elements -- on its front surface and *simplifies manufacturing*. The matrix and its wiring, however, reflect some of the light, and thus the photocathode layer can only receive the remainder of the incoming light; the reflection reduces the signal that is available to be captured

So it seems nature has preferred a simpler 'manufacturing' process at the cost of a less efficient system. I ought to say that thanks to drugs and medical treatments we are stretching human lifetime potentially beyond what it was /intended/ to be ;-)

This is just a speculation and by no means I'll pretend it to have any solid grounds!

Al

Hi all, alb wrote: [...]

my apologies, I missed the entire thread and thought it was a new post! (ouch)

Al