Title Author Date

Comment TalkReason , Apr 12, 2005

In his letters to Talk Reason and to The Panda's Thumb, David Berlinski seems to sometimes refer to these two sites as if they are maintained by the same team. For the record, while we reproduce on Talk Reason selected posts from The Panda's Thumb and some of our contributors also contribute essays to The Panda's Thumb, these two sites are maintained by two independent teams and there is no coordination between them regarding the material submitted for posting to these sites.

Talk Reason administration

write a reply Related Article(s):
A Response to Berlinski

Title Author Date

Meyer's Helpless Monster Novikov, Dmitri Apr 10, 2005

Dear Alan Gishlick, Nick Matzke, and Wesley R. Elsberry:

Sir Fred Hoyle did not like Darwinism for the simple reason that it is a stupid misconception. See his "Mathematics of Evolution" He writes: "So it came about from 1860 onward that new believers became in a sense mentally ill, or, more precisely, either you became mentally ill or you quitted the subject of biology..." What the evolution theory proposes is natural selection on random variation resulting genetic change and thus new genes. The trivial simplicity of the following one gene model is the reason it penetrates minds starting from high school and does not go away easily. If “A” gene variety has a higher survival probability than variety “a” of the same gene, and no other variation exists, in a countable number of generations variety “A” will replace variety “a”. This is what most of population genetics is about. Where is the flaw? An organism does not have one gene only. And a gene is not just a few nucleotides long it is much longer. What if the individuals with the good gene “A” carry a bad gene “b” with the bad effect overweighing the good of “A”? What about the natural situation that the number of bad mutations significantly exceeds the number of good ones? The species dies very soon, life is impossible, or the theory must die. One may argue: natural selection can eliminate all bad ones, even when they are many, and keep the few good ones. Well, it cannot. You can either check the behavior of the function, or you can intuitively conclude the following. Suppose the genome size is 3 billion base pairs (close to ours), the non-neutral mutation rate is one per a hundred million base pairs, resulting 30 mutations per individual per generation. Most mutations are naturally neutral and do not affect survival. However, for those that are not neutral, we can hardly suggest a rate of more than 1:100 of good ones to bad ones (how many times do we have to drop a Swiss watch on a concrete floor for the watch to go a bit more accurately? – and a bacterium is far more complex than the whole watch factory). For the selection to work to the advantage of the species there should be some individuals with at least 16 good to 14 bad mutations. The selection will not find this or better one. Even if it did, it would have to wipe the rest of the population in every generation. But it will not find it in a billion years anyway. Some biologists would argue: the mutation rate is lower; it is like one per the whole genome per generation. Well, what genetic change would you get with such a low rate? A new gene in a hundred of billions of years? – Not even that soon. And natural selection would still have to kill 99 out of 100. Darwin did not know about genes. Muller found the contradiction and termed it genetic load. Neo-Darwinians hid it or try to ignore.

People should calculate before they say something, if they care of course.

Sincerely,

Dmitri

read replies (2)
write a reply Related Article(s):
Meyer's Hopeless Monster

Title Author Date

Bioepistemic evolution Hewitt , John Apr 08, 2005

I am writing to you as somebody who may be interested in my work on evolutionary theory, which is described on my web site, http://www.sexandphilosophy.co.uk.

My approach is called "bioepistemic evolution" and is a generalized form of evolutionary theory as normally described. It is derived from evolutionary epistemology, rather than biology, and takes data as its fundamental concept, rather than genes. On this basis, genes may be taken to format the data on DNA.

My site describes the application of bioepistemic evolution to various aspects of human evolution. Notably, it shows how bioepistemic evolution can be used to produce theories for the nature and origins of humor and for the structure of human sexuality – including our unusual heterosexuality and also the various paraphilias, such as homosexuality and sadomasochism.

I would be interested in knowing your views on these ideas.

Sincerely

John Hewitt

write a reply

Title Author Date

Arguments against creationism, intelligent, etc Coffer, Irv Mar 21, 2005

I read Naftoli's letter to his rabbi. I saw very challenging comments.
However, there are two kinds of Jews: the believer, to whom no proofs
are necessary, and the non-believer, for whom no proofs or
explanations will help.

I would like to know if you are an orthodox organization or not. I am
a strong believer and I believe that there is no Torah foundation or
basic principle that is deniable. In truth, one who denies, for
instance, that the Torah was divinely inspired and will never change
is simply an apicoris (? spelling). Either you accept it all or
nothing.

I see no wrong in Naftoli's asking questions. To seek the truth and
answers to our questions is healthy and perfectly acceptable. (How
else can one learn and strengthen his/her belief in G-d and His holy
Torah?) On the other hand I can not fathom how you can encourage
arguments that undermine religious belief and would therefore
appreciate your reply and clarification of a blatant call for
dissention as opposed to reconciliation, harmony, and fortified belief
in G-d, blessed be His Name.

Thank you.

read replies (2)
write a reply Related Article(s):
Letter to My Rabbi

Title Author Date

lies and other misleading things Picard, Paul Mar 21, 2005

With what you are writing about I can understand how Marx came up with his ideas about life and his attitude about people and what we are fighting right now, any means justifies the ends. (No God, No Rules) then how do they work with what is if there was nothing there to make it in the first place unless they feel that they made it and what holds everything in place while they are doing it.
The Ego is a colosis that gets lost in it's own confusion or at least that is the way I see it.
I have learned a lot of things sense the communist have made a direct assault against us through idiolgy in the last few years and through our children in school.
We have a big fight on our hands right now and we must win, There is no middle ground.

write a reply

Previous | | Next