Breakthrough!- 'The 'Pandora Gene'

Maybe he's prayin' on it Set .

In the name of the Daddy-O, Laddy-O an' a Holy Spook . . .

Why do you even bother asking people like this to try to explain their ideas in a presentable way, when it is obvious that there is no real merit to be explained in the the first place. You could wait indefinitely for them to produce the non-existent evidence.

Interestingly, the author is on site, he posted in another silly thread of his less than thirty minutes ago, and yet he has not shown up here with the evidence . . . hmmmm . . .

Re: Breakthrough!- 'The 'Pandora Gene'
My friend gave me the info in an email. Here is the rest of that email, summarised:

Research showed that the genes that creatures possess are not their own but belong to the ecological community. The genes belong to no one physical entitity. Dawkins himself claims that genes belong to a spirit or non-material gene pattern so there should not be any trouble in accepting this new idea. However, Dawkins also claimed that this spirit resided in the material form that carried the genes. This was his mistake the researchers mooted.

Whose research "shows" this? Has this been published? Do you have the names of those doing the research, the names of the university or institute with which the researchers are affiliated?

ID crap from start to finish, i have no doubt.

Or it could be that he and his mate had a couple three bottles of very fine bourbon which resulted in a extra super duper fine discussion of the finer points of genetics, rather than would the Red Sox be able to repeat which is so much more often the product of such activity. He had to wait for his mate to wake up or sober up or both and it's to both of their credits that they even remember the gist of the discussion. I never do. I find odd charges on my credit card from distant pizza parlors, books and cds missing from my shelves and broken glasses in the sink.

Where were we? Oh yes, evolution has been turned on it's head.

Carry on.

Joe

Re: Breakthrough!- 'The 'Pandora Gene'
The research, carried out at Lampeter University (as I have been told), asks evolutionists to consider the importance of the new findings. I would advise you also to read it carefully for it challenges the foundations of evolutionary biology:

Previously, it had been thought that the activities of a gene could be considered in isolation from its surroundings. With the discovery of the Pandora gene, this idea becomes unworkable-

The researchers say that in light of the discovery we should now get rid of the old model and consider the self-replicating activities of the gene to be part of a wider pattern of chemical events not all of which involve replication. This at once removes Dawkins model of a life-form (from the selfish gene) which is strictly limited to the species that carries the gene.

An analogy can be found in the theory of spiral arm formation in spiral galaxies. Here, a wave passes through material causing it to condense into patterns we see as spiral arms. When the wave passes through the arms, they dissipate but appear to reform in a different place. And this is precisely how creatures are created in their environment. In an ecological community the totality of chemical processes of exchange, degradation, synthesis and replication are brought together by gross physical changes in the environment, resulting in changes we observe as 'life-forms' and a quickening of other chemical processes. The 'gene' is accordingly, no more than a property of the total system and inseperable from it.

Well?

A questionnaire as a research tool only returns results about the incidence and prevelance of expressed opinions--it has no scientific value for any other purpose. This smells worse as time goes by.

The University of Wales, Lampeter, at its home page, announces that it was founded in 1828 as St. David's College, by Bishop Thomas Burgess. It further states: "For more than a century it was an independent degree awarding college, offering a range of courses, but maintaining a close relationship with the church." It also lists developments at the "university college," but mentions only ancillary buildings, with the exception of

Next month, there will be some other breakthrough that shatters the theory of evolution. It is interesting that advocates of a theory of the universe (the book of Genesis) for which there is no evidence at all, try so hard to find subtle imperfections in the logic behind evolution.

This is more of a bookmark, since Im going out fishing and maybe wont get back till this evening.

I looked up a number of combinations of this topic (but I have to tell you that Im feeling a bit scammed) I could find nothing in Evolution Data Base or Population genetics.
The very recent reearch has involved the species impacts of what has been called "junk DNA", or what has recently been renamed as "regulator codons" I could find nothing about population genetics that mentions a mosaic that is extrensic to the entire environment. In fact populational "clades" are being more and more distinguishable by genetic markers and mutational "clocks". So johns thread is not borne out by stuff that Ive seen.

Im quite suspectful that John is doing nothing but pulling our collective legs .


A coupla points-Dawkins is NOT a spokesman for a craft. Hes a good popular writer who is also a perfessor of the Philosophy of Science. He's sometimes a lightning rod of more traditional research that goes on and is not written about in his "popular " style. He rarely publishes in juried pubs anymore. I respect his opinions but find that he, like Gould before, often takes huge leaps in logic without laying the pipe.

Herbert Spencer was not an author of a "tautology". Thats a convenient slap that could, with a little more knowledge about his response and its misquote, be dispensed . His real "contribution" was being the father of almost all the "Social Darwinian thought" . and being responsible, along with John Stuart Mill, for the broad acceptance of Darwins theory in a fashion that even surprised Darwin.

Theologians, tricksters, communists.., creep toward the fortified stockade of the evolutionists. But the defenders had best protect their wooden stakes from the rot within:

For if Dawkins is to be taken as a master metaphorician rather than as an expert in the field, on one matter he is indispensible to evolutionary theory. He alone has provided a description of the 'object of concern' of evolutionary biology that is at once acceptable to evolutionists and the public. Without this object, evolutionary theory would collapse. The fact that the object is a paradigmatic oxymoron serving the whole technical field, is typically given scant attention by the evolutionist technician. I shall explain:

Evolutionary theory is a peculiar mix of metaphysics and chemistry - which observation the theoretician would ignore at his peril. The chemical reactions of DNA are given colourful names and carefully screened for worthiness of attention. But the reason why the evolution theoretician screens out certain DNA reactions, the reason why he concerns himself with DNA at all is not a reason founded on chemistry, nor even founded on metaphysics, but a reason forged from the need to define a 'living' chemical, and that reason is mystical, and one that Dawkins provided. Without the non-material, morally defined gene pattern or spirit to define the evolutionists 'object of concern', the theoretician cannot say what he is studying, if it is not chemistry, for he can offer no significant reasons for his choices of objects of concern.

I do not expect that to be read to be understood, or to be understood. That's my experience with the technical classes.

john jones said
Sound familiar? I think ole john is NOT an IDer, usually the IDers are a bit more sophisticated with their understandings of Molecular biology, to which they will usually defer. I think john is a standard Creationist.

I'd have to go along with you on that one FM, he's let the cat out of the bag with the bitterness and denunciation of his comments. When he begins using the term "evolutionist," an attempt to make out that scientists and people of ordinary intelligence who are well-informed on the topic are in fact vile ideologues, he's tipped his hand irrevocably.



Here of course, he immunizes his rant from all reasonable criticism in advance by purporting to speak above heads of those with the knowledge to refute his cant, while at the same time relegating them to a discrete class to be vilified and ridiculed. The moderators in all honesty ought to remove this thread from Science and Mathematics to the Religion and Spirituality forum.

So he wasn't on a binge when he came up with this?

I usually spend most of my time over in the Philosophy forum, although I have read a lot of physics. Glad to see that it's not just me that thinks he doesn't know what he's talking about. This is the same guy who said that math has never told us anything new about the universe. When asked, apparently even the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, Maxwell's equations that determined that the speed of light is constant, and Einstein's theory of relativity were nothing new... in fact, they were modelled after observations, apparently...

He has a thread which he entitled "Superstition" in which he asserts that scientists invented superstition, and that it is their stock-in-trade. A few of the local fundamentalists dropped by to laugh and congratulate him.

He's also got some intriguing theories in the area of neuropsychology.

Meds may need adjusting.

Well, I did find a book title "Pandora's genes" on the net. I assume that JJ's copping of the book name to assume a thread title was NOT coincidental.

Looks like Im going to have to follow his threads when Im feelin low .