Dollo's Law

Hallo PeterThanks ,
you happen to be the "Peter ",
who IS answering questionsSure
---> there is many obscuring use of many " borrowed "terms like information , redundancy ... etc ...---> Seems to me that many of the discussion allover the different topics in this EvC forum , are nothing but1.-" fights " over terminologies and the meanings of words ,
2.- the false assumptions " created " by analogies and Multi-purpose definitions ( MPD's just to ad some more confusion maybe ? )
3.- and the "reference "to non-existing " theories" and/or
"intensive care recovery" of old trojan horses , if not some smoke
screens and ongoing " word pollution " and sofismNo Sarcasm intended
I don't defend some ideology or some absolute truth's
( No metaphysics /No myths , allowed in my own rules and method
--> I even mistrust so - called "theoretical "biology and "cosmology "if not backed up by some empirical "evidence "
--> old fashioned --> no "post-modernistic " variant of some epistemology priorities
IT IS MY OWN CHOOICE )i'am just trying to get more "inputs " for some re-thinking ___
inputs actioning ( functionuing ) as some " go "push - buttons "for some new " processings " ___
No "outcomes " in abvance
(and not only that
---> you also provide me with some "fine tunings " too
and ARE stimulating my search "up-datings" and "re-configurations" )Besides I hate to think ALONEIf some sarcasm perceived it's only a ( rude ) way to keep new
inputs incoming --> I don't want to fall asleep

Hi again"Information is a poor analogy in biology, but if it is
to be used meaningfully it must refer to the relationship
between the genome and the environment of the organism."1.-
I agree ---> the many interactions changing genomes and the
many changings in the environment by the " succesfull" species
In short the reciprocal adaptions , changings and fine-tunings
( I do understand this as --> the ECOLOGICAL mix of many causal relationships and the resulting ( and ervolving ) " balances " setting up a kind of self-regulatory biosphere ) can (maybe )more "easily " grasped (?) with an "information "approach
but
2.- I think that it is not the only fruitfull and possible application ( certainly a most important one ) of the "information " conceptIt surely as a "communication aspect " ( that is the interaction )
but there is also the initial "organisational " aspect which also molds the participants in any interactionI can accept that a gene results from a self organising chemical
proces .
However you need also a precise and fine tuned "organisation" of all the genes into one working and surviving genome too ---> is this organisation of all interaction genes and acting as a "program "for the construction /development of a phenotype also "steered by
the genes " as far has i've understood the " literature "related to that , i've found ---> it is supposed ...

reply to peter borger Message 22 of 32Ha die peter ,----------------------------------------------------------------------
I Said
and yes we can COMPARE
Everybody does , everydayPB: ...the point is whether the comparison is legitimate....----------------------------------------------------------------------WHAT ?
When I compare a piece of rock and a piece of cornbread I surely know what to eat . "Legitimate" or not ... I hope YOU have a good stomach , bugs bunny ...by the way it is not
"comparing apples and pears " but ," ADDING apples and pears ..." Everyone who had some primary shool in my country knows that one ( " Je mag geen appels en peren bij elkaar OPTELLEN "( you can't
( --> it is not allowed to ) add apples and pears ) --> the well known proverbal " mnemomic aid " in dutch used by all flemish teachers )
---> even your "quoting "of such simple basics is twisted
--> well a "mutation " that suits you well ...if something costs 5 dollars I am not going to pay for it with
4 Euros and l peso = that makes 5 coins (= 5 fu..?!!???off )
See ? No ? Yes ? whatever ?You want the Nobel-price in idiotica ?Here it stops
Say Amen .... ite missa est
goodbye ... RIPdesillusioned tsjok

dear Tsjok,PB: This is an interesing one:---> WHERE CAN I FIND THE PEER-REVIEWED , referred to MENTIONED , AND /OR "PUBLISHED " GUTOB THING ( NOT THE ONE IN YOUR " MIND " OR IN THESE EvC groups/discussions )PB: Peer reviewed? By whom? Why would according to you the same peer reviewed publication be of more value than the one I put on Internet (= published = to make accessible to the public)?The new ideas on biology certainly are of interest to everyone my on this board. I mean, what we discovered in the genome over the last decade is important for everybody on the planet. It demonstrates that we are not alone and certainly NOT an accident (as the 'old garde' of evo's wanna make us believe).best wishes,
Peter

Dear master Peter Borger ,----------------------------------------------------------------------QuoteThe new ideas on biology certainly are of interest to everyone on this board.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
-->" new ideas "--> your Gutob thing ?
-->I'am tired of reading and writing monologues
-->Yes I'am stepping out
'cause
-->The whole discussion here is badly " out of topic -->
" ...Dollo's law and re-evolution "
Yes it was entertaining
But now --> it's getting more and more boringNow
You also say (=dictate ) " what's interesting for everyone ? "
Jeeez ...
----------------------------------------------------------------------I mean, what we discovered in the genome over the last decade is important for everybody on the planet....------------------------------------------------------------------------> We(the scientific community DISCOVERED yes ( and published /
= peer reviewed " I suppose )
or
you pretend that peer review is " censorship "?"interpretations" and "speculations "are clearly another thing ....---------------------------------------------------------------------Quote
.... of interest for the whole planet .....because it is hoped it will give rise to new "usefull'" technologiesYou hope , it will give support to old ideologies from the neolithicum ?
You a NEANDERTHALER scientist ? Or maybe a "degenerated " one ?----------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote
It "demonstrates" that we are not alone and certainly NOT an accident (as the 'old garde' of evo's wanna make us believe).---------------------------------------------------------------------
---> what does your interpretations and speculations " demonstrate"
You an "old garde " creato -preacher or a scientist ?
Why do you think I "believe " old garde evolo's ...Why should I limit my choices ? =
an african witchdoctor , a siberian sjaman ; a psycho-analist , a praying healer , an exorcist ? a western physician ? a "revelation " , a guru , a babalowo ? a marabou ? ...
Some science fiction ? some phantasy ? some new-age ? wickans ?
Raelians ? and other peter borgers ?As far as i'am concerned --> going to read thehttp://207.234.141.32/ubb/Forum5/HTML/000178.html---> judge's " questions about the MPG " topic
it's promising ....Your slave
Tsjok

In the main I think I agree with the three points you made.1. There are often times when the discussion is about what
a term actually means. While this can be frustrating, one cannot
make an argument unless both sides are using the same
terminology in the same way. It can also be said that devolving
to such debate is a tactic of distraction.2. Exactly my point when using 'information'. It is an analogy
that has been used as a fact ... and was never intended that
way.3. I think this IS the forum for alternate ideas. It is informal
and has a widely varied, interested reader-ship. It helps us
see farther if we can change our perspective a little.sarcasm is a little hard to read (no voice queues)

The problem I have with using 'information concepts' is exactly
related to this issue of 'organisation'.Standard 'information theory' stems from data communications,
and has only fairly recently been seen as a separate discipline.In applying data communications concepts to genome->phenome one
starts to overlay the apparent organisation with an intended
organisation which may or may not exist in reality.