Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: didjuneau who wrote (756551)	2/3/2022 5:52:52 PM
From: didjuneau	1 Recommendation Recommended By isopatch Respond to of 793964

Science©, not violence, leading the charge. Neo-neoDarwinism. The Matrix unplugged. I just got to a critical part of the book I'm fascinated with called Darwin's Doubt. Here's the quote, which has some application to the understanding of CoViD as well: "Yet to turn one protein with a distinctive folded structure into another with a completely novel structure and function requires specified changes at many, many sites... The number of changes necessary to produce a new protein fold typically exceeds the number of changes that will result in functional loss. Given this, the probability of the evolutionary process successfully traversing a functional landscape from one functional peak to another - all the while escaping functional loss each step along the way - is extremely small, with the probability diminishing exponentially with each additional requisite change... ...protein-to-protein (or functional gene-to-functional gene) evolution is a no-go where the mutation and selection mechanism must produce a new protein fold." (Try to get Brandon to read that - Expodentially!) The problem the "nothing from nothing" people have is that it doesn't work from nothing. There has to be intelligence guiding it. Dawkins cheated by speeding it up with a program to test it. Where did the program come from? Intelligence. As Dr. Richard Feyman said in the Why? video, He "has cheated very badly." paraphrase. As a programmer, this strikes me as completely logical. You can't program something functional and expect the program to get better just by random chance. Darwin's theory only works on the downside of the landscape - after the mutations have occurred and the best ones get sorted out of the mix. If you hit all winners on one day at the slots, then you are either VERY lucky, or it was meant to be.