Billy wrote:
In article ,
"David Hare-Scott" wrote:

Jeff Layman wrote:
On 09/08/2013 04:19, David Hare-Scott wrote:
Higgs Boson wrote:
Have often wondered how plants with dark foliage, like the dark
red
canna, handle chlorophyll.

Wikipedia has a long article; this is the first graph:

Chlorophyll (also chlorophyl) is a green pigment found in
cyanobacteria and the chloroplasts of algae and plants.[1] Its
name
is derived from the Greek words É‘É…É÷Éœός, chloros
("green") and φ�λλον, phyllon ("leaf").[2] Chlorophyll is
an extremely important biomolecule, critical in photosynthesis,
which allows plants to
absorb energy from light. Chlorophyll absorbs light most strongly
in
the blue portion of the electromagnetic spectrum, followed by the
red portion. However, it is a poor absorber of green and
near-green
portions of the spectrum, hence the green color of
chlorophyll-containing tissues.[3] Chlorophyll was first isolated
by
Joseph Bienaimé Caventou and Pierre Joseph Pelletier in 1817.[4]

Read the whole thing if interested, and make any
comments...appreciated.

HB

The third section on why chlorophyll is green not black is quite
interesting to me. The explanation given, which I think is widely
accepted in the botanical community, is that some (apparently
superior) structures and functions of living organisms have not
been reached by evolution because there was no evolutionary
pathway from where they came from to get there. This accounts for
the less than optimal structure of many aspects of life, eg the
human eye and the giraffe's neck. In fact it is characteristic of
a process that proceeds by many small connected steps to have such
inferior
outcomes. A process of design (such as human engineering) can
abandon a bad design and take a completely different approach.
Evolution cannot do that.

It's interesting that nature didn't come up with the wheel, one of
the most energy-efficient ways of moving around (or did I read a
few years ago that there was some strange organism which could move
like a wheel? I believe that there are some desert spiders which
can escape predators by pulling themselves into a ball shape and
rolling down sand dunes, but that not really the same thing as a
wheel). It's probably because the moving parts of a wheel are
completely separate from each other, and it would not be possible
to repair the revolving part of the wheel if it was damaged, as it
would have no blood supply.

Evolution is undirected and has no 'final' target nor does it look
to the future as an engineer does, it can only work incrementally
on choosing which variation of structure or function is better
suited
to the environment the organism is in at that time.

That's not quite true. If it is assumed that life started in the
sea, it should have stayed in that environment, but it didn't.

I see no evidence of either of those statements.

That biological reactions are carried out in aqueous solutions, and
that vast amounts of water would allow divergent compounds a
proximity to
each other with the chance of interacting?

Can you think of another crucible in which disparate amino acids, and
ions could interact and then multiply?

I wasn't clear. The two statements I see no evidence for a

1) "that's not quite true"
2) "it should have stayed in that environment"


Some
animals changed (evolved?) to make use of land. Even more oddly,
some changed back (eg seals) to make lesser or greater use of their
"old" environment, whilst others, such as dolphins evolved (or
should that be regressed?!) to become totally dependent on their
old marine environment.

In saying they regressed (went backwards) you are saying there is a
particular direction that is "right". It ain't so.

Once you have reached total randomness, you need less entropy, before
you can have more again. If she no goes up, how she gonna come down?


I see no relation between your reply and what I said. I said evolution is
undirected. Saying dolphins "regressed" suggests that when they (their
ancestors really) were land animals they were 'higher' than as aquatic. The
same goes for tapeworms that had ancestors that had not lost so many
functions (that the tapeworm no longer needs). Fitness depends entirely on
environment and only has meaning in the context of an environment so one
organism is not more evolved in absolute terms but better or less fit for a
specified environment.


"Natural selection" isn't the only game in evolution, the occasional
mutation can participate as well, but it is of necessity a minor
player
as most mutations are not beneficial.

True but I don't see the relevance to this matter of regression.

D

David Hare-Scott wrote:
songbird wrote:
David Hare-Scott wrote:
...
This application of complexity theory is not universally accepted.
No matter the point that I was trying to make, that the outcomes of
evolution are limited by the availablity of pathways from the
previous situation to a new one remains. Whether this postulated
mechanism opens up more pathways that permit greater leaps from one
state to another remains to be seen, as does how often it might
occur.

well now that there is an active designer in the house
the game will significantly change... already it has
begun and we're only in the few slivers of time in
terms of the past and how long things have gone before.

i would love to be able to sleep for five hundred or
a thousand years and be able to come back and see what
has happened.

I don't understand what you are saying. Could you be more explicit?

saying that evolution is undirected is false.
it is directed (sometimes in ways that are
contradictory (one day it is cold, the next
day it is hot), sometimes orthogonal to the
variation (the change favors big feet with
webs between the toes but the species lives
on rocks not in or near water) but now there
is a new more potent form of direction, an
actual designer who can get around poor
starting designs by coming up with something
completely different.

i for one would like a newly redesigned
spine that isn't succeptible to disk bulges
which pinch nerves. it is likely that within
a few hundred to a thousand years we may
actually get a differently designed spinal
column (or leave biological forms behind in
various ways).


songbird

songbird wrote:
David Hare-Scott wrote:
songbird wrote:
David Hare-Scott wrote:
...
This application of complexity theory is not universally accepted.
No matter the point that I was trying to make, that the outcomes of
evolution are limited by the availablity of pathways from the
previous situation to a new one remains. Whether this postulated
mechanism opens up more pathways that permit greater leaps from one
state to another remains to be seen, as does how often it might
occur.

well now that there is an active designer in the house
the game will significantly change... already it has
begun and we're only in the few slivers of time in
terms of the past and how long things have gone before.

i would love to be able to sleep for five hundred or
a thousand years and be able to come back and see what
has happened.

I don't understand what you are saying. Could you be more explicit?

saying that evolution is undirected is false.

Just to make sure we are not misunderstanding each other, what I mean is
there are no targets or goals in structure or function the process aims for.
That is there is no specific direction set from the outset, no planning.
That doesn't mean that there is no change for the better (better only in the
sense of more adapted to the current environment) but that such changes are
reached by a combination of natural mechanisms that could well reach some
other position. Evolution may or may not result in the reproductive success
of the organism, if it does the organism is sufficiently suited to the
environment if not it dies out. This is a critical point, there may be many
possible adaptations, or combinations of them, that bring about a similar
result but they are not known in advance.

If you accept that then we agree. If not why do you say that?


it is directed (sometimes in ways that are
contradictory (one day it is cold, the next
day it is hot), sometimes orthogonal to the
variation (the change favors big feet with
webs between the toes but the species lives
on rocks not in or near water) but now there
is a new more potent form of direction, an
actual designer who can get around poor
starting designs by coming up with something
completely different.


OK, who or what is this designer and how does she/it do this designing?
What evidence do you have that such exists and please give an example of it
doing its thing.

i for one would like a newly redesigned
spine that isn't succeptible to disk bulges
which pinch nerves. it is likely that within
a few hundred to a thousand years we may
actually get a differently designed spinal
column

How will that happen? How do you know it will happen?

(or leave biological forms behind in
various ways).



Are you talking about entering The Matrix or what?

If you are tending towards religion or mysticism then you are outside the
scope of science and there is no point in us going any further with this.

D

David Hare-Scott wrote:
songbird wrote:
David Hare-Scott wrote:
songbird wrote:
David Hare-Scott wrote:
...
This application of complexity theory is not universally accepted.
No matter the point that I was trying to make, that the outcomes of
evolution are limited by the availablity of pathways from the
previous situation to a new one remains. Whether this postulated
mechanism opens up more pathways that permit greater leaps from one
state to another remains to be seen, as does how often it might
occur.

well now that there is an active designer in the house
the game will significantly change... already it has
begun and we're only in the few slivers of time in
terms of the past and how long things have gone before.

i would love to be able to sleep for five hundred or
a thousand years and be able to come back and see what
has happened.

I don't understand what you are saying. Could you be more explicit?

saying that evolution is undirected is false.

Just to make sure we are not misunderstanding each other, what I mean is
there are no targets or goals in structure or function the process aims for.
That is there is no specific direction set from the outset, no planning.
That doesn't mean that there is no change for the better (better only in the
sense of more adapted to the current environment) but that such changes are
reached by a combination of natural mechanisms that could well reach some
other position. Evolution may or may not result in the reproductive success
of the organism, if it does the organism is sufficiently suited to the
environment if not it dies out. This is a critical point, there may be many
possible adaptations, or combinations of them, that bring about a similar
result but they are not known in advance.

If you accept that then we agree. If not why do you say that?

i've written similarly in this thread, so can't
disagree in that it is how evolution used to happen
and will likely happen somewhat like that into the
future. the difference is now that humans are
adjusting and removing different species at a
rate much faster than blind evolution will ever
accomplish. i.e. the process will become more
efficient and more directed. we'll continue to
select species we like and moderate or alter
those we don't like (or get rid of them completely
if we can -- i.e. polio, smallpox, t.b., saber
toothed tigers) on the hit list at present i'm
sure rats and mosquitoes are up there in the
sights of some. weeds, certainly some species
of those would be a target for elimination if
various corporations and scientists could come
up with a means.


it is directed (sometimes in ways that are
contradictory (one day it is cold, the next
day it is hot), sometimes orthogonal to the
variation (the change favors big feet with
webs between the toes but the species lives
on rocks not in or near water) but now there
is a new more potent form of direction, an
actual designer who can get around poor
starting designs by coming up with something
completely different.


OK, who or what is this designer and how does she/it do this designing?
What evidence do you have that such exists and please give an example of it
doing its thing.

humans, some scientists, some not, each acts
as a selective agent that previously did not
exist.


i for one would like a newly redesigned
spine that isn't succeptible to disk bulges
which pinch nerves. it is likely that within
a few hundred to a thousand years we may
actually get a differently designed spinal
column

How will that happen? How do you know it will happen?

science keeps advancing or working on the
big problems. damaged and painful spinal problems
are a huge health care need at present. some can
be remedied with the right approaches, but
others require a more radical intervention like
surgery (with all the risks associated with that
it is something many people would like to avoid
if the option existed).

so i know that science continues to work on the
problem. that it might come up with a differently
designed spine, be able to encode it in genes so
that it is expressed as humans develop, and then
have the right outcome is many years in the future.
perhaps it won't be needed. i can't really predict
the future, but i do know it is currently a huge
problem.


(or leave biological forms behind in
various ways).



Are you talking about entering The Matrix or what?

If you are tending towards religion or mysticism then you are outside the
scope of science and there is no point in us going any further with this.

no, it may have been science fiction in the past
to talk about interfacing humans to computers directly
and many other techniques of biological processes
getting taken over by biological chips or many other
technologies only now coming along. still many years
to go there too.

but tell me this, if people are so willing to wear
devices like hearing aids, have cochlear implants,
have retinal implants to restore vision, develop
kidneys and bladders from layers of cells, have heart
pumps, drug pumps, etc. all implanted if needed. well
tattoos alone tell you that many people don't care
exactly what happens to their body as long as enough
others will go along. in the case of a redesigned
spine i'm pretty sure many people would gladly sign up
for it as soon as it became generally available. would
you deny your children a better spine that could resist
injury or heal itself back to original form if it were
damaged? would you not accept a better kidney if yours
were already failing and it could be accomplished easily
enough for a fairly modest use of resources? how about
an extra heart or more memory for the brain? extra
capacity for food storage or liquid storage? none of
these things are that far-fetched.

i really don't see any end to body modifications
once that gets going and they are already going.
thicker skin that can resist cold or heat but still
have all the sensitivity of the original? who'd care
about mosquitoes and bugs if they couldn't get through
the skin or we didn't even have blood any longer? would
we be able to design a skin that could resist the cold
and vaccuum of space? perhaps somewhat. there is a
ton of science still to be done. we're really just
at the leading edge of this and once it does get
going we will likely have a huge explosion in different
forms of human. to exploit the new niches that become
available once we get out of the gravity well of
planets.

anyways, no, i am not mystical in the sense that i
would consider it impossible to leave biological
processes behind. i don't think the mind exists
apart from biology/matter/energy/physics and i'm
fairly sure that the form may be able to change
once we understand the basic arrangements and
requirements.

i do know that if we can ship minds to far away
places along with whatever they need to create a
manufacturing ability at the other end using local
materials then we no longer have to solve the huge
problem of shipping habitat and all the supporting
life forms. instead we ship information and storage
for information and basic manufacturing to ramp up
at the other end. all of which can be sent at much
higher accelerations and at less risk of failure
(many copies of the same thing could be sent knowing
most of them might not make it, but it only takes
a few to get a new colony going). so we take a
trick from the biological processes we have learned
about here, but we kick it up a notch and go with
a designed goal to reach other planets or star systems.

as far as mysticism would go i would say that it is
for the purpose of space travel that humans have been
created (general problem solvers with minds flexible
enough to solve the problem of reconfiguring their
own existence so they can get out of the static trap
they are in and move on to more adaptable forms).

not that i'm biased against the biological world.
i just see the danger of being a life-form, aware as
we are, and being in only one location and subject
to catastrophe so i want backup plans up and running
ASAP.

in the meantime, i garden.


songbird

In article ,
"David Hare-Scott" wrote:

Billy wrote:
In article ,
"David Hare-Scott" wrote:

Jeff Layman wrote:
On 09/08/2013 04:19, David Hare-Scott wrote:
Higgs Boson wrote:
Have often wondered how plants with dark foliage, like the dark
red
canna, handle chlorophyll.

Wikipedia has a long article; this is the first graph:

Chlorophyll (also chlorophyl) is a green pigment found in
cyanobacteria and the chloroplasts of algae and plants.[1] Its
name
is derived from the Greek words Ô⤗Ôâ¤|Ô÷Ôųϑϒ, chloros
("green") and ÏÝÏ?λλοÎ1Ž2, phyllon ("leaf").[2] Chlorophyll is
an extremely important biomolecule, critical in photosynthesis,
which allows plants to
absorb energy from light. Chlorophyll absorbs light most strongly
in
the blue portion of the electromagnetic spectrum, followed by the
red portion. However, it is a poor absorber of green and
near-green
portions of the spectrum, hence the green color of
chlorophyll-containing tissues.[3] Chlorophyll was first isolated
by
Joseph Bienaimé Caventou and Pierre Joseph Pelletier in 1817.[4]

Read the whole thing if interested, and make any
comments...appreciated.

HB

The third section on why chlorophyll is green not black is quite
interesting to me. The explanation given, which I think is widely
accepted in the botanical community, is that some (apparently
superior) structures and functions of living organisms have not
been reached by evolution because there was no evolutionary
pathway from where they came from to get there. This accounts for
the less than optimal structure of many aspects of life, eg the
human eye and the giraffe's neck. In fact it is characteristic of
a process that proceeds by many small connected steps to have such
inferior
outcomes. A process of design (such as human engineering) can
abandon a bad design and take a completely different approach.
Evolution cannot do that.

It's interesting that nature didn't come up with the wheel, one of
the most energy-efficient ways of moving around (or did I read a
few years ago that there was some strange organism which could move
like a wheel? I believe that there are some desert spiders which
can escape predators by pulling themselves into a ball shape and
rolling down sand dunes, but that not really the same thing as a
wheel). It's probably because the moving parts of a wheel are
completely separate from each other, and it would not be possible
to repair the revolving part of the wheel if it was damaged, as it
would have no blood supply.

Evolution is undirected and has no 'final' target nor does it look
to the future as an engineer does, it can only work incrementally
on choosing which variation of structure or function is better
suited
to the environment the organism is in at that time.

That's not quite true. If it is assumed that life started in the
sea, it should have stayed in that environment, but it didn't.

I see no evidence of either of those statements.

That biological reactions are carried out in aqueous solutions, and
that vast amounts of water would allow divergent compounds a
proximity to
each other with the chance of interacting?

Can you think of another crucible in which disparate amino acids, and
ions could interact and then multiply?

I wasn't clear. The two statements I see no evidence for a

1) "that's not quite true"
2) "it should have stayed in that environment"

1) Agree
2) Agree


Some
animals changed (evolved?) to make use of land. Even more oddly,
some changed back (eg seals) to make lesser or greater use of their
"old" environment, whilst others, such as dolphins evolved (or
should that be regressed?!) to become totally dependent on their
old marine environment.

In saying they regressed (went backwards) you are saying there is a
particular direction that is "right". It ain't so.

Once you have reached total randomness, you need less entropy, before
you can have more again. If she no goes up, how she gonna come down?


I see no relation between your reply and what I said. I said evolution is
undirected. Saying dolphins "regressed" suggests that when they (their
ancestors really) were land animals they were 'higher' than as aquatic. The
same goes for tapeworms that had ancestors that had not lost so many
functions (that the tapeworm no longer needs). Fitness depends entirely on
environment and only has meaning in the context of an environment so one
organism is not more evolved in absolute terms but better or less fit for a
specified environment.

I was referring to the earliest stages of evolution when structures that
we now call organelles were "free swimming", and not protected by
membranes. My point was that one can't go back, without going forward
first. I don't mean forward to perfection. I mean forward to adaptation.
If a mutation by radiation works, it works by improving an organisms
ability to survive, buy then you have short term, and long term.

A number of engineering problems exist in the human body, e.g. BONES
THAT LOSE MINERALS AFTER AGE 30, FALLIBLE SPINAL DISKS, MUSCLES THAT
LOSE MASS AND TONE, LEG VEINS PRONE TO VARICOSITY, RELATIVELY SHORT
RIB CAGE, JOINTS THAT WEAR, WEAK LINK BETWEEN RETINA AND THE BACK OF EYE.
These problems may be addressed some day, but how will that effect the
memory of survival that is/was stored in our genes?

We have existed as a Family (Hominidae) for 20 million years, and as a
species for 200,000 years. We have gone through a lot of evolutionary
change to get to where we are. That evolutionary trip is thought to
reside in what we call our junk DNA. We prize biodiversity in plants,
and animals. We need to prize it in ourselves as well. If we adapt to a
time, as we have noted in some of our food cultivars, can we change
again when the time changes?

Changing to the time is why we continuously need to make room for new
generations to try their hand at adapting, and for that we need all our
biodiversity tricks.



"Natural selection" isn't the only game in evolution, the occasional
mutation can participate as well, but it is of necessity a minor
player
as most mutations are not beneficial.
That was wrong. Mutations only help, if they help get you selected.

True but I don't see the relevance to this matter of regression.

D
Sorry, time seems to only go forward (physicists may disagree).
Conceptual thinking may not be as good as red claws, and teeth in the
long run for survival, but as climax forests show us, there does come a
time when a given approach to life maxes out, and a new direction needs
to be taken.
--
Palestinian Child Detained
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zzSzH38jYcg

Remember Rachel Corrie
http://www.rachelcorrie.org/

Welcome to the New America.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hA736oK9FPg

In article ,
songbird wrote:

Billy wrote:
...
That biological reactions are carried out in aqueous solutions, and that
vast amounts of water would allow divergent compounds a proximity to
each other with the chance of interacting?

Can you think of another crucible in which disparate amino acids, and
ions could interact and then multiply?

mud/clay/oils/bubbles/foams/salts

but some would say hydrothermal vents and crusts
of certain compounds may also be likely candidates.

i'm more in favor of foam/bubbles/oils/clays/muds.
i've seen them in action (building what used to be
called a skimmer in reef aquarium keeping as a
means to get organic materials out of the water,
pump a lot of bubbles through a column of water
and what comes to the top is gunk like the foam
that collects on beaches).


songbird

But the water is still the medium that allows for reactants to move
together, and assume the proper position for interaction, like an oxygen
atom dropping a proton [H3O+] as it rotates in to get a p-orbital look
at a Carbon nucleus as in a carboxylate ester.

Foam/bubbles/oils/clays/muds are just the results of having an aqueous
environment. Chunks don't really count, it's the ions and molecules with
charge separation that are important (in an aqueous solution).
--
Palestinian Child Detained
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zzSzH38jYcg

Remember Rachel Corrie
http://www.rachelcorrie.org/

Welcome to the New America.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hA736oK9FPg

In article ,
songbird wrote:

David Hare-Scott wrote:
songbird wrote:
David Hare-Scott wrote:
songbird wrote:
David Hare-Scott wrote:
...
This application of complexity theory is not universally accepted.
No matter the point that I was trying to make, that the outcomes of
evolution are limited by the availablity of pathways from the
previous situation to a new one remains. Whether this postulated
mechanism opens up more pathways that permit greater leaps from one
state to another remains to be seen, as does how often it might
occur.

well now that there is an active designer in the house
the game will significantly change... already it has
begun and we're only in the few slivers of time in
terms of the past and how long things have gone before.

i would love to be able to sleep for five hundred or
a thousand years and be able to come back and see what
has happened.

I don't understand what you are saying. Could you be more explicit?

saying that evolution is undirected is false.

Just to make sure we are not misunderstanding each other, what I mean is
there are no targets or goals in structure or function the process aims
for.
That is there is no specific direction set from the outset, no planning.
That doesn't mean that there is no change for the better (better only in
the
sense of more adapted to the current environment) but that such changes are
reached by a combination of natural mechanisms that could well reach some
other position. Evolution may or may not result in the reproductive
success
of the organism, if it does the organism is sufficiently suited to the
environment if not it dies out. This is a critical point, there may be many
possible adaptations, or combinations of them, that bring about a similar
result but they are not known in advance.

If you accept that then we agree. If not why do you say that?

i've written similarly in this thread, so can't
disagree in that it is how evolution used to happen
and will likely happen somewhat like that into the
future. the difference is now that humans are
adjusting and removing different species at a
rate much faster than blind evolution will ever
accomplish. i.e. the process will become more
efficient and more directed. we'll continue to
select species we like and moderate or alter
those we don't like (or get rid of them completely
if we can -- i.e. polio, smallpox, t.b., saber
toothed tigers) on the hit list at present i'm
sure rats and mosquitoes are up there in the
sights of some. weeds, certainly some species
of those would be a target for elimination if
various corporations and scientists could come
up with a means.


it is directed (sometimes in ways that are
contradictory (one day it is cold, the next
day it is hot), sometimes orthogonal to the
variation (the change favors big feet with
webs between the toes but the species lives
on rocks not in or near water) but now there
is a new more potent form of direction, an
actual designer who can get around poor
starting designs by coming up with something
completely different.


OK, who or what is this designer and how does she/it do this designing?
What evidence do you have that such exists and please give an example of it
doing its thing.

humans, some scientists, some not, each acts
as a selective agent that previously did not
exist.


i for one would like a newly redesigned
spine that isn't succeptible to disk bulges
which pinch nerves. it is likely that within
a few hundred to a thousand years we may
actually get a differently designed spinal
column

How will that happen? How do you know it will happen?

science keeps advancing or working on the
big problems. damaged and painful spinal problems
are a huge health care need at present. some can
be remedied with the right approaches, but
others require a more radical intervention like
surgery (with all the risks associated with that
it is something many people would like to avoid
if the option existed).

so i know that science continues to work on the
problem. that it might come up with a differently
designed spine, be able to encode it in genes so
that it is expressed as humans develop, and then
have the right outcome is many years in the future.
perhaps it won't be needed. i can't really predict
the future, but i do know it is currently a huge
problem.


(or leave biological forms behind in
various ways).



Are you talking about entering The Matrix or what?

If you are tending towards religion or mysticism then you are outside the
scope of science and there is no point in us going any further with this.

no, it may have been science fiction in the past
to talk about interfacing humans to computers directly
and many other techniques of biological processes
getting taken over by biological chips or many other
technologies only now coming along. still many years
to go there too.

but tell me this, if people are so willing to wear
devices like hearing aids, have cochlear implants,
have retinal implants to restore vision, develop
kidneys and bladders from layers of cells, have heart
pumps, drug pumps, etc. all implanted if needed. well
tattoos alone tell you that many people don't care
exactly what happens to their body as long as enough
others will go along. in the case of a redesigned
spine i'm pretty sure many people would gladly sign up
for it as soon as it became generally available. would
you deny your children a better spine that could resist
injury or heal itself back to original form if it were
damaged? would you not accept a better kidney if yours
were already failing and it could be accomplished easily
enough for a fairly modest use of resources? how about
an extra heart or more memory for the brain? extra
capacity for food storage or liquid storage? none of
these things are that far-fetched.

i really don't see any end to body modifications
once that gets going and they are already going.
thicker skin that can resist cold or heat but still
have all the sensitivity of the original? who'd care
about mosquitoes and bugs if they couldn't get through
the skin or we didn't even have blood any longer? would
we be able to design a skin that could resist the cold
and vaccuum of space? perhaps somewhat. there is a
ton of science still to be done. we're really just
at the leading edge of this and once it does get
going we will likely have a huge explosion in different
forms of human. to exploit the new niches that become
available once we get out of the gravity well of
planets.

anyways, no, i am not mystical in the sense that i
would consider it impossible to leave biological
processes behind. i don't think the mind exists
apart from biology/matter/energy/physics and i'm
fairly sure that the form may be able to change
once we understand the basic arrangements and
requirements.

i do know that if we can ship minds to far away
places along with whatever they need to create a
manufacturing ability at the other end using local
materials then we no longer have to solve the huge
problem of shipping habitat and all the supporting
life forms. instead we ship information and storage
for information and basic manufacturing to ramp up
at the other end. all of which can be sent at much
higher accelerations and at less risk of failure
(many copies of the same thing could be sent knowing
most of them might not make it, but it only takes
a few to get a new colony going). so we take a
trick from the biological processes we have learned
about here, but we kick it up a notch and go with
a designed goal to reach other planets or star systems.

as far as mysticism would go i would say that it is
for the purpose of space travel that humans have been
created (general problem solvers with minds flexible
enough to solve the problem of reconfiguring their
own existence so they can get out of the static trap
they are in and move on to more adaptable forms).

not that i'm biased against the biological world.
i just see the danger of being a life-form, aware as
we are, and being in only one location and subject
to catastrophe so i want backup plans up and running
ASAP.

in the meantime, i garden.


songbird

Just as long as we don't paint ourselves into a corner.

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2013/08/05
8 Ways Privatization Has Failed America
Free-market health care has been taking care of the CEOs. Ronald
DePinho, president of MD Anderson Cancer Center in Texas, made
$1,845,000 in 2012. That's over ten times as much as the $170,000 made
by the federal Medicare Administrator in 2010. Stephen J. Hemsley, the
CEO of United Health Group, made three hundred times as much, with most
of his $48 million coming from stock gains.

http://www.npr.org/2013/08/07/209585...ts-why-america
n-health-care-is-so-pricey
'Paying Till It Hurts': Why American Health Care Is So Pricey
--
Palestinian Child Detained
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zzSzH38jYcg

Remember Rachel Corrie
http://www.rachelcorrie.org/

Welcome to the New America.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hA736oK9FPg

On 09/08/2013 23:14, David Hare-Scott wrote:
Jymesion wrote:
On Fri, 09 Aug 2013 09:29:41 +0100, Jeff Layman
wrote:

It's interesting that nature didn't come up with the wheel, one of
the most energy-efficient ways of moving around (or did I read a few
years ago that there was some strange organism which could move like
a wheel?

That's a question which comes up frequently.

There's an interesting paper on it at:
http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.230... 102539587717

The current consensus is that the main problem with biological wheels
is blood flow, but this author addresses a different argument.

I haven't seen this article, I will have a look time permitting. One reason
a wheel is not much use for transport biologically is that they require
roads to be efficient. Legs are much better on broken ground and can be
adapted to climbing, become wings, flippers etc.

Well, ATVs get around ok. Even caterpillar tracks are just a form of
elongated wheel. They have little problem with rough ground. Just look
at the moon and Mars rovers. True, they don't move far, but they can
get around. And remember there are vast tracts of flat lands here on
Earth - the prairies, steppes, savannah, etc on which wheels would move
freely and efficiently if Nature had evolved them.

Its interesting that Nature did evolve an alternative, and more
efficient form of motion than standard legs - that used by Macropods and
similar animals (although they are still, of course, legs). Storing
"elastic energy" is much more efficient than using muscle contraction
all the time. So why isn't that form of motion much more common around
the world? There are a few examples, such as jerboas, but you'd expect a
lot more. Maybe if there is sufficient food, efficiency doesn't matter
so much. So even when that particular evolutionary niche has appeared,
it doesn't mean it's going to be universal. And then, of course, there
are the tree kangaroos!...

Also have a look at the bacterial flaggelum, it isn't a wheel that supports
weight for transport but it does rotate and it is powered by biochemistry.

Indeed, but it's limited to that size of organism. It could not scale
up. I guess it bears a greater similarity to a propeller than a wheel,
anyway.

--

Jeff

songbird wrote:
....
anyways, no, i am not mystical in the sense that i
would consider it impossible to leave biological

"biological" is the wrong word there, it should
have been "physical".


processes behind. i don't think the mind exists
apart from biology/matter/energy/physics and i'm
fairly sure that the form may be able to change
once we understand the basic arrangements and
requirements.
....


songbird

Billy wrote:
....
Just as long as we don't paint ourselves into a corner.

in an ever-expanding universe there aren't any
corners.

i'm more concerned at present with the "all the
eggs in one basket" trap we are already in. once
we have viable colony ships off towards other stars
(in whatever forms) then things get more interesting.

in terms of diaspora, genetic changes, modifications,
etc. if they are engineered and understood then they
can be reversed. more likely though we'll have a
large number of humanoid variants, some which would
no longer be biologically or socially compatible
(the only thing added there is the biological
incompatibility as it's pretty clear to me that many
cultures are already socially incompatible anyways).

as far as costs/profits/investments/markets/etc.
that's too far afield.

however, to think of it realistically, if you
could modify your germ line to correct an otherwise
constantly bothersome problem of your existing form
that would be one of the most cost-effective
investments in the future health of your decendents
that you could ever make. what would that be worth?
billions? trillions?


songbird

In article ,
songbird wrote:

Billy wrote:
...
Just as long as we don't paint ourselves into a corner.

in an ever-expanding universe there aren't any
corners.

i'm more concerned at present with the "all the
eggs in one basket" trap we are already in. once
we have viable colony ships off towards other stars
(in whatever forms) then things get more interesting.

in terms of diaspora, genetic changes, modifications,
etc. if they are engineered and understood then they
can be reversed. more likely though we'll have a
large number of humanoid variants, some which would
no longer be biologically or socially compatible
(the only thing added there is the biological
incompatibility as it's pretty clear to me that many
cultures are already socially incompatible anyways).

as far as costs/profits/investments/markets/etc.
that's too far afield.

however, to think of it realistically, if you
could modify your germ line to correct an otherwise
constantly bothersome problem of your existing form
that would be one of the most cost-effective
investments in the future health of your decendents
that you could ever make. what would that be worth?
billions? trillions?


songbird

I guess I worry more about the species. Remember we just did a big chat
up about Superwheat.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...heat-boosts-cr
ops-30--Creation-new-grain-hailed-biggest-advance-farming-generation.html


The 'superwheat' that boosts crops by 30%: Creation of new grain hailed
as biggest advance in farming in a generation
€ Researchers have cross-bred modern wheat seed with ancient wild
grass
€ Trials proved the 'superwheat' crop is more resilient and disease
resistant
-----

The point was that diversity had been bred out of modern wheat. You
mentioned teosinte, which is a reservoir of genetic tricks for corn. We
need these cave dwellers. We can't throw-away the accumulated wisdom of
4.5 billion years.

The point I'm trying to make is that the perfect man for today, may not
be the perfect man for tomorrow, and he may not be so good for the day
after that.


If you are depressed,
you are living in the past.

If you are anxious,
you are living in the future.

If you are at peace,
You are living in the present.
- Lao Tzu
--
Palestinian Child Detained
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zzSzH38jYcg

Remember Rachel Corrie
http://www.rachelcorrie.org/

Welcome to the New America.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hA736oK9FPg

Billy wrote:
songbird wrote:
Billy wrote:
...
Just as long as we don't paint ourselves into a corner.

in an ever-expanding universe there aren't any
corners.

i'm more concerned at present with the "all the
eggs in one basket" trap we are already in. once
we have viable colony ships off towards other stars
(in whatever forms) then things get more interesting.

in terms of diaspora, genetic changes, modifications,
etc. if they are engineered and understood then they
can be reversed. more likely though we'll have a
large number of humanoid variants, some which would
no longer be biologically or socially compatible
(the only thing added there is the biological
incompatibility as it's pretty clear to me that many
cultures are already socially incompatible anyways).

as far as costs/profits/investments/markets/etc.
that's too far afield.

however, to think of it realistically, if you
could modify your germ line to correct an otherwise
constantly bothersome problem of your existing form
that would be one of the most cost-effective
investments in the future health of your decendents
that you could ever make. what would that be worth?
billions? trillions?


songbird

I guess I worry more about the species. Remember we just did a big chat
up about Superwheat.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...heat-boosts-cr
ops-30--Creation-new-grain-hailed-biggest-advance-farming-generation.html


The 'superwheat' that boosts crops by 30%: Creation of new grain hailed
as biggest advance in farming in a generation
€ Researchers have cross-bred modern wheat seed with ancient wild
grass
€ Trials proved the 'superwheat' crop is more resilient and disease
resistant
-----

The point was that diversity had been bred out of modern wheat. You
mentioned teosinte, which is a reservoir of genetic tricks for corn. We
need these cave dwellers. We can't throw-away the accumulated wisdom of
4.5 billion years.

i did not nor will i ever say that we should
throw away anything along the lines of any existing
species, but that it is very likely future generations
will spin off from the basic germ line we already
have established much like we have mutations and
selection acting on current species via existing
mechanisms. it's just that we're likely to do it
much faster and with a more directed (i.e. designed)
focus.

there will always be peoples like the Amish who
have no truck with genetic tinkerings directly.


The point I'm trying to make is that the perfect man for today, may not
be the perfect man for tomorrow, and he may not be so good for the day
after that.

the perfect person for what?

the perfect person for space travel may
be different than the perfect person for
gardening in the desert.


songbird

In article ,
songbird wrote:

Billy wrote:
songbird wrote:
Billy wrote:
...
Just as long as we don't paint ourselves into a corner.

in an ever-expanding universe there aren't any
corners.

i'm more concerned at present with the "all the
eggs in one basket" trap we are already in. once
we have viable colony ships off towards other stars
(in whatever forms) then things get more interesting.

in terms of diaspora, genetic changes, modifications,
etc. if they are engineered and understood then they
can be reversed. more likely though we'll have a
large number of humanoid variants, some which would
no longer be biologically or socially compatible
(the only thing added there is the biological
incompatibility as it's pretty clear to me that many
cultures are already socially incompatible anyways).

as far as costs/profits/investments/markets/etc.
that's too far afield.

however, to think of it realistically, if you
could modify your germ line to correct an otherwise
constantly bothersome problem of your existing form
that would be one of the most cost-effective
investments in the future health of your decendents
that you could ever make. what would that be worth?
billions? trillions?


songbird

I guess I worry more about the species. Remember we just did a big chat
up about Superwheat.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...heat-boosts-cr
ops-30--Creation-new-grain-hailed-biggest-advance-farming-generation.html


The 'superwheat' that boosts crops by 30%: Creation of new grain hailed
as biggest advance in farming in a generation
? Researchers have cross-bred modern wheat seed with ancient wild
grass
? Trials proved the 'superwheat' crop is more resilient and disease
resistant
-----

The point was that diversity had been bred out of modern wheat. You
mentioned teosinte, which is a reservoir of genetic tricks for corn. We
need these cave dwellers. We can't throw-away the accumulated wisdom of
4.5 billion years.

i did not nor will i ever say that we should
throw away anything along the lines of any existing
species, but that it is very likely future generations
will spin off from the basic germ line we already
have established much like we have mutations and
selection acting on current species via existing
mechanisms. it's just that we're likely to do it
much faster and with a more directed (i.e. designed)
focus.

there will always be peoples like the Amish who
have no truck with genetic tinkerings directly.


The point I'm trying to make is that the perfect man for today, may not
be the perfect man for tomorrow, and he may not be so good for the day
after that.

the perfect person for what?

the perfect person for space travel may
be different than the perfect person for
gardening in the desert.


songbird

And my point was we don't need a specialist, we need a generalist who
can adapt to whatever.

Researchers have cross-bred modern wheat seed with "ancient wild"
grass (the generalist).
--
Palestinian Child Detained
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zzSzH38jYcg

Remember Rachel Corrie
http://www.rachelcorrie.org/

Welcome to the New America.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hA736oK9FPg

Billy wrote:
....
And my point was we don't need a specialist, we need a generalist who
can adapt to whatever.

Researchers have cross-bred modern wheat seed with "ancient wild"
grass (the generalist).

yes, so that means they still have the generalist
available. i was just looking at Einkorn. doesn't
look threatened.

some seed lines are so ancient we haven't
been able to find the exact sources yet (corn being
one), but the sources may still exist in some corner
of the world. a lot left to be known.


songbird

In article ,
songbird wrote:

Billy wrote:
...
And my point was we don't need a specialist, we need a generalist who
can adapt to whatever.

Researchers have cross-bred modern wheat seed with "ancient wild"
grass (the generalist).

yes, so that means they still have the generalist
available. i was just looking at Einkorn. doesn't
look threatened.

some seed lines are so ancient we haven't
been able to find the exact sources yet (corn being
one), but the sources may still exist in some corner
of the world. a lot left to be known.


songbird

The point that you seem to be dancing around is that modern cultivars
have lost much of their genetic diversity, and to breed new cultivars to
resist present conditions the full genetic repertoire is needed. The
repertoire that was lost because of selective breeding. Why would one
think that breeding humans would be any different?
--
Palestinian Child Detained
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zzSzH38jYcg

Remember Rachel Corrie
http://www.rachelcorrie.org/

Welcome to the New America.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hA736oK9FPg