Hi, Natabelas.
natabelas writes:
ye have no any kind of argument, the text I put at the start is written by two active scientists one working at MIT and those have published in Nature and because your materialism of the "chemistry is everything" do not like, simply you seek to ridicule insulting to me personally.
I can't vouch for the rest of the posters, but I was insulting
your source personally, not you. It was a poorly written article with a very silly premise, no good evidence in support of it, and far too much "technobabble" (that is, they used a bunch of words that sound science-y, but do not have any clear meaning).
Also, neither of those scientists works at MIT. There is one webpage that says Anirban Bandyopadhyay is "currently a visiting professor in MIT," which means somebody at MIT is hosting him for a collaboration or a short-term teaching/research assignment.
Also, I have no confidence in these writer's understanding of biology. It is not common for medical researchers or physicists to have good training in evolutionary biology, and their discussion of evolution in the article you linked to proves that:
quote:
Based on the discussions above, we proclaim that "perfect killing machines do not rule the world", "the more conscious does", this simple argument is sufficient enough to prove that Darwin's struggle for survival was an illusion, the killing of animals never destroys either of them. The definition of life that Darwin took into account. Nature never selects the better killing machines, nature select better conscious machines.
The very basic criteria that Darwin chosen for "the survival of the fittest" is wrong, it is first of all, every animal species try to capture matter to synchronize with the universal resonance chain more interactively than with the resonance chain of the other animals [9]. Thus, life is a continuous effort to synchronize with the rhythm of the nature and the universe as a whole, there is no "struggle for existence", a life form is more concerned to synchronize its own body. When a species disappear from this planet, it is not because other species kill and wipes out, this is because, environment changes faster than a species could change its body to harmonize with the environment. Therefore, "struggle for existence" is not supreme, we can completely neglect it, yet explain everything about evolution.
Based on this, I would say that Anirban Bandyopadhyay effectively knows nothing about evolution except a couple of "buzzwords," like "struggle for survival" and "survival of the fittest," and he apparently doesn't even understand what these buzzwords are supposed to mean. Evolution was never about "perfect killing machines."
I Googled Bandyopadhyay and found his profile page at NIMS (where he actually works). I found
this news article about his "evolutionary circuits." He seems to think that his circuits mimic the natural phenomenon of the "evolution of cancer cells," because they can adaptively respond to a wide range of stimuli. This is not the way biologists use the word "evolution," and it is only vaguely similar to anything that biologists would call "evolution."
Bandyopadhyay is apparently quite a good electronics researcher with some really innovative ideas in the fields of computation and artificial intelligence. But, he made the mistake of overextending: he is not remotely qualified to discuss evolutionary biology, even though he is a visiting professor at MIT.
-Blue Jay, Ph.D.*
*Yeah, it's real
Darwin loves you.