Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 68 (9101 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: sensei
Post Volume: Total: 904,467 Year: 1,348/14,231 Month: 272/1,076 Week: 5/376 Day: 5/78 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evolve to synchronize with the resonance chain of the collective
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2190 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


(6)
Message 12 of 34 (770191)
10-01-2015 12:42 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by natabelas
09-30-2015 1:47 AM


Hi, Natabelas
natabelas, quoting source writes:
Since every single resonance is dancing in the tune of a universal resonance chain therefore, evolution is a process by which a life form wants to modulate it's body's mass distribution such that it increases the density of resonance states in its chain and at the same time increase the length.
That sounds needlessly complicated. I've found it's generally easier to reverse the polarity of the primary phase modulators, but sometimes I have to use the manual override to bypass the subroutines. Doesn't that sound more efficient to you?
As a last resort, one might attempt to increase the tension on the helical fastener, which I think you'll find has gone a bit slack in this case.

-Blue Jay, Ph.D.*
*Yeah, it's real
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by natabelas, posted 09-30-2015 1:47 AM natabelas has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Rrhain, posted 10-02-2015 8:36 PM Blue Jay has seen this message but not replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2190 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


(3)
Message 24 of 34 (770255)
10-02-2015 12:42 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by natabelas
10-01-2015 10:53 PM


Re: pssss
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by natabelas, posted 10-01-2015 10:53 PM natabelas has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2022 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2023