On 19.8.2023. 3:09, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> On Friday, August 18, 2023 at 6:53:52 PM UTC-4, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>> On 18.8.2023. 23:00, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, August 16, 2023 at 11:34:08 AM UTC-4, oot...@hot.ee wrote:
>>>> On Wednesday, 16 August 2023 at 15:31:52 UTC+3, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>>>>> On 16.8.2023. 13:40, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> Compare this situation to my explanation of human kiss. Per my
>>>>>> idea, we ate sea shellfish. You dive for shellfish, but near surface
>>>>>> shellfish are first to be eaten. Then you have to dive deeper. You can
>>>>>> go even deeper if your partner (whom you have to trust with your life,
>>>>>> trust is important thing in human relationships) meet you half way up
>>>>>> and gives you additional air. So, basically, the principle is, first you
>>>>>> eat all the easily acquired food, but then you are forced to dig deeper.
>>>>>> And also, initially there could be much more food in shallow waters,
>>>>>> but, hey, you eat this out, you have to adapt for this small additional
>>>>>> piece.
>>>
>>> Here, Mario was mixing evolution of social behavior with biological evolution.
>>> But he did give the basic underlying principle well.
>> Yes, the basic underlying principle, exactly, :) .
>>>> You mix up individuals with species. Individuals can't mutate beaks to
>>>> themselves because of being low on food. Instead when hunting or
>>>> gathering food takes more energy than you get from eating it then
>>>> your population shrinks because of hunger. That lets population of
>>>> your food to regrow back so few survivors of your population have
>>>> enough of food again.
>>>
>>> You are mixing year-to-year population dynamics with long-term evolution.
>>> As beaks start to develop through mutations, they give an added
>>> advantage to the birds that have bigger ones.
>
>> No, I don't agree at all. With genes things are very simple, you don't
>> know which one comes first, egg or chicken.
>
> If there is only one gene involved, then the answer is easy: the egg
> already had the necessary genetic material of the chicken.
>
> > In fact, they change in
>> unison. The idea that genes change species by the way of mutations comes
>> from this Catholic priest liar.
>
> If you are thinking of Mendel, you are wrong. He worked with existing genes
> ("traits"). A recessive homozygote is not a mutation, even though it may
> look like a mutation when the carriers of a recessive gene are extremely rare, like the ones
> for hooves on the two side toe remnants of horses. Julius Caesar had a horse like that.
>
> De Vries is sometimes credited with the idea of mutations, while Goldschmidt
> is associated with saltations ("hopeful monsters").

Ok, thanks.

>> As I explained, science insists on it
>> because it doesn't know better, it is the only thing it can grasp.
>> Lets ask Wikipedia:
>> "Mutations result from errors..."
>
> Unnecessarily pejorative term.

I don't think so, I think it is right to the point. Of course, I am,
in no way, expert in the field, in fact, I am pretty much ignorant. Yet,
I agree with what people wrote in Wikipedia.

>> "Mutation is the ultimate source of all genetic variation, providing
>> the raw material on which evolutionary forces such as natural selection
>> can act."
>> See "...can act." Do you know of any other way to change genes?
>
> Mutation is just another word for change. If that is not what is confusing you, try this:
>
> The action of natural selection is not ON genes;
> what it does is favor the carriers of some genes over others.
>
> Radiation, for instance, changes genes themselves, converting one allele into a different one.
>
> When you use Wikipedia, you have not only to be careful to read
> what is there correctly, you may also be seeing false or misleadingly worded statements
> that have since been corrected elsewhere. I've even seen purely scientific entries
> on the same subject contradict each other. Sometimes that is because both
> are taking the result of two different very recent research papers as the last word on the subject.
> Just taking the word of one is hazardous enough.
>
> Short version: Wikipedia entries mutate, not always beneficially.

Again, I don't agree at all. A lot of scientists would really like it
to be a "change", the problem is, it isn't, and here is where confusion
arises. Not from the nature of Wikipedia, but from this illusion about
mutations that science is desperately trying to create. That's my view.

>> Science doesn't know of any other way, mutations are the only mechanism
>> that science knows of. This doesn't mean that there are no other ways.
>
>> Evolution by mutations doesn't work, for sure.
>
> Are you forgetting about natural selection? There are other ways,
> because natural selection only selects *within* populations.
> Then there is species selection, which pits one species against another
> within the same genus. For some reason, biologists don't like to think about
> competition between such widely separated animals as birds and pterosaurs,
> but a good look at the fossil evidence says that there was intense competition between them.
>
> If you like that kind of large-scale competition, I will try to include some for you
> in the thread I start next week.

Oh no, thanks, my head is already exploding, :) .

>> There have to be other
>> ways, only science doesn't know about them. Those other ways developed
>> during 3.5 billion years. Long enough time to develop complex ways to
>> change genes, not just by stupid errors.
>
> Like I said, "errors" is needlessly pejorative. It should be reserved for
> deleterious or neutral mutations. Beneficial mutations are rare, but
> there have been something like 10^15 (ten to the fifteenth power) birds
> over the eons -- plenty of material for an immense number of beneficial mutations.

I mean, this theme for sure is very complex, but I don't think things
happen that way. Isn't it proved, researching some people on Himalayas,
that this process doesn't work? Genes aren't solitary, they are
interlaced, a "beneficial" change in one brings problems on some other
end, a gene has to change just the right way to bring positive change.
Scientists never actually have a real life example of how mutation
works. Then they found those people on Himalayas which had one
"beneficial" mutation. And this mutation really was very beneficial,
only it brought big problems on three other characteristics. Only the
fact that this one characteristics was so beneficial in a specific
situation on Himalayas allowed this mutation to stick, but those people
were actually crippled by it regarding three other characteristics. So
yes, this mutation works exactly like malfunction, even the "beneficial"
part was actually a malfunction.
Plus, I mean, you already have everything that is needed, the change
actually happens in morphology, which you already posses. H.erectus was
the same like H.habilis, only it is taller. New gene doesn't bring
height, it is the same old gene that gives you everything that you
already have, but in different proportions. So, I don't think at all
that evolution functions by introducing new features, evolution works by
adjusting old features, the features that you already have, and this is
what preserves in fossil record. Of course, the new features also
contribute to the whole picture, but are those features actually new,
or, again, just the modification of the old ones?
All in all, this imaginary process of gene mutation is only pushed for
one reason, to explain human intelligence. Human intelligence should be,
like, a unique human feature, that no other animal has, so for this you
got to have "new", never seen before, "gene". But all this actually
doesn't exist, humans aren't smart, humans just have language, and,
whoever heard humans talking, he knows that speech isn't a proof of
human intelligence, actually you can take it as the proof of human
stupidity. No better proof of stupidity than to listen to what humans
are talking about.

>>>>> Ha, ha, there is one interesting thing, squirrels have adaptation to
>>>>> go up and down the tree. I wouldn't say that birds could go down the
>>>>> tree that easy, easier would be just to fly off, :) .
>>>>> So, the difficult part actually is to go down, :) .
>>>>>
>>>> Gravity is not for free anymore? The nuthatches seem to go down tree
>>>> head first like squirrels.
>>>
>>> It takes special anatomy, and not all birds have it. Similarly, as you probably know,
>>> cats cannot go down trees headfirst because they cannot turn their hind legs
>>> around as well as squirrels can.
>
>> Yes, exactly. Squirrels developed their hind legs, birds developed
>> their front legs.
>
> Don't get in the way of a kick by an ostrich or cassowary. You may
> not live to talk about it.
>
>> This is the name of the game.
>
> On the whole, though, you are right.

On 19.8.2023. 3:17, oot...@hot.ee wrote:
> On Saturday, 19 August 2023 at 01:05:45 UTC+3, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>> On 18.8.2023. 11:11, oot...@hot.ee wrote:
>>> On Friday, 18 August 2023 at 11:21:46 UTC+3, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>>>> On 18.8.2023. 8:49, oot...@hot.ee wrote:
>>>>> On Friday, 18 August 2023 at 08:32:44 UTC+3, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>>>>>> On 17.8.2023. 20:16, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>>>>>>> On 17.8.2023. 17:27, erik simpson wrote:
>>>>>>>> There is no way you can keep up with Mario's mercurial imagination.
>>>>>>>> There's also little reason
>>>>>>>> to try.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It is called 'argumentation', not '"imagination". See how many
>>>>>>> solid arguments, based in reality, I have. If you compare this to the
>>>>>>> other theory, that beaks evolved so that birds can groom themselves,
>>>>>>> that is possible, but it is based on the imaginary need for feathers to
>>>>>>> be tidy, which can only be accomplished by grooming. It is alright, but
>>>>>>> you don't change your chewing apparatus for that. If you needed some
>>>>>>> hard point, you would develop it on the top of your nose, you will not
>>>>>>> change your mouth. For example, humans developed cartilage (of course I
>>>>>>> know why). So, a lot of things are possible, but not a lot of things are
>>>>>>> plausible (I heard that there is some English expression about that, but
>>>>>>> I couldn't find it, :) ).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Actually, I see animals groom with their teeth. And actually, I could
>>>>>> even say that teeth would be better for grooming than beak. It is like
>>>>>> eating with fork, versus using Japanese sticks. So this whole theory is
>>>>>> actually hanging in the air, there is nothing solid behind it. This
>>>>>> theory is postulated out of desperation, because author couldn't think
>>>>>> of anything better, so he started to postulate his own imaginary things.
>>>>>> On the other hand, my their is solidly anchored in reality, it relies on
>>>>>> real things, not imaginary, things that exist already in nature.
>>>>>>
>>>>> I nowhere claimed that grooming is sole improvement of rostrum compared
>>>>> to nostrum. Beak has evolved on lot of animals (not only birds). These
>>>>> animals do not preen nor deal with tree bark using it, but it is efficient for
>>>>> several other things too.
>>>>> However vast majority of birds have preen gland. It is probably possible but
>>>>> quite inconvenient to oil feathers with teeth, so I said that on case of birds it
>>>>> is one of more likely pressures compared to need of breaking tree bark.
>>>>> Just try to read bit more what was actually written, not only here but from
>>>>> books too, ask when you do not understand relevance, imagine bit
>>>>> less ... and it'll be fine.
>>>>
>>>> How about understanding things, as opposed to copy/paste from books?
>>>> People try to prove that books are right, by citing books. No, you have
>>>> a problem, use your brain, not books.
>>>>
>>> Use both. If you use only one you are doomed to fail. It is not new idea.
>>> Confucius lived circa 2500 years ago: "He who learns but does not think,
>>> is lost. He who thinks but does not learn is in great danger."
>>
>> I have so many objections on what you wrote here, that I will not
>> bother to write them down, starting with Confucius himself, then the
>> time of that saying, the system he was living in, the type of knowledge,
>> and so on, and so on.
>>
> Logic has not changed. Human has evolved very little with 100 generations
> since he said it. Nation that followed his philosophy during most of those
> generations is biggest on that planet. I have lived in very diverse set of
> political situations during last half of century: communism, perestroika, coup,
> anarchy, relatively ruthless capitalism and currently EU. I can only say that
> methods of gathering wisdom were always same. Gather facts, read how
> others reason about those and reason yourself. Otherwise you fail.

Well, this is, a sort of, my field. I am 61, living for whole my life
in Croatia (Zagreb, the capitol). You are smart guy (or whatever you
are), you rightfully corrected me twice (see below), so conversation
with you about this subject, for sure, would be interesting one. This
has a lot to do with human evolution, but I think this discussion is Off
Topic on this forum, and it can be a lengthy one. I don't know whether
to start it. I know that Peter is also interested in those things.
In short, I really know a lot about how humans evolved, there is no
"wisdom" in humans, no such thing exists. I used to be pretty
intelligent when I was younger, I was always the best on intelligence
tests, so I should know, like, about those things. No wisdom in humans
(including me), I am smart enough to see this. Three "views" evolved,
that of agricultural societies, that of cattle herding societies, and
that of fishing societies. I am only interested in the later, I am only
interested in sayings by democratic nations, Romans, Englishmen, and
especially new sayings by Americans, who are justly the strongest nation
on Earth for the last 150 years. Definitely I am not interested in
Chinese sayings, Indian, or African sayings.

>>>> Of course, knowledge is very
>>>> important. But, it somehow shows that you cannot have both, knowledge
>>>> and working brain, if brain memorizes knowledge, it doesn't work. Or, at
>>>> least, it works in a biased manner, it is biased towards the knowledge
>>>> it has, and this can be deteriorating in a situations when knowledge has
>>>> nothing to do with the solution.
>>>>
>>> There are no such dichotomy. From where you took it? On the contrary.
>>> The bigger your knowledge the easier it is to reason as logic works by
>>> same rules everywhere.
>>> Birds being winners is fact as their population is massive compared to
>>> bats or flying squirrels. That study says between 200 to 400 billions:
>>> <https://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1018341530497>
>>
>> See, "where from did I took it?". From my own brain, this is where
>> from I took it. My brain and my experience. Where from do you take your
>> things?
>>
> I have observed that both of those who trust their imagination too much
> or trust what some book says too much will fail and be unhappy about it.
> Usually they blame others in their misfortune. So Confucius was right.

The problem is, I don't think you know how thinking by imagination
looks like. I am doing it, but this kind of thinking is ridiculed in
today's world. Thinking by imagination is the only right thinking. Yes
books can help, but only in a sense like administration helps to govern
a country, nothing more than that. Books, administration, isn't
"thinking", it is just sorting, categorizing, and things like that,
nothing more.

>>>> What's wrong with tongue? Lizards have long tongue, tongue is just
>>>> perfect for those kind of operations. Much better than rigid beak. Yes I
>>>> am ignorant, but don't animals lick their young for the same purpose?
>>>>
>>> Are you claiming that birds do not have tongue? Animals help youth with
>>> basic hygiene. Animal youth is incompetent to deal with it yet. But they do
>>> not fly around potentially in rain using their fur. Birds spend great deal of
>>> time maintaining their feathers. It is not just basic hygiene. Read up on
>>> preening, what is done and why, then show how it is better to do with tip
>>> of nose, teeth or even with tongue alone.
>>
>> Ok, lets rank it. The worst is tip of your nose, but you don't change
>> chewing apparatus for that. Then I would put beak (but for this you have
>> to change chewing apparatus). Then it would be teeth, which was,
>> actually, the original condition. And the best would be tongue, which is
>> usually used by all the other animals, for the reason that it is the
>> best for the purpose.
>>
> That does not match with facts as birds have tongue but do not use
> it to lick their feathers. Test with reality failed. Reality can not be
> mistaken about itself so error has to be somewhere in your reasoning.

On 19.8.2023. 4:12, John Harshman wrote:
> You might try asking Mario what these "other ways" are. I'd be
> interested in knowing. Perhaps he's thinking of "natural genetic
> engineering" or "morphic resonance", but I'm willing to bet it's some
> kind of woo.

No, I have not the slightest idea what these "other ways" are. I just
said that science doesn't know about them. I, too, have not the
slightest idea what they are.

On 19.8.2023. 5:13, oot...@hot.ee wrote:
> If you don't need to go head first then go
> bottom first. <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dg9sCvmuNSs>
> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-wTscScLvLU> Does not matter to
> survival if you have to do it rarely.

This is my idea for human evolution (first two and a half minutes):
https://youtu.be/Sc5TAdq4RcU

On 8/18/23 9:37 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
> On 19.8.2023. 4:12, John Harshman wrote:
>> You might try asking Mario what these "other ways" are. I'd be
>> interested in knowing. Perhaps he's thinking of "natural genetic
>> engineering" or "morphic resonance", but I'm willing to bet it's some
>> kind of woo.
>
>         No, I have not the slightest idea what these "other ways" are.
> I just said that science doesn't know about them. I, too, have not the
> slightest idea what they are.
>
How do you know they exist? How do you know they're important?

On 19.8.2023. 15:04, John Harshman wrote:
> On 8/18/23 9:37 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>> On 19.8.2023. 4:12, John Harshman wrote:
>>> You might try asking Mario what these "other ways" are. I'd be
>>> interested in knowing. Perhaps he's thinking of "natural genetic
>>> engineering" or "morphic resonance", but I'm willing to bet it's some
>>> kind of woo.
>>
>>          No, I have not the slightest idea what these "other ways"
>> are. I just said that science doesn't know about them. I, too, have
>> not the slightest idea what they are.
>>
> How do you know they exist? How do you know they're important?

Because "evolution by errors" is stupid to the bone. I don't know who
actually invented this, but it is sneaked into science by Catholic
church, and called Genetic Mutation Theory, a very well known fact. A
typical story of science,stupid, and manipulated by church. No sense in
it at all.
I see a lot of different people around me. Everybody has different
dimensions, although we have similar genes. This is enough for evolution
to work, you don't need a gene manipulation, there is enough of change
already in it, you don't need more of it. You only need deliberate "gene
change" if you want God to be involved in the story, and if you really
desperately need some special extraterrestrial magical effects, like
"intelligence". So, now I have to deal with a lot of idiots who prey to
magic, because they see themselves as being magical. No, we are just
normal animals, earthly beings, nothing else. But if you see all those
scientific theories, they all revolve around "intelligence". We are tall
because we are intelligent, we have long hair because we are
intelligent, we have blue eyes because we are intelligent, and so on,
and so on, the source of every trait in humans is our "intelligence",
"intelligence" is answer to everything (I just saw a video, "Jesus is
always the answer", kid wrote in test, :) ). And this has to, somehow,
fall from skies. And voila, we have genes, and they can produce,
literally, anything, including the "magical stuff", and my god aren't we
so magical.

On 19.8.2023. 20:13, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
> On 19.8.2023. 15:04, John Harshman wrote:
>> On 8/18/23 9:37 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>>> On 19.8.2023. 4:12, John Harshman wrote:
>>>> You might try asking Mario what these "other ways" are. I'd be
>>>> interested in knowing. Perhaps he's thinking of "natural genetic
>>>> engineering" or "morphic resonance", but I'm willing to bet it's
>>>> some kind of woo.
>>>
>>>          No, I have not the slightest idea what these "other ways"
>>> are. I just said that science doesn't know about them. I, too, have
>>> not the slightest idea what they are.
>>>
>> How do you know they exist? How do you know they're important?
>
>         Because "evolution by errors" is stupid to the bone. I don't
> know who actually invented this, but it is sneaked into science by
> Catholic church, and called Genetic Mutation Theory, a very well known
> fact. A typical story of science,stupid, and manipulated by church. No
> sense in it at all.
>         I see a lot of different people around me. Everybody has
> different dimensions, although we have similar genes. This is enough for
> evolution to work, you don't need a gene manipulation, there is enough
> of change already in it, you don't need more of it. You only need
> deliberate "gene change" if you want God to be involved in the story,
> and if you really desperately need some special extraterrestrial magical
> effects, like "intelligence". So, now I have to deal with a lot of
> idiots who prey to magic, because they see themselves as being magical.
> No, we are just normal animals, earthly beings, nothing else. But if you
> see all those scientific theories, they all revolve around
> "intelligence". We are tall because we are intelligent, we have long
> hair because we are intelligent, we have blue eyes because we are
> intelligent, and so on, and so on, the source of every trait in humans
> is our "intelligence", "intelligence" is answer to everything (I just
> saw a video, "Jesus is always the answer", kid wrote in test, :) ). And
> this has to, somehow, fall from skies. And voila, we have genes, and
> they can produce, literally, anything, including the "magical stuff",
> and my god aren't we so magical.

And, BTW, if we are so intelligent our scientists wouldn't be so
easily manipulated by Catholic church. The very fact that all our
scientific theories about Genesis (The Genetic Mutation Theory, The Big
Bang Theory) were produced by Catholic priests tells you that we are
just as intelligent as sheep. Mendel produced Genetic Mutation Theory in
1866 AD. It wasn't accepted. It was accepted when Mendel was
"rediscovered", 34 years later (Mendel was already dead). What was the
difference between 1866 AD and 1900 AD? In the number, and the magic
number is three. We evolved to trust something if it comes from three
independent sources, automatically, without *thinking*. So, the whole
science accepted the major idea because it heard it from three
"independent" sources in the same time (two months apart). And that's
it. And we are talking about science, about scientists, who are supposed
to have a scientific thinking. And Catholic church sold them simple
trick, like they are sheep. And those same people claim that they are
soooo intelligent. My god.

On 19.8.2023. 20:38, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
> On 19.8.2023. 20:13, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>> On 19.8.2023. 15:04, John Harshman wrote:
>>> On 8/18/23 9:37 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>>>> On 19.8.2023. 4:12, John Harshman wrote:
>>>>> You might try asking Mario what these "other ways" are. I'd be
>>>>> interested in knowing. Perhaps he's thinking of "natural genetic
>>>>> engineering" or "morphic resonance", but I'm willing to bet it's
>>>>> some kind of woo.
>>>>
>>>>          No, I have not the slightest idea what these "other ways"
>>>> are. I just said that science doesn't know about them. I, too, have
>>>> not the slightest idea what they are.
>>>>
>>> How do you know they exist? How do you know they're important?
>>
>>          Because "evolution by errors" is stupid to the bone. I don't
>> know who actually invented this, but it is sneaked into science by
>> Catholic church, and called Genetic Mutation Theory, a very well known
>> fact. A typical story of science,stupid, and manipulated by church. No
>> sense in it at all.
>>          I see a lot of different people around me. Everybody has
>> different dimensions, although we have similar genes. This is enough
>> for evolution to work, you don't need a gene manipulation, there is
>> enough of change already in it, you don't need more of it. You only
>> need deliberate "gene change" if you want God to be involved in the
>> story, and if you really desperately need some special
>> extraterrestrial magical effects, like "intelligence". So, now I have
>> to deal with a lot of idiots who prey to magic, because they see
>> themselves as being magical. No, we are just normal animals, earthly
>> beings, nothing else. But if you see all those scientific theories,
>> they all revolve around "intelligence". We are tall because we are
>> intelligent, we have long hair because we are intelligent, we have
>> blue eyes because we are intelligent, and so on, and so on, the source
>> of every trait in humans is our "intelligence", "intelligence" is
>> answer to everything (I just saw a video, "Jesus is always the
>> answer", kid wrote in test, :) ). And this has to, somehow, fall from
>> skies. And voila, we have genes, and they can produce, literally,
>> anything, including the "magical stuff", and my god aren't we so magical.
>
>         And, BTW, if we are so intelligent our scientists wouldn't be
> so easily manipulated by Catholic church. The very fact that all our
> scientific theories about Genesis (The Genetic Mutation Theory, The Big
> Bang Theory) were produced by Catholic priests tells you that we are
> just as intelligent as sheep. Mendel produced Genetic Mutation Theory in
> 1866 AD. It wasn't accepted. It was accepted when Mendel was
> "rediscovered", 34 years later (Mendel was already dead). What was the
> difference between 1866 AD and 1900 AD? In the number, and the magic
> number is three. We evolved to trust something if it comes from three
> independent sources, automatically, without *thinking*. So, the whole
> science accepted the major idea because it heard it from three
> "independent" sources in the same time (two months apart). And that's
> it. And we are talking about science, about scientists, who are supposed
> to have a scientific thinking. And Catholic church sold them simple
> trick, like they are sheep. And those same people claim that they are
> soooo intelligent. My god.

Of course, if you have it written in a book you don't have to think
about it, it is already written. Good old story of Bible. Bible is
written for humans so that humans *don't have to think*. And you have so
many humans who *don't think*, so many of those so intelligent humans,
they read the book, they don't think by themselves. And then somebody
shows you a Chinese saying, and you go and see how those people live.
Like animals, for gods sake, without human rights, slaves of the Party.
They are born, they live, and they are dying only because Party needs
that, not because this is how proud and intelligent beings are supposed
to. And they choose this by themselves, they have no objection.
Confucius told them to do so (I suppose).

On 8/19/23 11:13 AM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
> On 19.8.2023. 15:04, John Harshman wrote:
>> On 8/18/23 9:37 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>>> On 19.8.2023. 4:12, John Harshman wrote:
>>>> You might try asking Mario what these "other ways" are. I'd be
>>>> interested in knowing. Perhaps he's thinking of "natural genetic
>>>> engineering" or "morphic resonance", but I'm willing to bet it's
>>>> some kind of woo.
>>>
>>>          No, I have not the slightest idea what these "other ways"
>>> are. I just said that science doesn't know about them. I, too, have
>>> not the slightest idea what they are.
>>>
>> How do you know they exist? How do you know they're important?
>
>         Because "evolution by errors" is stupid to the bone. I don't
> know who actually invented this, but it is sneaked into science by
> Catholic church, and called Genetic Mutation Theory, a very well known
> fact. A typical story of science,stupid, and manipulated by church. No
> sense in it at all.

I'm sorry, but that's insane. The Catholic Church had nothing to do with
introducing the concept of mutations into biology, and they were
introduced because they were actually observed. We know mutations
happen, we know how they happen, and we know what happens to them
afterwards. It's not weird magic.

>         I see a lot of different people around me. Everybody has
> different dimensions, although we have similar genes.

Slightly different alleles of some of those genes, though, and this
accounts for a good fraction of the differences you observe.

> This is enough for
> evolution to work, you don't need a gene manipulation, there is enough
> of change already in it, you don't need more of it.

That's true. Standing genetic variation can power evolution for a while.
But eventually it runs out and evolution would stop unless there were a
source of new variation, i.e. mutation.

> You only need
> deliberate "gene change" if you want God to be involved in the story,
> and if you really desperately need some special extraterrestrial magical
> effects, like "intelligence".

Nobody said any of this mutation is deliberate. Well, nobody except ID
crackpots.

> So, now I have to deal with a lot of
> idiots who prey to magic, because they see themselves as being magical.
> No, we are just normal animals, earthly beings, nothing else. But if you
> see all those scientific theories, they all revolve around
> "intelligence". We are tall because we are intelligent, we have long
> hair because we are intelligent, we have blue eyes because we are
> intelligent, and so on, and so on, the source of every trait in humans
> is our "intelligence", "intelligence" is answer to everything (I just
> saw a video, "Jesus is always the answer", kid wrote in test, :) ). And
> this has to, somehow, fall from skies. And voila, we have genes, and
> they can produce, literally, anything, including the "magical stuff",
> and my god aren't we so magical.

Nothing you say in that paragraph is true. Nobody (again, with the
exception of a few ID crackpots) thinks any of that. You are arguing
against a small minority of people who aren't even here.

On 8/19/23 11:38 AM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
> On 19.8.2023. 20:13, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>> On 19.8.2023. 15:04, John Harshman wrote:
>>> On 8/18/23 9:37 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>>>> On 19.8.2023. 4:12, John Harshman wrote:
>>>>> You might try asking Mario what these "other ways" are. I'd be
>>>>> interested in knowing. Perhaps he's thinking of "natural genetic
>>>>> engineering" or "morphic resonance", but I'm willing to bet it's
>>>>> some kind of woo.
>>>>
>>>>          No, I have not the slightest idea what these "other ways"
>>>> are. I just said that science doesn't know about them. I, too, have
>>>> not the slightest idea what they are.
>>>>
>>> How do you know they exist? How do you know they're important?
>>
>>          Because "evolution by errors" is stupid to the bone. I don't
>> know who actually invented this, but it is sneaked into science by
>> Catholic church, and called Genetic Mutation Theory, a very well known
>> fact. A typical story of science,stupid, and manipulated by church. No
>> sense in it at all.
>>          I see a lot of different people around me. Everybody has
>> different dimensions, although we have similar genes. This is enough
>> for evolution to work, you don't need a gene manipulation, there is
>> enough of change already in it, you don't need more of it. You only
>> need deliberate "gene change" if you want God to be involved in the
>> story, and if you really desperately need some special
>> extraterrestrial magical effects, like "intelligence". So, now I have
>> to deal with a lot of idiots who prey to magic, because they see
>> themselves as being magical. No, we are just normal animals, earthly
>> beings, nothing else. But if you see all those scientific theories,
>> they all revolve around "intelligence". We are tall because we are
>> intelligent, we have long hair because we are intelligent, we have
>> blue eyes because we are intelligent, and so on, and so on, the source
>> of every trait in humans is our "intelligence", "intelligence" is
>> answer to everything (I just saw a video, "Jesus is always the
>> answer", kid wrote in test, :) ). And this has to, somehow, fall from
>> skies. And voila, we have genes, and they can produce, literally,
>> anything, including the "magical stuff", and my god aren't we so magical.
>
>         And, BTW, if we are so intelligent our scientists wouldn't be
> so easily manipulated by Catholic church. The very fact that all our
> scientific theories about Genesis (The Genetic Mutation Theory, The Big
> Bang Theory) were produced by Catholic priests tells you that we are
> just as intelligent as sheep. Mendel produced Genetic Mutation Theory in
> 1866 AD.

No, he didn't. Mendel has nothing to do with mutations. He discovered
that inheritance is particulate using standing variation in a couple of
species.

> It wasn't accepted. It was accepted when Mendel was
> "rediscovered", 34 years later (Mendel was already dead). What was the
> difference between 1866 AD and 1900 AD? In the number, and the magic
> number is three. We evolved to trust something if it comes from three
> independent sources, automatically, without *thinking*. So, the whole
> science accepted the major idea because it heard it from three
> "independent" sources in the same time (two months apart). And that's
> it. And we are talking about science, about scientists, who are supposed
> to have a scientific thinking. And Catholic church sold them simple
> trick, like they are sheep. And those same people claim that they are
> soooo intelligent. My god.

Again, you are sounding insane here.

On 19.8.2023. 21:19, John Harshman wrote:
> On 8/19/23 11:13 AM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>> On 19.8.2023. 15:04, John Harshman wrote:
>>> On 8/18/23 9:37 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>>>> On 19.8.2023. 4:12, John Harshman wrote:
>>>>> You might try asking Mario what these "other ways" are. I'd be
>>>>> interested in knowing. Perhaps he's thinking of "natural genetic
>>>>> engineering" or "morphic resonance", but I'm willing to bet it's
>>>>> some kind of woo.
>>>>
>>>>          No, I have not the slightest idea what these "other ways"
>>>> are. I just said that science doesn't know about them. I, too, have
>>>> not the slightest idea what they are.
>>>>
>>> How do you know they exist? How do you know they're important?
>>
>>          Because "evolution by errors" is stupid to the bone. I don't
>> know who actually invented this, but it is sneaked into science by
>> Catholic church, and called Genetic Mutation Theory, a very well known
>> fact. A typical story of science,stupid, and manipulated by church. No
>> sense in it at all.
>
> I'm sorry, but that's insane. The Catholic Church had nothing to do with
> introducing the concept of mutations into biology, and they were
> introduced because they were actually observed. We know mutations
> happen, we know how they happen, and we know what happens to them
> afterwards. It's not weird magic.

Good for mutations. More than 20 years when I found myself learning
about paleoanthropology "Genetic Mutation Theory (Mendel is the author)
was them main word. It made fun of Darwin, Darwin was the past,
everybody was talking about Genetic Mutation Theory. Today, if you type
"Genetic Mutation Theory" into Wikipedia you will get no results. But
no, I am not insane, the whole science is insane. And all this changed
after I started to write about it on forums. And yes, this actually
happened, I am not insane.

>>          I see a lot of different people around me. Everybody has
>> different dimensions, although we have similar genes.
>
> Slightly different alleles of some of those genes, though, and this
> accounts for a good fraction of the differences you observe.
>
>> This is enough for evolution to work, you don't need a gene
>> manipulation, there is enough of change already in it, you don't need
>> more of it.
>
> That's true. Standing genetic variation can power evolution for a while.
> But eventually it runs out and evolution would stop unless there were a
> source of new variation, i.e. mutation.

Mutation will not help, mutation is malfunction, and organism has the
way to deal with mutations, as far as I know organism corrects
mutations. I can trace my five fingers long way down the evolution
chain, and people in this forum should know about it. It didn't stop to
evolve. You can find the origin of everything down the evolution chain.
I doubt that this would be caused by mutation. The "mutation" is the
answer when you don't know the answer.

>> You only need deliberate "gene change" if you want God to be involved
>> in the story, and if you really desperately need some special
>> extraterrestrial magical effects, like "intelligence".
>
> Nobody said any of this mutation is deliberate. Well, nobody except ID
> crackpots.

It allows for god's intervention, this is why Catholic church is
pushing it. Just like the Big Bang Theory, which allows for God's creation.

>> So, now I have to deal with a lot of idiots who prey to magic, because
>> they see themselves as being magical. No, we are just normal animals,
>> earthly beings, nothing else. But if you see all those scientific
>> theories, they all revolve around "intelligence". We are tall because
>> we are intelligent, we have long hair because we are intelligent, we
>> have blue eyes because we are intelligent, and so on, and so on, the
>> source of every trait in humans is our "intelligence", "intelligence"
>> is answer to everything (I just saw a video, "Jesus is always the
>> answer", kid wrote in test, :) ). And this has to, somehow, fall from
>> skies. And voila, we have genes, and they can produce, literally,
>> anything, including the "magical stuff", and my god aren't we so magical.
>
> Nothing you say in that paragraph is true. Nobody (again, with the
> exception of a few ID crackpots) thinks any of that. You are arguing
> against a small minority of people who aren't even here.

On 19.8.2023. 20:53, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
> On 19.8.2023. 20:38, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>> On 19.8.2023. 20:13, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>>> On 19.8.2023. 15:04, John Harshman wrote:
>>>> On 8/18/23 9:37 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>>>>> On 19.8.2023. 4:12, John Harshman wrote:
>>>>>> You might try asking Mario what these "other ways" are. I'd be
>>>>>> interested in knowing. Perhaps he's thinking of "natural genetic
>>>>>> engineering" or "morphic resonance", but I'm willing to bet it's
>>>>>> some kind of woo.
>>>>>
>>>>>          No, I have not the slightest idea what these "other ways"
>>>>> are. I just said that science doesn't know about them. I, too, have
>>>>> not the slightest idea what they are.
>>>>>
>>>> How do you know they exist? How do you know they're important?
>>>
>>>          Because "evolution by errors" is stupid to the bone. I don't
>>> know who actually invented this, but it is sneaked into science by
>>> Catholic church, and called Genetic Mutation Theory, a very well
>>> known fact. A typical story of science,stupid, and manipulated by
>>> church. No sense in it at all.
>>>          I see a lot of different people around me. Everybody has
>>> different dimensions, although we have similar genes. This is enough
>>> for evolution to work, you don't need a gene manipulation, there is
>>> enough of change already in it, you don't need more of it. You only
>>> need deliberate "gene change" if you want God to be involved in the
>>> story, and if you really desperately need some special
>>> extraterrestrial magical effects, like "intelligence". So, now I have
>>> to deal with a lot of idiots who prey to magic, because they see
>>> themselves as being magical. No, we are just normal animals, earthly
>>> beings, nothing else. But if you see all those scientific theories,
>>> they all revolve around "intelligence". We are tall because we are
>>> intelligent, we have long hair because we are intelligent, we have
>>> blue eyes because we are intelligent, and so on, and so on, the
>>> source of every trait in humans is our "intelligence", "intelligence"
>>> is answer to everything (I just saw a video, "Jesus is always the
>>> answer", kid wrote in test, :) ). And this has to, somehow, fall from
>>> skies. And voila, we have genes, and they can produce, literally,
>>> anything, including the "magical stuff", and my god aren't we so
>>> magical.
>>
>>          And, BTW, if we are so intelligent our scientists wouldn't be
>> so easily manipulated by Catholic church. The very fact that all our
>> scientific theories about Genesis (The Genetic Mutation Theory, The
>> Big Bang Theory) were produced by Catholic priests tells you that we
>> are just as intelligent as sheep. Mendel produced Genetic Mutation
>> Theory in 1866 AD. It wasn't accepted. It was accepted when Mendel was
>> "rediscovered", 34 years later (Mendel was already dead). What was the
>> difference between 1866 AD and 1900 AD? In the number, and the magic
>> number is three. We evolved to trust something if it comes from three
>> independent sources, automatically, without *thinking*. So, the whole
>> science accepted the major idea because it heard it from three
>> "independent" sources in the same time (two months apart). And that's
>> it. And we are talking about science, about scientists, who are
>> supposed to have a scientific thinking. And Catholic church sold them
>> simple trick, like they are sheep. And those same people claim that
>> they are soooo intelligent. My god.
>
>         Of course, if you have it written in a book you don't have to
> think about it, it is already written. Good old story of Bible. Bible is
> written for humans so that humans *don't have to think*. And you have so
> many humans who *don't think*, so many of those so intelligent humans,
> they read the book, they don't think by themselves. And then somebody
> shows you a Chinese saying, and you go and see how those people live.
> Like animals, for gods sake, without human rights, slaves of the Party.
> They are born, they live, and they are dying only because Party needs
> that, not because this is how proud and intelligent beings are supposed
> to. And they choose this by themselves, they have no objection.
> Confucius told them to do so (I suppose).

I would like to compare the intelligence of those monkeys to the
intelligence of people living in hierarchical societies:
https://youtu.be/meiU6TxysCg

On 8/19/23 1:20 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
> On 19.8.2023. 21:19, John Harshman wrote:
>> On 8/19/23 11:13 AM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>>> On 19.8.2023. 15:04, John Harshman wrote:
>>>> On 8/18/23 9:37 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>>>>> On 19.8.2023. 4:12, John Harshman wrote:
>>>>>> You might try asking Mario what these "other ways" are. I'd be
>>>>>> interested in knowing. Perhaps he's thinking of "natural genetic
>>>>>> engineering" or "morphic resonance", but I'm willing to bet it's
>>>>>> some kind of woo.
>>>>>
>>>>>          No, I have not the slightest idea what these "other ways"
>>>>> are. I just said that science doesn't know about them. I, too, have
>>>>> not the slightest idea what they are.
>>>>>
>>>> How do you know they exist? How do you know they're important?
>>>
>>>          Because "evolution by errors" is stupid to the bone. I don't
>>> know who actually invented this, but it is sneaked into science by
>>> Catholic church, and called Genetic Mutation Theory, a very well
>>> known fact. A typical story of science,stupid, and manipulated by
>>> church. No sense in it at all.
>>
>> I'm sorry, but that's insane. The Catholic Church had nothing to do
>> with introducing the concept of mutations into biology, and they were
>> introduced because they were actually observed. We know mutations
>> happen, we know how they happen, and we know what happens to them
>> afterwards. It's not weird magic.
>
>         Good for mutations. More than 20 years when I found myself
> learning about paleoanthropology "Genetic Mutation Theory (Mendel is the
> author) was them main word. It made fun of Darwin, Darwin was the past,
> everybody was talking about Genetic Mutation Theory. Today, if you type
> "Genetic Mutation Theory" into Wikipedia you will get no results. But
> no, I am not insane, the whole science is insane. And all this changed
> after I started to write about it on forums. And yes, this actually
> happened, I am not insane.

I don't know what was happening in paleoanthropology 20 years ago. But
what you describe is not recognizable as anything in actual evolutionary
biology. Nor does Mendel have anything at all to do with mutations. If
paleoanthropologists said that, which I strongly doubt, they were wrong.

You may not be insane, but what you're saying is nonsensical.

>>>          I see a lot of different people around me. Everybody has
>>> different dimensions, although we have similar genes.
>>
>> Slightly different alleles of some of those genes, though, and this
>> accounts for a good fraction of the differences you observe.
>>
>>> This is enough for evolution to work, you don't need a gene
>>> manipulation, there is enough of change already in it, you don't need
>>> more of it.
>>
>> That's true. Standing genetic variation can power evolution for a
>> while. But eventually it runs out and evolution would stop unless
>> there were a source of new variation, i.e. mutation.
>
>         Mutation will not help, mutation is malfunction, and organism
> has the way to deal with mutations, as far as I know organism corrects
> mutations. I can trace my five fingers long way down the evolution
> chain, and people in this forum should know about it. It didn't stop to
> evolve. You can find the origin of everything down the evolution chain.
> I doubt that this would be caused by mutation. The "mutation" is the
> answer when you don't know the answer.

Again, you seem to have zero knowledge of evolutionary biology. If you
learned about it, all those questions would be answered. Organisms do
correct mutations; that's called proofreading and repair. But repair
doesn't fix all mutations and it actually causes some of them. Observed
mutation rates take repair into account. Not sure what "it didn't stop
to evolve" is about. Mutations do happen, some of them affect phenotype,
and some of them are beneficial. That's how adaptive evolution works.

>>> You only need deliberate "gene change" if you want God to be involved
>>> in the story, and if you really desperately need some special
>>> extraterrestrial magical effects, like "intelligence".
>>
>> Nobody said any of this mutation is deliberate. Well, nobody except ID
>> crackpots.
>
>         It allows for god's intervention, this is why Catholic church
> is pushing it. Just like the Big Bang Theory, which allows for God's
> creation.

It also allows for God's non-intervention. Again, your statements are
just wrong. I don't think the Catholic church is even pushing mutation.
Where do you get this idea?

>>> So, now I have to deal with a lot of idiots who prey to magic,
>>> because they see themselves as being magical. No, we are just normal
>>> animals, earthly beings, nothing else. But if you see all those
>>> scientific theories, they all revolve around "intelligence". We are
>>> tall because we are intelligent, we have long hair because we are
>>> intelligent, we have blue eyes because we are intelligent, and so on,
>>> and so on, the source of every trait in humans is our "intelligence",
>>> "intelligence" is answer to everything (I just saw a video, "Jesus is
>>> always the answer", kid wrote in test, :) ). And this has to,
>>> somehow, fall from skies. And voila, we have genes, and they can
>>> produce, literally, anything, including the "magical stuff", and my
>>> god aren't we so magical.
>>
>> Nothing you say in that paragraph is true. Nobody (again, with the
>> exception of a few ID crackpots) thinks any of that. You are arguing
>> against a small minority of people who aren't even here.
>

On 20.8.2023. 1:46, John Harshman wrote:
> On 8/19/23 1:20 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>> On 19.8.2023. 21:19, John Harshman wrote:
>>> On 8/19/23 11:13 AM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>>>> On 19.8.2023. 15:04, John Harshman wrote:
>>>>> On 8/18/23 9:37 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>>>>>> On 19.8.2023. 4:12, John Harshman wrote:
>>>>>>> You might try asking Mario what these "other ways" are. I'd be
>>>>>>> interested in knowing. Perhaps he's thinking of "natural genetic
>>>>>>> engineering" or "morphic resonance", but I'm willing to bet it's
>>>>>>> some kind of woo.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>          No, I have not the slightest idea what these "other ways"
>>>>>> are. I just said that science doesn't know about them. I, too,
>>>>>> have not the slightest idea what they are.
>>>>>>
>>>>> How do you know they exist? How do you know they're important?
>>>>
>>>>          Because "evolution by errors" is stupid to the bone. I
>>>> don't know who actually invented this, but it is sneaked into
>>>> science by Catholic church, and called Genetic Mutation Theory, a
>>>> very well known fact. A typical story of science,stupid, and
>>>> manipulated by church. No sense in it at all.
>>>
>>> I'm sorry, but that's insane. The Catholic Church had nothing to do
>>> with introducing the concept of mutations into biology, and they were
>>> introduced because they were actually observed. We know mutations
>>> happen, we know how they happen, and we know what happens to them
>>> afterwards. It's not weird magic.
>>
>>          Good for mutations. More than 20 years when I found myself
>> learning about paleoanthropology "Genetic Mutation Theory (Mendel is
>> the author) was them main word. It made fun of Darwin, Darwin was the
>> past, everybody was talking about Genetic Mutation Theory. Today, if
>> you type "Genetic Mutation Theory" into Wikipedia you will get no
>> results. But no, I am not insane, the whole science is insane. And all
>> this changed after I started to write about it on forums. And yes,
>> this actually happened, I am not insane.
>
> I don't know what was happening in paleoanthropology 20 years ago. But
> what you describe is not recognizable as anything in actual evolutionary
> biology. Nor does Mendel have anything at all to do with mutations. If
> paleoanthropologists said that, which I strongly doubt, they were wrong.
>
> You may not be insane, but what you're saying is nonsensical.

Hm, on papers 10 and more years old you can read that Genetic
Mutation Theory is by Mendel: "Genetic algorithm (GA) is an optimization
searching algorithm based on the theory of evolution and the genetic
mutation theory of Mendel (Atmar, 1994, Chaudhry et al., 2000, Fogel,
1994, Srinivas and Patnaik, 1994)." These days, though, everybody says
that it is De Vries's. Now, what and why? And, frankly, I am really
puzzled how suddenly you don't know anything about it.

>>>>          I see a lot of different people around me. Everybody has
>>>> different dimensions, although we have similar genes.
>>>
>>> Slightly different alleles of some of those genes, though, and this
>>> accounts for a good fraction of the differences you observe.
>>>
>>>> This is enough for evolution to work, you don't need a gene
>>>> manipulation, there is enough of change already in it, you don't
>>>> need more of it.
>>>
>>> That's true. Standing genetic variation can power evolution for a
>>> while. But eventually it runs out and evolution would stop unless
>>> there were a source of new variation, i.e. mutation.
>>
>>          Mutation will not help, mutation is malfunction, and organism
>> has the way to deal with mutations, as far as I know organism corrects
>> mutations. I can trace my five fingers long way down the evolution
>> chain, and people in this forum should know about it. It didn't stop
>> to evolve. You can find the origin of everything down the evolution
>> chain. I doubt that this would be caused by mutation. The "mutation"
>> is the answer when you don't know the answer.
>
> Again, you seem to have zero knowledge of evolutionary biology. If you
> learned about it, all those questions would be answered. Organisms do
> correct mutations; that's called proofreading and repair. But repair
> doesn't fix all mutations and it actually causes some of them. Observed
> mutation rates take repair into account. Not sure what "it didn't stop
> to evolve" is about. Mutations do happen, some of them affect phenotype,
> and some of them are beneficial. That's how adaptive evolution works.

I am giving up.

>>>> You only need deliberate "gene change" if you want God to be
>>>> involved in the story, and if you really desperately need some
>>>> special extraterrestrial magical effects, like "intelligence".
>>>
>>> Nobody said any of this mutation is deliberate. Well, nobody except
>>> ID crackpots.
>>
>>          It allows for god's intervention, this is why Catholic church
>> is pushing it. Just like the Big Bang Theory, which allows for God's
>> creation.
>
> It also allows for God's non-intervention. Again, your statements are
> just wrong. I don't think the Catholic church is even pushing mutation.
> Where do you get this idea?

From the fact that the Genetic Mutation Theory was accepted
after it was rediscovered by three independent scientists in a matter of
two months, in a time when there wasn't even a radio. If you would use
your brain you would figure out the trick, but I don't expect this from you:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregor_Mendel#Rediscovery_of_Mendel's_work
First, this Catholic priest was a liar, then "somebody" used
trick to sell his theory to the world. Harshman, I had enough of you.
Suddenly you "play stupid" (Croatia expression), like "First time I ever
heard this, are you imagining things?". Don't you say.
I mean, I don't know anything about genetics. But, somehow I
know who is the father of genetics, and you don't know anything about
it. Hm, "strange".

>>>> So, now I have to deal with a lot of idiots who prey to magic,
>>>> because they see themselves as being magical. No, we are just normal
>>>> animals, earthly beings, nothing else. But if you see all those
>>>> scientific theories, they all revolve around "intelligence". We are
>>>> tall because we are intelligent, we have long hair because we are
>>>> intelligent, we have blue eyes because we are intelligent, and so
>>>> on, and so on, the source of every trait in humans is our
>>>> "intelligence", "intelligence" is answer to everything (I just saw a
>>>> video, "Jesus is always the answer", kid wrote in test, :) ). And
>>>> this has to, somehow, fall from skies. And voila, we have genes, and
>>>> they can produce, literally, anything, including the "magical
>>>> stuff", and my god aren't we so magical.
>>>
>>> Nothing you say in that paragraph is true. Nobody (again, with the
>>> exception of a few ID crackpots) thinks any of that. You are arguing
>>> against a small minority of people who aren't even here.

On 8/19/23 5:10 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
> On 20.8.2023. 1:46, John Harshman wrote:
>> On 8/19/23 1:20 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>>> On 19.8.2023. 21:19, John Harshman wrote:
>>>> On 8/19/23 11:13 AM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>>>>> On 19.8.2023. 15:04, John Harshman wrote:
>>>>>> On 8/18/23 9:37 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>>>>>>> On 19.8.2023. 4:12, John Harshman wrote:
>>>>>>>> You might try asking Mario what these "other ways" are. I'd be
>>>>>>>> interested in knowing. Perhaps he's thinking of "natural genetic
>>>>>>>> engineering" or "morphic resonance", but I'm willing to bet it's
>>>>>>>> some kind of woo.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>          No, I have not the slightest idea what these "other
>>>>>>> ways" are. I just said that science doesn't know about them. I,
>>>>>>> too, have not the slightest idea what they are.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> How do you know they exist? How do you know they're important?
>>>>>
>>>>>          Because "evolution by errors" is stupid to the bone. I
>>>>> don't know who actually invented this, but it is sneaked into
>>>>> science by Catholic church, and called Genetic Mutation Theory, a
>>>>> very well known fact. A typical story of science,stupid, and
>>>>> manipulated by church. No sense in it at all.
>>>>
>>>> I'm sorry, but that's insane. The Catholic Church had nothing to do
>>>> with introducing the concept of mutations into biology, and they
>>>> were introduced because they were actually observed. We know
>>>> mutations happen, we know how they happen, and we know what happens
>>>> to them afterwards. It's not weird magic.
>>>
>>>          Good for mutations. More than 20 years when I found myself
>>> learning about paleoanthropology "Genetic Mutation Theory (Mendel is
>>> the author) was them main word. It made fun of Darwin, Darwin was the
>>> past, everybody was talking about Genetic Mutation Theory. Today, if
>>> you type "Genetic Mutation Theory" into Wikipedia you will get no
>>> results. But no, I am not insane, the whole science is insane. And
>>> all this changed after I started to write about it on forums. And
>>> yes, this actually happened, I am not insane.
>>
>> I don't know what was happening in paleoanthropology 20 years ago. But
>> what you describe is not recognizable as anything in actual
>> evolutionary biology. Nor does Mendel have anything at all to do with
>> mutations. If paleoanthropologists said that, which I strongly doubt,
>> they were wrong.
>>
>> You may not be insane, but what you're saying is nonsensical.
>
>         Hm, on papers 10 and more years old you can read that Genetic
> Mutation Theory is by Mendel: "Genetic algorithm (GA) is an optimization
> searching algorithm based on the theory of evolution and the genetic
> mutation theory of Mendel (Atmar, 1994, Chaudhry et al., 2000, Fogel,
> 1994, Srinivas and Patnaik, 1994)." These days, though, everybody says
> that it is De Vries's. Now, what and why? And, frankly, I am really
> puzzled how suddenly you don't know anything about it.

What are you quoting there? What are the cited references? If it's about
genetic algorithms is would seem very peripheral to evolutionary
biology, and I wouldn't be confident that it's right in its attributions.

It's true that De Vries had a theory of mutation, though Mendel did not.

>>>>>          I see a lot of different people around me. Everybody has
>>>>> different dimensions, although we have similar genes.
>>>>
>>>> Slightly different alleles of some of those genes, though, and this
>>>> accounts for a good fraction of the differences you observe.
>>>>
>>>>> This is enough for evolution to work, you don't need a gene
>>>>> manipulation, there is enough of change already in it, you don't
>>>>> need more of it.
>>>>
>>>> That's true. Standing genetic variation can power evolution for a
>>>> while. But eventually it runs out and evolution would stop unless
>>>> there were a source of new variation, i.e. mutation.
>>>
>>>          Mutation will not help, mutation is malfunction, and
>>> organism has the way to deal with mutations, as far as I know
>>> organism corrects mutations. I can trace my five fingers long way
>>> down the evolution chain, and people in this forum should know about
>>> it. It didn't stop to evolve. You can find the origin of everything
>>> down the evolution chain. I doubt that this would be caused by
>>> mutation. The "mutation" is the answer when you don't know the answer.
>>
>> Again, you seem to have zero knowledge of evolutionary biology. If you
>> learned about it, all those questions would be answered. Organisms do
>> correct mutations; that's called proofreading and repair. But repair
>> doesn't fix all mutations and it actually causes some of them.
>> Observed mutation rates take repair into account. Not sure what "it
>> didn't stop to evolve" is about. Mutations do happen, some of them
>> affect phenotype, and some of them are beneficial. That's how adaptive
>> evolution works.
>
>         I am giving up.

If only that were true.

>>>>> You only need deliberate "gene change" if you want God to be
>>>>> involved in the story, and if you really desperately need some
>>>>> special extraterrestrial magical effects, like "intelligence".
>>>>
>>>> Nobody said any of this mutation is deliberate. Well, nobody except
>>>> ID crackpots.
>>>
>>>          It allows for god's intervention, this is why Catholic
>>> church is pushing it. Just like the Big Bang Theory, which allows for
>>> God's creation.
>>
>> It also allows for God's non-intervention. Again, your statements are
>> just wrong. I don't think the Catholic church is even pushing
>> mutation. Where do you get this idea?
>
>         From the fact that the Genetic Mutation Theory was accepted
> after it was rediscovered by three independent scientists in a matter of
> two months, in a time when there wasn't even a radio. If you would use
> your brain you would figure out the trick, but I don't expect this from
> you:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregor_Mendel#Rediscovery_of_Mendel's_work

Notice that nowhere in that article is there any mention of mutation.
And if you actually read it you will find that the rediscovery of Mendel
is all about the fact that inheritance is particulate, not blending.
That's Mendel's work and that's Mendel's theory.

>         First, this Catholic priest was a liar, then "somebody" used
> trick to sell his theory to the world.

Nobody is saying any of that.

> Harshman, I had enough of you.
> Suddenly you "play stupid" (Croatia expression), like "First time I ever
> heard this, are you imagining things?". Don't you say.
>         I mean, I don't know anything about genetics. But, somehow I
> know who is the father of genetics, and you don't know anything about
> it. Hm, "strange".

Mendel is the father of genetics. But there is no "genetic mutation
theory" in Mendel's work. Mutation was added to genetics later. I will
agree that you know nothing about genetics or, apparently, about its
history.

Strange indeed.

>>>>> So, now I have to deal with a lot of idiots who prey to magic,
>>>>> because they see themselves as being magical. No, we are just
>>>>> normal animals, earthly beings, nothing else. But if you see all
>>>>> those scientific theories, they all revolve around "intelligence".
>>>>> We are tall because we are intelligent, we have long hair because
>>>>> we are intelligent, we have blue eyes because we are intelligent,
>>>>> and so on, and so on, the source of every trait in humans is our
>>>>> "intelligence", "intelligence" is answer to everything (I just saw
>>>>> a video, "Jesus is always the answer", kid wrote in test, :) ). And
>>>>> this has to, somehow, fall from skies. And voila, we have genes,
>>>>> and they can produce, literally, anything, including the "magical
>>>>> stuff", and my god aren't we so magical.
>>>>
>>>> Nothing you say in that paragraph is true. Nobody (again, with the
>>>> exception of a few ID crackpots) thinks any of that. You are arguing
>>>> against a small minority of people who aren't even here.
>

On 20.8.2023. 3:21, John Harshman wrote:
> On 8/19/23 5:10 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>> On 20.8.2023. 1:46, John Harshman wrote:
>>> On 8/19/23 1:20 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>>>> On 19.8.2023. 21:19, John Harshman wrote:
>>>>> On 8/19/23 11:13 AM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>>>>>> On 19.8.2023. 15:04, John Harshman wrote:
>>>>>>> On 8/18/23 9:37 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 19.8.2023. 4:12, John Harshman wrote:
>>>>>>>>> You might try asking Mario what these "other ways" are. I'd be
>>>>>>>>> interested in knowing. Perhaps he's thinking of "natural
>>>>>>>>> genetic engineering" or "morphic resonance", but I'm willing to
>>>>>>>>> bet it's some kind of woo.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>          No, I have not the slightest idea what these "other
>>>>>>>> ways" are. I just said that science doesn't know about them. I,
>>>>>>>> too, have not the slightest idea what they are.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> How do you know they exist? How do you know they're important?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>          Because "evolution by errors" is stupid to the bone. I
>>>>>> don't know who actually invented this, but it is sneaked into
>>>>>> science by Catholic church, and called Genetic Mutation Theory, a
>>>>>> very well known fact. A typical story of science,stupid, and
>>>>>> manipulated by church. No sense in it at all.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm sorry, but that's insane. The Catholic Church had nothing to do
>>>>> with introducing the concept of mutations into biology, and they
>>>>> were introduced because they were actually observed. We know
>>>>> mutations happen, we know how they happen, and we know what happens
>>>>> to them afterwards. It's not weird magic.
>>>>
>>>>          Good for mutations. More than 20 years when I found myself
>>>> learning about paleoanthropology "Genetic Mutation Theory (Mendel is
>>>> the author) was them main word. It made fun of Darwin, Darwin was
>>>> the past, everybody was talking about Genetic Mutation Theory.
>>>> Today, if you type "Genetic Mutation Theory" into Wikipedia you will
>>>> get no results. But no, I am not insane, the whole science is
>>>> insane. And all this changed after I started to write about it on
>>>> forums. And yes, this actually happened, I am not insane.
>>>
>>> I don't know what was happening in paleoanthropology 20 years ago.
>>> But what you describe is not recognizable as anything in actual
>>> evolutionary biology. Nor does Mendel have anything at all to do with
>>> mutations. If paleoanthropologists said that, which I strongly doubt,
>>> they were wrong.
>>>
>>> You may not be insane, but what you're saying is nonsensical.
>>
>>          Hm, on papers 10 and more years old you can read that Genetic
>> Mutation Theory is by Mendel: "Genetic algorithm (GA) is an
>> optimization searching algorithm based on the theory of evolution and
>> the genetic mutation theory of Mendel (Atmar, 1994, Chaudhry et al.,
>> 2000, Fogel, 1994, Srinivas and Patnaik, 1994)." These days, though,
>> everybody says that it is De Vries's. Now, what and why? And, frankly,
>> I am really puzzled how suddenly you don't know anything about it.
>
> What are you quoting there? What are the cited references? If it's about
> genetic algorithms is would seem very peripheral to evolutionary
> biology, and I wouldn't be confident that it's right in its attributions.
>
> It's true that De Vries had a theory of mutation, though Mendel did not.
>
>>>>>>          I see a lot of different people around me. Everybody has
>>>>>> different dimensions, although we have similar genes.
>>>>>
>>>>> Slightly different alleles of some of those genes, though, and this
>>>>> accounts for a good fraction of the differences you observe.
>>>>>
>>>>>> This is enough for evolution to work, you don't need a gene
>>>>>> manipulation, there is enough of change already in it, you don't
>>>>>> need more of it.
>>>>>
>>>>> That's true. Standing genetic variation can power evolution for a
>>>>> while. But eventually it runs out and evolution would stop unless
>>>>> there were a source of new variation, i.e. mutation.
>>>>
>>>>          Mutation will not help, mutation is malfunction, and
>>>> organism has the way to deal with mutations, as far as I know
>>>> organism corrects mutations. I can trace my five fingers long way
>>>> down the evolution chain, and people in this forum should know about
>>>> it. It didn't stop to evolve. You can find the origin of everything
>>>> down the evolution chain. I doubt that this would be caused by
>>>> mutation. The "mutation" is the answer when you don't know the answer.
>>>
>>> Again, you seem to have zero knowledge of evolutionary biology. If
>>> you learned about it, all those questions would be answered.
>>> Organisms do correct mutations; that's called proofreading and
>>> repair. But repair doesn't fix all mutations and it actually causes
>>> some of them. Observed mutation rates take repair into account. Not
>>> sure what "it didn't stop to evolve" is about. Mutations do happen,
>>> some of them affect phenotype, and some of them are beneficial.
>>> That's how adaptive evolution works.
>>
>>          I am giving up.
>
> If only that were true.
>
>>>>>> You only need deliberate "gene change" if you want God to be
>>>>>> involved in the story, and if you really desperately need some
>>>>>> special extraterrestrial magical effects, like "intelligence".
>>>>>
>>>>> Nobody said any of this mutation is deliberate. Well, nobody except
>>>>> ID crackpots.
>>>>
>>>>          It allows for god's intervention, this is why Catholic
>>>> church is pushing it. Just like the Big Bang Theory, which allows
>>>> for God's creation.
>>>
>>> It also allows for God's non-intervention. Again, your statements are
>>> just wrong. I don't think the Catholic church is even pushing
>>> mutation. Where do you get this idea?
>>
>>          From the fact that the Genetic Mutation Theory was accepted
>> after it was rediscovered by three independent scientists in a matter
>> of two months, in a time when there wasn't even a radio. If you would
>> use your brain you would figure out the trick, but I don't expect this
>> from you:
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregor_Mendel#Rediscovery_of_Mendel's_work
>
> Notice that nowhere in that article is there any mention of mutation.
> And if you actually read it you will find that the rediscovery of Mendel
> is all about the fact that inheritance is particulate, not blending.
> That's Mendel's work and that's Mendel's theory.
>
>>          First, this Catholic priest was a liar, then "somebody" used
>> trick to sell his theory to the world.
>
> Nobody is saying any of that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregor_Mendel#Mendelian_paradox

>> Harshman, I had enough of you. Suddenly you "play stupid" (Croatia
>> expression), like "First time I ever heard this, are you imagining
>> things?". Don't you say.
>>          I mean, I don't know anything about genetics. But, somehow I
>> know who is the father of genetics, and you don't know anything about
>> it. Hm, "strange".
>
> Mendel is the father of genetics. But there is no "genetic mutation
> theory" in Mendel's work. Mutation was added to genetics later. I will
> agree that you know nothing about genetics or, apparently, about its
> history.
>
> Strange indeed.
>
>>>>>> So, now I have to deal with a lot of idiots who prey to magic,
>>>>>> because they see themselves as being magical. No, we are just
>>>>>> normal animals, earthly beings, nothing else. But if you see all
>>>>>> those scientific theories, they all revolve around "intelligence".
>>>>>> We are tall because we are intelligent, we have long hair because
>>>>>> we are intelligent, we have blue eyes because we are intelligent,
>>>>>> and so on, and so on, the source of every trait in humans is our
>>>>>> "intelligence", "intelligence" is answer to everything (I just saw
>>>>>> a video, "Jesus is always the answer", kid wrote in test, :) ).
>>>>>> And this has to, somehow, fall from skies. And voila, we have
>>>>>> genes, and they can produce, literally, anything, including the
>>>>>> "magical stuff", and my god aren't we so magical.
>>>>>
>>>>> Nothing you say in that paragraph is true. Nobody (again, with the
>>>>> exception of a few ID crackpots) thinks any of that. You are
>>>>> arguing against a small minority of people who aren't even here.

On 8/19/23 7:33 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
> On 20.8.2023. 3:21, John Harshman wrote:
>> On 8/19/23 5:10 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>>> On 20.8.2023. 1:46, John Harshman wrote:
>>>> On 8/19/23 1:20 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>>>>> On 19.8.2023. 21:19, John Harshman wrote:
>>>>>> On 8/19/23 11:13 AM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>>>>>>> On 19.8.2023. 15:04, John Harshman wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 8/18/23 9:37 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 19.8.2023. 4:12, John Harshman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> You might try asking Mario what these "other ways" are. I'd be
>>>>>>>>>> interested in knowing. Perhaps he's thinking of "natural
>>>>>>>>>> genetic engineering" or "morphic resonance", but I'm willing
>>>>>>>>>> to bet it's some kind of woo.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>          No, I have not the slightest idea what these "other
>>>>>>>>> ways" are. I just said that science doesn't know about them. I,
>>>>>>>>> too, have not the slightest idea what they are.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> How do you know they exist? How do you know they're important?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>          Because "evolution by errors" is stupid to the bone. I
>>>>>>> don't know who actually invented this, but it is sneaked into
>>>>>>> science by Catholic church, and called Genetic Mutation Theory, a
>>>>>>> very well known fact. A typical story of science,stupid, and
>>>>>>> manipulated by church. No sense in it at all.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm sorry, but that's insane. The Catholic Church had nothing to
>>>>>> do with introducing the concept of mutations into biology, and
>>>>>> they were introduced because they were actually observed. We know
>>>>>> mutations happen, we know how they happen, and we know what
>>>>>> happens to them afterwards. It's not weird magic.
>>>>>
>>>>>          Good for mutations. More than 20 years when I found myself
>>>>> learning about paleoanthropology "Genetic Mutation Theory (Mendel
>>>>> is the author) was them main word. It made fun of Darwin, Darwin
>>>>> was the past, everybody was talking about Genetic Mutation Theory.
>>>>> Today, if you type "Genetic Mutation Theory" into Wikipedia you
>>>>> will get no results. But no, I am not insane, the whole science is
>>>>> insane. And all this changed after I started to write about it on
>>>>> forums. And yes, this actually happened, I am not insane.
>>>>
>>>> I don't know what was happening in paleoanthropology 20 years ago.
>>>> But what you describe is not recognizable as anything in actual
>>>> evolutionary biology. Nor does Mendel have anything at all to do
>>>> with mutations. If paleoanthropologists said that, which I strongly
>>>> doubt, they were wrong.
>>>>
>>>> You may not be insane, but what you're saying is nonsensical.
>>>
>>>          Hm, on papers 10 and more years old you can read that
>>> Genetic Mutation Theory is by Mendel: "Genetic algorithm (GA) is an
>>> optimization searching algorithm based on the theory of evolution and
>>> the genetic mutation theory of Mendel (Atmar, 1994, Chaudhry et al.,
>>> 2000, Fogel, 1994, Srinivas and Patnaik, 1994)." These days, though,
>>> everybody says that it is De Vries's. Now, what and why? And,
>>> frankly, I am really puzzled how suddenly you don't know anything
>>> about it.
>>
>> What are you quoting there? What are the cited references? If it's
>> about genetic algorithms is would seem very peripheral to evolutionary
>> biology, and I wouldn't be confident that it's right in its attributions.
>>
>> It's true that De Vries had a theory of mutation, though Mendel did not.
>>
>>>>>>>          I see a lot of different people around me. Everybody has
>>>>>>> different dimensions, although we have similar genes.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Slightly different alleles of some of those genes, though, and
>>>>>> this accounts for a good fraction of the differences you observe.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This is enough for evolution to work, you don't need a gene
>>>>>>> manipulation, there is enough of change already in it, you don't
>>>>>>> need more of it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's true. Standing genetic variation can power evolution for a
>>>>>> while. But eventually it runs out and evolution would stop unless
>>>>>> there were a source of new variation, i.e. mutation.
>>>>>
>>>>>          Mutation will not help, mutation is malfunction, and
>>>>> organism has the way to deal with mutations, as far as I know
>>>>> organism corrects mutations. I can trace my five fingers long way
>>>>> down the evolution chain, and people in this forum should know
>>>>> about it. It didn't stop to evolve. You can find the origin of
>>>>> everything down the evolution chain. I doubt that this would be
>>>>> caused by mutation. The "mutation" is the answer when you don't
>>>>> know the answer.
>>>>
>>>> Again, you seem to have zero knowledge of evolutionary biology. If
>>>> you learned about it, all those questions would be answered.
>>>> Organisms do correct mutations; that's called proofreading and
>>>> repair. But repair doesn't fix all mutations and it actually causes
>>>> some of them. Observed mutation rates take repair into account. Not
>>>> sure what "it didn't stop to evolve" is about. Mutations do happen,
>>>> some of them affect phenotype, and some of them are beneficial.
>>>> That's how adaptive evolution works.
>>>
>>>          I am giving up.
>>
>> If only that were true.
>>
>>>>>>> You only need deliberate "gene change" if you want God to be
>>>>>>> involved in the story, and if you really desperately need some
>>>>>>> special extraterrestrial magical effects, like "intelligence".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nobody said any of this mutation is deliberate. Well, nobody
>>>>>> except ID crackpots.
>>>>>
>>>>>          It allows for god's intervention, this is why Catholic
>>>>> church is pushing it. Just like the Big Bang Theory, which allows
>>>>> for God's creation.
>>>>
>>>> It also allows for God's non-intervention. Again, your statements
>>>> are just wrong. I don't think the Catholic church is even pushing
>>>> mutation. Where do you get this idea?
>>>
>>>          From the fact that the Genetic Mutation Theory was accepted
>>> after it was rediscovered by three independent scientists in a matter
>>> of two months, in a time when there wasn't even a radio. If you would
>>> use your brain you would figure out the trick, but I don't expect
>>> this from you:
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregor_Mendel#Rediscovery_of_Mendel's_work
>>
>> Notice that nowhere in that article is there any mention of mutation.
>> And if you actually read it you will find that the rediscovery of
>> Mendel is all about the fact that inheritance is particulate, not
>> blending. That's Mendel's work and that's Mendel's theory.
>>
>>>          First, this Catholic priest was a liar, then "somebody" used
>>> trick to sell his theory to the world.
>>
>> Nobody is saying any of that.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregor_Mendel#Mendelian_paradox

That has nothing to do with any of your claims.

>>> Harshman, I had enough of you. Suddenly you "play stupid" (Croatia
>>> expression), like "First time I ever heard this, are you imagining
>>> things?". Don't you say.
>>>          I mean, I don't know anything about genetics. But, somehow I
>>> know who is the father of genetics, and you don't know anything about
>>> it. Hm, "strange".
>>
>> Mendel is the father of genetics. But there is no "genetic mutation
>> theory" in Mendel's work. Mutation was added to genetics later. I will
>> agree that you know nothing about genetics or, apparently, about its
>> history.
>>
>> Strange indeed.
>>
>>>>>>> So, now I have to deal with a lot of idiots who prey to magic,
>>>>>>> because they see themselves as being magical. No, we are just
>>>>>>> normal animals, earthly beings, nothing else. But if you see all
>>>>>>> those scientific theories, they all revolve around
>>>>>>> "intelligence". We are tall because we are intelligent, we have
>>>>>>> long hair because we are intelligent, we have blue eyes because
>>>>>>> we are intelligent, and so on, and so on, the source of every
>>>>>>> trait in humans is our "intelligence", "intelligence" is answer
>>>>>>> to everything (I just saw a video, "Jesus is always the answer",
>>>>>>> kid wrote in test, :) ). And this has to, somehow, fall from
>>>>>>> skies. And voila, we have genes, and they can produce, literally,
>>>>>>> anything, including the "magical stuff", and my god aren't we so
>>>>>>> magical.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nothing you say in that paragraph is true. Nobody (again, with the
>>>>>> exception of a few ID crackpots) thinks any of that. You are
>>>>>> arguing against a small minority of people who aren't even here.
>

On 20.8.2023. 4:50, John Harshman wrote:
> On 8/19/23 7:33 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>> On 20.8.2023. 3:21, John Harshman wrote:
>>> On 8/19/23 5:10 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>>>> On 20.8.2023. 1:46, John Harshman wrote:
>>>>> On 8/19/23 1:20 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>>>>>> On 19.8.2023. 21:19, John Harshman wrote:
>>>>>>> On 8/19/23 11:13 AM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 19.8.2023. 15:04, John Harshman wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 8/18/23 9:37 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 19.8.2023. 4:12, John Harshman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> You might try asking Mario what these "other ways" are. I'd
>>>>>>>>>>> be interested in knowing. Perhaps he's thinking of "natural
>>>>>>>>>>> genetic engineering" or "morphic resonance", but I'm willing
>>>>>>>>>>> to bet it's some kind of woo.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>          No, I have not the slightest idea what these "other
>>>>>>>>>> ways" are. I just said that science doesn't know about them.
>>>>>>>>>> I, too, have not the slightest idea what they are.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> How do you know they exist? How do you know they're important?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>          Because "evolution by errors" is stupid to the bone. I
>>>>>>>> don't know who actually invented this, but it is sneaked into
>>>>>>>> science by Catholic church, and called Genetic Mutation Theory,
>>>>>>>> a very well known fact. A typical story of science,stupid, and
>>>>>>>> manipulated by church. No sense in it at all.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm sorry, but that's insane. The Catholic Church had nothing to
>>>>>>> do with introducing the concept of mutations into biology, and
>>>>>>> they were introduced because they were actually observed. We know
>>>>>>> mutations happen, we know how they happen, and we know what
>>>>>>> happens to them afterwards. It's not weird magic.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>          Good for mutations. More than 20 years when I found
>>>>>> myself learning about paleoanthropology "Genetic Mutation Theory
>>>>>> (Mendel is the author) was them main word. It made fun of Darwin,
>>>>>> Darwin was the past, everybody was talking about Genetic Mutation
>>>>>> Theory. Today, if you type "Genetic Mutation Theory" into
>>>>>> Wikipedia you will get no results. But no, I am not insane, the
>>>>>> whole science is insane. And all this changed after I started to
>>>>>> write about it on forums. And yes, this actually happened, I am
>>>>>> not insane.
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't know what was happening in paleoanthropology 20 years ago.
>>>>> But what you describe is not recognizable as anything in actual
>>>>> evolutionary biology. Nor does Mendel have anything at all to do
>>>>> with mutations. If paleoanthropologists said that, which I strongly
>>>>> doubt, they were wrong.
>>>>>
>>>>> You may not be insane, but what you're saying is nonsensical.
>>>>
>>>>          Hm, on papers 10 and more years old you can read that
>>>> Genetic Mutation Theory is by Mendel: "Genetic algorithm (GA) is an
>>>> optimization searching algorithm based on the theory of evolution
>>>> and the genetic mutation theory of Mendel (Atmar, 1994, Chaudhry et
>>>> al., 2000, Fogel, 1994, Srinivas and Patnaik, 1994)." These days,
>>>> though, everybody says that it is De Vries's. Now, what and why?
>>>> And, frankly, I am really puzzled how suddenly you don't know
>>>> anything about it.
>>>
>>> What are you quoting there? What are the cited references? If it's
>>> about genetic algorithms is would seem very peripheral to
>>> evolutionary biology, and I wouldn't be confident that it's right in
>>> its attributions.
>>>
>>> It's true that De Vries had a theory of mutation, though Mendel did not.
>>>
>>>>>>>>          I see a lot of different people around me. Everybody
>>>>>>>> has different dimensions, although we have similar genes.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Slightly different alleles of some of those genes, though, and
>>>>>>> this accounts for a good fraction of the differences you observe.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This is enough for evolution to work, you don't need a gene
>>>>>>>> manipulation, there is enough of change already in it, you don't
>>>>>>>> need more of it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That's true. Standing genetic variation can power evolution for a
>>>>>>> while. But eventually it runs out and evolution would stop unless
>>>>>>> there were a source of new variation, i.e. mutation.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>          Mutation will not help, mutation is malfunction, and
>>>>>> organism has the way to deal with mutations, as far as I know
>>>>>> organism corrects mutations. I can trace my five fingers long way
>>>>>> down the evolution chain, and people in this forum should know
>>>>>> about it. It didn't stop to evolve. You can find the origin of
>>>>>> everything down the evolution chain. I doubt that this would be
>>>>>> caused by mutation. The "mutation" is the answer when you don't
>>>>>> know the answer.
>>>>>
>>>>> Again, you seem to have zero knowledge of evolutionary biology. If
>>>>> you learned about it, all those questions would be answered.
>>>>> Organisms do correct mutations; that's called proofreading and
>>>>> repair. But repair doesn't fix all mutations and it actually causes
>>>>> some of them. Observed mutation rates take repair into account. Not
>>>>> sure what "it didn't stop to evolve" is about. Mutations do happen,
>>>>> some of them affect phenotype, and some of them are beneficial.
>>>>> That's how adaptive evolution works.
>>>>
>>>>          I am giving up.
>>>
>>> If only that were true.
>>>
>>>>>>>> You only need deliberate "gene change" if you want God to be
>>>>>>>> involved in the story, and if you really desperately need some
>>>>>>>> special extraterrestrial magical effects, like "intelligence".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Nobody said any of this mutation is deliberate. Well, nobody
>>>>>>> except ID crackpots.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>          It allows for god's intervention, this is why Catholic
>>>>>> church is pushing it. Just like the Big Bang Theory, which allows
>>>>>> for God's creation.
>>>>>
>>>>> It also allows for God's non-intervention. Again, your statements
>>>>> are just wrong. I don't think the Catholic church is even pushing
>>>>> mutation. Where do you get this idea?
>>>>
>>>>          From the fact that the Genetic Mutation Theory was accepted
>>>> after it was rediscovered by three independent scientists in a
>>>> matter of two months, in a time when there wasn't even a radio. If
>>>> you would use your brain you would figure out the trick, but I don't
>>>> expect this from you:
>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregor_Mendel#Rediscovery_of_Mendel's_work
>>>
>>> Notice that nowhere in that article is there any mention of mutation.
>>> And if you actually read it you will find that the rediscovery of
>>> Mendel is all about the fact that inheritance is particulate, not
>>> blending. That's Mendel's work and that's Mendel's theory.
>>>
>>>>          First, this Catholic priest was a liar, then "somebody"
>>>> used trick to sell his theory to the world.
>>>
>>> Nobody is saying any of that.
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregor_Mendel#Mendelian_paradox
>
> That has nothing to do with any of your claims.

On Saturday, August 19, 2023 at 11:01:52 PM UTC-4, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
> On 20.8.2023. 4:50, John Harshman wrote:
> > On 8/19/23 7:33 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
> >> On 20.8.2023. 3:21, John Harshman wrote:
> >>> On 8/19/23 5:10 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
> >>>> On 20.8.2023. 1:46, John Harshman wrote:
> >>>>> On 8/19/23 1:20 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
> >>>>>> On 19.8.2023. 21:19, John Harshman wrote:
> >>>>>>> On 8/19/23 11:13 AM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 19.8.2023. 15:04, John Harshman wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On 8/18/23 9:37 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On 19.8.2023. 4:12, John Harshman wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> You might try asking Mario what these "other ways" are. I'd
> >>>>>>>>>>> be interested in knowing. Perhaps he's thinking of "natural
> >>>>>>>>>>> genetic engineering" or "morphic resonance", but I'm willing
> >>>>>>>>>>> to bet it's some kind of woo.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> No, I have not the slightest idea what these "other
> >>>>>>>>>> ways" are. I just said that science doesn't know about them.
> >>>>>>>>>> I, too, have not the slightest idea what they are.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> How do you know they exist? How do you know they're important?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Because "evolution by errors" is stupid to the bone. I
> >>>>>>>> don't know who actually invented this, but it is sneaked into
> >>>>>>>> science by Catholic church, and called Genetic Mutation Theory,
> >>>>>>>> a very well known fact. A typical story of science,stupid, and
> >>>>>>>> manipulated by church. No sense in it at all.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I'm sorry, but that's insane. The Catholic Church had nothing to
> >>>>>>> do with introducing the concept of mutations into biology, and
> >>>>>>> they were introduced because they were actually observed. We know
> >>>>>>> mutations happen, we know how they happen, and we know what
> >>>>>>> happens to them afterwards. It's not weird magic.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Good for mutations. More than 20 years when I found
> >>>>>> myself learning about paleoanthropology "Genetic Mutation Theory
> >>>>>> (Mendel is the author) was them main word. It made fun of Darwin,
> >>>>>> Darwin was the past, everybody was talking about Genetic Mutation
> >>>>>> Theory. Today, if you type "Genetic Mutation Theory" into
> >>>>>> Wikipedia you will get no results. But no, I am not insane, the
> >>>>>> whole science is insane. And all this changed after I started to
> >>>>>> write about it on forums. And yes, this actually happened, I am
> >>>>>> not insane.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I don't know what was happening in paleoanthropology 20 years ago.
> >>>>> But what you describe is not recognizable as anything in actual
> >>>>> evolutionary biology. Nor does Mendel have anything at all to do
> >>>>> with mutations. If paleoanthropologists said that, which I strongly
> >>>>> doubt, they were wrong.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> You may not be insane, but what you're saying is nonsensical.
> >>>>
> >>>> Hm, on papers 10 and more years old you can read that
> >>>> Genetic Mutation Theory is by Mendel: "Genetic algorithm (GA) is an
> >>>> optimization searching algorithm based on the theory of evolution
> >>>> and the genetic mutation theory of Mendel (Atmar, 1994, Chaudhry et
> >>>> al., 2000, Fogel, 1994, Srinivas and Patnaik, 1994)." These days,
> >>>> though, everybody says that it is De Vries's. Now, what and why?
> >>>> And, frankly, I am really puzzled how suddenly you don't know
> >>>> anything about it.
> >>>
> >>> What are you quoting there? What are the cited references? If it's
> >>> about genetic algorithms is would seem very peripheral to
> >>> evolutionary biology, and I wouldn't be confident that it's right in
> >>> its attributions.
> >>>
> >>> It's true that De Vries had a theory of mutation, though Mendel did not.
> >>>
> >>>>>>>> I see a lot of different people around me. Everybody
> >>>>>>>> has different dimensions, although we have similar genes.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Slightly different alleles of some of those genes, though, and
> >>>>>>> this accounts for a good fraction of the differences you observe.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> This is enough for evolution to work, you don't need a gene
> >>>>>>>> manipulation, there is enough of change already in it, you don't
> >>>>>>>> need more of it.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> That's true. Standing genetic variation can power evolution for a
> >>>>>>> while. But eventually it runs out and evolution would stop unless
> >>>>>>> there were a source of new variation, i.e. mutation.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Mutation will not help, mutation is malfunction, and
> >>>>>> organism has the way to deal with mutations, as far as I know
> >>>>>> organism corrects mutations. I can trace my five fingers long way
> >>>>>> down the evolution chain, and people in this forum should know
> >>>>>> about it. It didn't stop to evolve. You can find the origin of
> >>>>>> everything down the evolution chain. I doubt that this would be
> >>>>>> caused by mutation. The "mutation" is the answer when you don't
> >>>>>> know the answer.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Again, you seem to have zero knowledge of evolutionary biology. If
> >>>>> you learned about it, all those questions would be answered.
> >>>>> Organisms do correct mutations; that's called proofreading and
> >>>>> repair. But repair doesn't fix all mutations and it actually causes
> >>>>> some of them. Observed mutation rates take repair into account. Not
> >>>>> sure what "it didn't stop to evolve" is about. Mutations do happen,
> >>>>> some of them affect phenotype, and some of them are beneficial.
> >>>>> That's how adaptive evolution works.
> >>>>
> >>>> I am giving up.
> >>>
> >>> If only that were true.
> >>>
> >>>>>>>> You only need deliberate "gene change" if you want God to be
> >>>>>>>> involved in the story, and if you really desperately need some
> >>>>>>>> special extraterrestrial magical effects, like "intelligence".
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Nobody said any of this mutation is deliberate. Well, nobody
> >>>>>>> except ID crackpots.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> It allows for god's intervention, this is why Catholic
> >>>>>> church is pushing it. Just like the Big Bang Theory, which allows
> >>>>>> for God's creation.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> It also allows for God's non-intervention. Again, your statements
> >>>>> are just wrong. I don't think the Catholic church is even pushing
> >>>>> mutation. Where do you get this idea?
> >>>>
> >>>> From the fact that the Genetic Mutation Theory was accepted
> >>>> after it was rediscovered by three independent scientists in a
> >>>> matter of two months, in a time when there wasn't even a radio. If
> >>>> you would use your brain you would figure out the trick, but I don't
> >>>> expect this from you:
> >>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregor_Mendel#Rediscovery_of_Mendel's_work
> >>>
> >>> Notice that nowhere in that article is there any mention of mutation.
> >>> And if you actually read it you will find that the rediscovery of
> >>> Mendel is all about the fact that inheritance is particulate, not
> >>> blending. That's Mendel's work and that's Mendel's theory.
> >>>
> >>>> First, this Catholic priest was a liar, then "somebody"
> >>>> used trick to sell his theory to the world.
> >>>
> >>> Nobody is saying any of that.
> >>
> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregor_Mendel#Mendelian_paradox
> >
> > That has nothing to do with any of your claims.

On 22.8.2023. 4:42, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> On Saturday, August 19, 2023 at 11:01:52 PM UTC-4, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>> On 20.8.2023. 4:50, John Harshman wrote:
>>> On 8/19/23 7:33 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>>>> On 20.8.2023. 3:21, John Harshman wrote:
>>>>> On 8/19/23 5:10 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>>>>>> On 20.8.2023. 1:46, John Harshman wrote:
>>>>>>> On 8/19/23 1:20 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 19.8.2023. 21:19, John Harshman wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 8/19/23 11:13 AM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 19.8.2023. 15:04, John Harshman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/18/23 9:37 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 19.8.2023. 4:12, John Harshman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> You might try asking Mario what these "other ways" are. I'd
>>>>>>>>>>>>> be interested in knowing. Perhaps he's thinking of "natural
>>>>>>>>>>>>> genetic engineering" or "morphic resonance", but I'm willing
>>>>>>>>>>>>> to bet it's some kind of woo.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> No, I have not the slightest idea what these "other
>>>>>>>>>>>> ways" are. I just said that science doesn't know about them.
>>>>>>>>>>>> I, too, have not the slightest idea what they are.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> How do you know they exist? How do you know they're important?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Because "evolution by errors" is stupid to the bone. I
>>>>>>>>>> don't know who actually invented this, but it is sneaked into
>>>>>>>>>> science by Catholic church, and called Genetic Mutation Theory,
>>>>>>>>>> a very well known fact. A typical story of science,stupid, and
>>>>>>>>>> manipulated by church. No sense in it at all.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I'm sorry, but that's insane. The Catholic Church had nothing to
>>>>>>>>> do with introducing the concept of mutations into biology, and
>>>>>>>>> they were introduced because they were actually observed. We know
>>>>>>>>> mutations happen, we know how they happen, and we know what
>>>>>>>>> happens to them afterwards. It's not weird magic.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Good for mutations. More than 20 years when I found
>>>>>>>> myself learning about paleoanthropology "Genetic Mutation Theory
>>>>>>>> (Mendel is the author) was them main word. It made fun of Darwin,
>>>>>>>> Darwin was the past, everybody was talking about Genetic Mutation
>>>>>>>> Theory. Today, if you type "Genetic Mutation Theory" into
>>>>>>>> Wikipedia you will get no results. But no, I am not insane, the
>>>>>>>> whole science is insane. And all this changed after I started to
>>>>>>>> write about it on forums. And yes, this actually happened, I am
>>>>>>>> not insane.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I don't know what was happening in paleoanthropology 20 years ago.
>>>>>>> But what you describe is not recognizable as anything in actual
>>>>>>> evolutionary biology. Nor does Mendel have anything at all to do
>>>>>>> with mutations. If paleoanthropologists said that, which I strongly
>>>>>>> doubt, they were wrong.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You may not be insane, but what you're saying is nonsensical.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hm, on papers 10 and more years old you can read that
>>>>>> Genetic Mutation Theory is by Mendel: "Genetic algorithm (GA) is an
>>>>>> optimization searching algorithm based on the theory of evolution
>>>>>> and the genetic mutation theory of Mendel (Atmar, 1994, Chaudhry et
>>>>>> al., 2000, Fogel, 1994, Srinivas and Patnaik, 1994)." These days,
>>>>>> though, everybody says that it is De Vries's. Now, what and why?
>>>>>> And, frankly, I am really puzzled how suddenly you don't know
>>>>>> anything about it.
>>>>>
>>>>> What are you quoting there? What are the cited references? If it's
>>>>> about genetic algorithms is would seem very peripheral to
>>>>> evolutionary biology, and I wouldn't be confident that it's right in
>>>>> its attributions.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's true that De Vries had a theory of mutation, though Mendel did not.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I see a lot of different people around me. Everybody
>>>>>>>>>> has different dimensions, although we have similar genes.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Slightly different alleles of some of those genes, though, and
>>>>>>>>> this accounts for a good fraction of the differences you observe.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> This is enough for evolution to work, you don't need a gene
>>>>>>>>>> manipulation, there is enough of change already in it, you don't
>>>>>>>>>> need more of it.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That's true. Standing genetic variation can power evolution for a
>>>>>>>>> while. But eventually it runs out and evolution would stop unless
>>>>>>>>> there were a source of new variation, i.e. mutation.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Mutation will not help, mutation is malfunction, and
>>>>>>>> organism has the way to deal with mutations, as far as I know
>>>>>>>> organism corrects mutations. I can trace my five fingers long way
>>>>>>>> down the evolution chain, and people in this forum should know
>>>>>>>> about it. It didn't stop to evolve. You can find the origin of
>>>>>>>> everything down the evolution chain. I doubt that this would be
>>>>>>>> caused by mutation. The "mutation" is the answer when you don't
>>>>>>>> know the answer.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Again, you seem to have zero knowledge of evolutionary biology. If
>>>>>>> you learned about it, all those questions would be answered.
>>>>>>> Organisms do correct mutations; that's called proofreading and
>>>>>>> repair. But repair doesn't fix all mutations and it actually causes
>>>>>>> some of them. Observed mutation rates take repair into account. Not
>>>>>>> sure what "it didn't stop to evolve" is about. Mutations do happen,
>>>>>>> some of them affect phenotype, and some of them are beneficial.
>>>>>>> That's how adaptive evolution works.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I am giving up.
>>>>>
>>>>> If only that were true.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You only need deliberate "gene change" if you want God to be
>>>>>>>>>> involved in the story, and if you really desperately need some
>>>>>>>>>> special extraterrestrial magical effects, like "intelligence".
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Nobody said any of this mutation is deliberate. Well, nobody
>>>>>>>>> except ID crackpots.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It allows for god's intervention, this is why Catholic
>>>>>>>> church is pushing it. Just like the Big Bang Theory, which allows
>>>>>>>> for God's creation.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It also allows for God's non-intervention. Again, your statements
>>>>>>> are just wrong. I don't think the Catholic church is even pushing
>>>>>>> mutation. Where do you get this idea?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> From the fact that the Genetic Mutation Theory was accepted
>>>>>> after it was rediscovered by three independent scientists in a
>>>>>> matter of two months, in a time when there wasn't even a radio. If
>>>>>> you would use your brain you would figure out the trick, but I don't
>>>>>> expect this from you:
>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregor_Mendel#Rediscovery_of_Mendel's_work
>>>>>
>>>>> Notice that nowhere in that article is there any mention of mutation.
>>>>> And if you actually read it you will find that the rediscovery of
>>>>> Mendel is all about the fact that inheritance is particulate, not
>>>>> blending. That's Mendel's work and that's Mendel's theory.
>>>>>
>>>>>> First, this Catholic priest was a liar, then "somebody"
>>>>>> used trick to sell his theory to the world.
>>>>>
>>>>> Nobody is saying any of that.
>>>>
>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregor_Mendel#Mendelian_paradox
>>>
>>> That has nothing to do with any of your claims.
>
> You seem to have a bee in your bonnet [are you familiar with this colloquialism?]
> about the Catholic Church, Mario.
>
> Your being 61 correlates to your being about 2 years old when Brezhnev took
> power in 1964, and so your formative years were spent until he died in 1982,
> when you would have been an adult. You were in Yugoslavia the whole time;
> and I suspect your education was steeped in anti-Catholic propaganda
> much of the time. Catholicism was especially opposed of the Christian denominations,
> because of its unified character, making it a more formidable enemy of Communism
> than perhaps all the Protestant denominations put together.
>
> We were once given an abominable anti-Christian book for elementary school children,
> written in Hungarian and published in Hungary in the 1960's. It opened with a fiction
> loosely based on the book of Genesis, making God look like a bumbling idiot whose behavior
> was nothing like what Genesis depicts. Yet it was written "with a straight face" as though
> it were an accurate portrayal of what Christians believe.
>
> I say all this because what you write below reads like it was permeated
> with anti-Catholic propaganda that you may have accepted uncritically.
> I've kept it intact at first, then picked it apart because it contains
> such concentrated mistakes.
>
>> Mendel was a liar
>
> He simplified some data to make it look like inheritance of traits was
> more perfectly describable in multiples of 1/4 or 1/8 or whatever
> negative power of 2 was appropriate to the situation. But as
> a general approximation to the truth it was good enough for practical purposes.
>
> If this is the only lie that Mendel was guilty of, then he was less of a
> liar than two of the participants in this thread, and many other participants
> in talk.origins.
>
>
> (just like all Catholic priests are,
>
> Is that what you were taught through much of your education?
>
>
>> plus a lot of them are pedophiles,
>
> About 5% engaged in sexually inappropriate behavior with underage minors during the
> height of sex abuse, only about one-fifth of which were children below puberty,
> the only young people to whom the word "pedophile" applies. You find similar
> figures in lots of places, including the public schools.
>
>
>> plus, the ones who aren't, those protect
>> pedophiles),
>
> You have been reading a lot of anti-Catholic propaganda that
> ultimately has Marxist roots. It's late, otherwise I'd go into the
> whole story. Maybe tomorrow I'll have the time.
>
>
>> and Catholic church used psychological trick to sneak in
>> Mendel's work.
>
> I can't imagine a source for this except Stalinist propagandists
> steeped in Lysenkoism.
>
>
>> And the Big Bang Theory also originated in Vatican.
>
> The Vatican had no role in it, and besides, why do you
> think it is incorrect at all?
>
>
>> More
>> than enough said.
>
> It would probably have been best to have it all unsaid.
> But at least this way I think we might be able to
> clear up some of these misconceptions.

On 22.8.2023. 6:10, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
> On 22.8.2023. 4:42, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>> On Saturday, August 19, 2023 at 11:01:52 PM UTC-4, Mario Petrinovic
>> wrote:
>>> On 20.8.2023. 4:50, John Harshman wrote:
>>>> On 8/19/23 7:33 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>>>>> On 20.8.2023. 3:21, John Harshman wrote:
>>>>>> On 8/19/23 5:10 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>>>>>>> On 20.8.2023. 1:46, John Harshman wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 8/19/23 1:20 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 19.8.2023. 21:19, John Harshman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 8/19/23 11:13 AM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 19.8.2023. 15:04, John Harshman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/18/23 9:37 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 19.8.2023. 4:12, John Harshman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You might try asking Mario what these "other ways" are. I'd
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be interested in knowing. Perhaps he's thinking of "natural
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> genetic engineering" or "morphic resonance", but I'm willing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to bet it's some kind of woo.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>           No, I have not the slightest idea what these "other
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ways" are. I just said that science doesn't know about them.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I, too, have not the slightest idea what they are.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> How do you know they exist? How do you know they're important?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>           Because "evolution by errors" is stupid to the bone. I
>>>>>>>>>>> don't know who actually invented this, but it is sneaked into
>>>>>>>>>>> science by Catholic church, and called Genetic Mutation Theory,
>>>>>>>>>>> a very well known fact. A typical story of science,stupid, and
>>>>>>>>>>> manipulated by church. No sense in it at all.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I'm sorry, but that's insane. The Catholic Church had nothing to
>>>>>>>>>> do with introducing the concept of mutations into biology, and
>>>>>>>>>> they were introduced because they were actually observed. We know
>>>>>>>>>> mutations happen, we know how they happen, and we know what
>>>>>>>>>> happens to them afterwards. It's not weird magic.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>           Good for mutations. More than 20 years when I found
>>>>>>>>> myself learning about paleoanthropology "Genetic Mutation Theory
>>>>>>>>> (Mendel is the author) was them main word. It made fun of Darwin,
>>>>>>>>> Darwin was the past, everybody was talking about Genetic Mutation
>>>>>>>>> Theory. Today, if you type "Genetic Mutation Theory" into
>>>>>>>>> Wikipedia you will get no results. But no, I am not insane, the
>>>>>>>>> whole science is insane. And all this changed after I started to
>>>>>>>>> write about it on forums. And yes, this actually happened, I am
>>>>>>>>> not insane.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I don't know what was happening in paleoanthropology 20 years ago.
>>>>>>>> But what you describe is not recognizable as anything in actual
>>>>>>>> evolutionary biology. Nor does Mendel have anything at all to do
>>>>>>>> with mutations. If paleoanthropologists said that, which I strongly
>>>>>>>> doubt, they were wrong.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You may not be insane, but what you're saying is nonsensical.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>           Hm, on papers 10 and more years old you can read that
>>>>>>> Genetic Mutation Theory is by Mendel: "Genetic algorithm (GA) is an
>>>>>>> optimization searching algorithm based on the theory of evolution
>>>>>>> and the genetic mutation theory of Mendel (Atmar, 1994, Chaudhry et
>>>>>>> al., 2000, Fogel, 1994, Srinivas and Patnaik, 1994)." These days,
>>>>>>> though, everybody says that it is De Vries's. Now, what and why?
>>>>>>> And, frankly, I am really puzzled how suddenly you don't know
>>>>>>> anything about it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What are you quoting there? What are the cited references? If it's
>>>>>> about genetic algorithms is would seem very peripheral to
>>>>>> evolutionary biology, and I wouldn't be confident that it's right in
>>>>>> its attributions.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's true that De Vries had a theory of mutation, though Mendel
>>>>>> did not.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>           I see a lot of different people around me. Everybody
>>>>>>>>>>> has different dimensions, although we have similar genes.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Slightly different alleles of some of those genes, though, and
>>>>>>>>>> this accounts for a good fraction of the differences you observe.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> This is enough for evolution to work, you don't need a gene
>>>>>>>>>>> manipulation, there is enough of change already in it, you don't
>>>>>>>>>>> need more of it.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> That's true. Standing genetic variation can power evolution for a
>>>>>>>>>> while. But eventually it runs out and evolution would stop unless
>>>>>>>>>> there were a source of new variation, i.e. mutation.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>           Mutation will not help, mutation is malfunction, and
>>>>>>>>> organism has the way to deal with mutations, as far as I know
>>>>>>>>> organism corrects mutations. I can trace my five fingers long way
>>>>>>>>> down the evolution chain, and people in this forum should know
>>>>>>>>> about it. It didn't stop to evolve. You can find the origin of
>>>>>>>>> everything down the evolution chain. I doubt that this would be
>>>>>>>>> caused by mutation. The "mutation" is the answer when you don't
>>>>>>>>> know the answer.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Again, you seem to have zero knowledge of evolutionary biology. If
>>>>>>>> you learned about it, all those questions would be answered.
>>>>>>>> Organisms do correct mutations; that's called proofreading and
>>>>>>>> repair. But repair doesn't fix all mutations and it actually causes
>>>>>>>> some of them. Observed mutation rates take repair into account. Not
>>>>>>>> sure what "it didn't stop to evolve" is about. Mutations do happen,
>>>>>>>> some of them affect phenotype, and some of them are beneficial.
>>>>>>>> That's how adaptive evolution works.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>           I am giving up.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If only that were true.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> You only need deliberate "gene change" if you want God to be
>>>>>>>>>>> involved in the story, and if you really desperately need some
>>>>>>>>>>> special extraterrestrial magical effects, like "intelligence".
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Nobody said any of this mutation is deliberate. Well, nobody
>>>>>>>>>> except ID crackpots.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>           It allows for god's intervention, this is why Catholic
>>>>>>>>> church is pushing it. Just like the Big Bang Theory, which allows
>>>>>>>>> for God's creation.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It also allows for God's non-intervention. Again, your statements
>>>>>>>> are just wrong. I don't think the Catholic church is even pushing
>>>>>>>> mutation. Where do you get this idea?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>           From the fact that the Genetic Mutation Theory was
>>>>>>> accepted
>>>>>>> after it was rediscovered by three independent scientists in a
>>>>>>> matter of two months, in a time when there wasn't even a radio. If
>>>>>>> you would use your brain you would figure out the trick, but I don't
>>>>>>> expect this from you:
>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregor_Mendel#Rediscovery_of_Mendel's_work
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Notice that nowhere in that article is there any mention of mutation.
>>>>>> And if you actually read it you will find that the rediscovery of
>>>>>> Mendel is all about the fact that inheritance is particulate, not
>>>>>> blending. That's Mendel's work and that's Mendel's theory.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>           First, this Catholic priest was a liar, then "somebody"
>>>>>>> used trick to sell his theory to the world.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nobody is saying any of that.
>>>>>
>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregor_Mendel#Mendelian_paradox
>>>>
>>>> That has nothing to do with any of your claims.
>>
>> You seem to have a bee in your bonnet [are you familiar with this
>> colloquialism?]
>> about the Catholic Church, Mario.
>>
>> Your being 61 correlates to your being about 2 years old when Brezhnev
>> took
>> power in 1964, and so your formative years were spent until he died in
>> 1982,
>> when you would have been an adult. You were in Yugoslavia the whole time;
>> and I suspect your education was steeped in anti-Catholic propaganda
>> much of the time. Catholicism was especially opposed of the Christian
>> denominations,
>> because of its unified character, making it a more formidable enemy of
>> Communism
>> than perhaps all the Protestant denominations put together.
>>
>> We were once given an abominable anti-Christian book for elementary
>> school children,
>> written in Hungarian and published in Hungary in the 1960's. It opened
>> with a fiction
>> loosely based on the book of Genesis,  making God look like a bumbling
>> idiot whose behavior
>> was nothing like what Genesis depicts. Yet it was written "with a
>> straight face" as though
>> it were an accurate portrayal of what Christians believe.
>>
>> I say all this because what you write below reads like it was permeated
>> with anti-Catholic propaganda that you may have accepted uncritically.
>> I've kept it intact at first, then picked it apart because it contains
>> such concentrated mistakes.
>>
>>> Mendel was a liar
>>
>> He simplified some data to make it look like inheritance of traits was
>> more perfectly describable in multiples of 1/4 or 1/8 or whatever
>> negative power of 2 was appropriate to the situation. But as
>> a general approximation to the truth it was good enough for practical
>> purposes.
>>
>> If this is  the only lie that Mendel was guilty of, then he was less of a
>> liar than two of the participants in this thread, and many other
>> participants
>> in talk.origins.
>>
>>
>> (just like all Catholic priests are,
>>
>> Is that what you were taught through much of your education?
>>
>>
>>> plus a lot of them are pedophiles,
>>
>> About 5% engaged in sexually inappropriate behavior with underage
>> minors during the
>> height of sex abuse, only about one-fifth of which were children below
>> puberty,
>> the only young people to whom the word "pedophile" applies. You find
>> similar
>> figures in lots of places, including the public schools.
>>
>>
>>> plus, the ones who aren't, those protect
>>> pedophiles),
>>
>> You have been reading a lot of anti-Catholic propaganda that
>> ultimately has Marxist roots. It's late, otherwise I'd go into the
>> whole story. Maybe tomorrow I'll have the time.
>>
>>
>>> and Catholic church used psychological trick to sneak in
>>> Mendel's work.
>>
>> I can't imagine a source for this except Stalinist propagandists
>> steeped in Lysenkoism.
>>
>>
>>> And the Big Bang Theory also originated in Vatican.
>>
>> The Vatican had no role  in it, and besides, why do you
>> think it is incorrect at all?
>>
>>
>>> More
>>> than enough said.
>>
>> It would probably have been best to have it all unsaid.
>> But at least this way I think we might be able to
>> clear up some of these misconceptions.
>
>         First Peter, thanks for taking care about it.
>         Ok, lets start with clearing misconceptions about my uprising,
> regarding Catholicism. My mother was strong believer. She had some
> problems with communists in her life, so she never raised us in
> Catholicism and nationalism, so, she, although being strong Catholic,
> kept it for herself. We (me and my two twin sisters) went to Catholic
> Sunday School. Here children go by the age of 8. I didn't go at that age
> because my mother wanted me to go along with my sisters (for obvious
> reasons, you say that there 5 % pedophiles, this are just the proven
> ones), so I started to go by the age of 10 (when my sisters were 8). At
> that age I was old enough to understand things, and smart enough to pick
> up the logic of it. I was eager to find out what it is all about. I
> presumed that the basis of it are 10 commandments. We had Sunday School
> in one of the more known church in Zagreb, St.Peter's Church, in Vlaska
> street, very close to the center of the town. But the teacher wasn't a
> priest, ti was a layman. So, I was eager to pick up the logic behind it,
> and I was shocked when the guy said, "We will not talk about 10
> Commandments, you have it in catechism (small white booklet), you can do
> it at home by yourself.". Frankly, I got the impression that the guy
> wouldn't be able to name all 10 Commandments if somebody would ask him
> to do it. This was extremely strange to me, since the whole logic should
> lay upon 10 Commandments. Instead of that he was talking about two
> things every time:
>         1) The first Catholics, those in Roman Empire, were living in
> communes. This is the original Communism, a system we should strive to
> have.
>         2) "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle
> then for a rich person to enter the Kingdom of God!", explaining how in
> the past those "rich men" were Pharisees, while today they are those
> ugly fat American capitalists.
>         In other words, he was saying how communism is a system we
> should strive to achieve, and how capitalism is bad.
>         He was talking about it and explaining it widely every single
> time, in fact this was the only thing he was doing. Of course, he was
> young. I don't know what relationship he had with some of the girls of
> my age, but they were all in love with him, and close with him.
>         Regarding official education, Yugoslavia wasn't so rigid, in
> fact Tito had very warm relationships with the West, so there wasn't
> anti-catholic education at all in our school. I remember only once, our
> elementary school teacher was asking who believes in God. There were
> some people from my class that also went to Sunday School, but only I
> replied that I believe in God. In fact, I didn't believe in God at that
> time (nor ever), I just tried to protect my mother's views, who is she
> (that teacher) to ridicule the believes of my mother. And this was the
> only occasion when anybody said anything against Catholic religion.
>         I was never raised to be against communism also, but it was
> obvious, from a faces she made, that my mother doesn't like it at all.
> Of course I had strong feeling for justice since I was a kid, and I
> noticed how bad communism is, very early. I didn't like it at all, in
> fact, when everybody was accepted in Communist Youth (I believe it is by
> the age of 12 or 13), I was contemplating not to do it. At the last
> moment I decided to do it, otherwise I would be the only pupil in the
> whole school not to do it (maybe even in the whole town, :) ), and this
> would affect my life very badly, so I decided to do it.
>         When I started to hate Catholicism? My country went through
> some transitions, the moral standards of Croats were extremely low, and
> I realized that Catholic church is the main responsible for it. I
> followed politics, and what's going on around me, saw what is happening,
> and realized that Catholic church is extremely bad institution. Didn't
> you notice that Pope condemns the West for Ukrainian war, and justifies
> Putin? Vatican hates UK and USA for the reason that those two countries
> are the sources of democracy, Vatican thinks that people should be
> Vatican's sheep. People take this lightly, but what really is going on
> is that Vatican sees it in the most ugly way, they really do think, and
> behave towards humans, like humans are their stupid sheep.
>         I even went to Catholic kindergarten, and as a really small
> kid  I noticed how soulless those nuns are. They were behaving towards
> children as they are things, like they are not something worthy.
>         Anyway, I didn't learn anything in Sunday School, I didn't like
> that I had to use my free Sundays for it (at that time normal school was
> from Monday to Saturday), so as soon as I got first Communion I stopped
> to go there (my sisters continued with it).

On 22.8.2023. 6:29, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
> On 22.8.2023. 6:10, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>> On 22.8.2023. 4:42, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>> On Saturday, August 19, 2023 at 11:01:52 PM UTC-4, Mario Petrinovic
>>> wrote:
>>>> On 20.8.2023. 4:50, John Harshman wrote:
>>>>> On 8/19/23 7:33 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>>>>>> On 20.8.2023. 3:21, John Harshman wrote:
>>>>>>> On 8/19/23 5:10 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 20.8.2023. 1:46, John Harshman wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 8/19/23 1:20 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 19.8.2023. 21:19, John Harshman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/19/23 11:13 AM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 19.8.2023. 15:04, John Harshman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/18/23 9:37 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 19.8.2023. 4:12, John Harshman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You might try asking Mario what these "other ways" are. I'd
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be interested in knowing. Perhaps he's thinking of "natural
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> genetic engineering" or "morphic resonance", but I'm willing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to bet it's some kind of woo.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>           No, I have not the slightest idea what these "other
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ways" are. I just said that science doesn't know about them.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I, too, have not the slightest idea what they are.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> How do you know they exist? How do you know they're important?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>           Because "evolution by errors" is stupid to the
>>>>>>>>>>>> bone. I
>>>>>>>>>>>> don't know who actually invented this, but it is sneaked into
>>>>>>>>>>>> science by Catholic church, and called Genetic Mutation Theory,
>>>>>>>>>>>> a very well known fact. A typical story of science,stupid, and
>>>>>>>>>>>> manipulated by church. No sense in it at all.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I'm sorry, but that's insane. The Catholic Church had nothing to
>>>>>>>>>>> do with introducing the concept of mutations into biology, and
>>>>>>>>>>> they were introduced because they were actually observed. We
>>>>>>>>>>> know
>>>>>>>>>>> mutations happen, we know how they happen, and we know what
>>>>>>>>>>> happens to them afterwards. It's not weird magic.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>           Good for mutations. More than 20 years when I found
>>>>>>>>>> myself learning about paleoanthropology "Genetic Mutation Theory
>>>>>>>>>> (Mendel is the author) was them main word. It made fun of Darwin,
>>>>>>>>>> Darwin was the past, everybody was talking about Genetic Mutation
>>>>>>>>>> Theory. Today, if you type "Genetic Mutation Theory" into
>>>>>>>>>> Wikipedia you will get no results. But no, I am not insane, the
>>>>>>>>>> whole science is insane. And all this changed after I started to
>>>>>>>>>> write about it on forums. And yes, this actually happened, I am
>>>>>>>>>> not insane.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I don't know what was happening in paleoanthropology 20 years ago.
>>>>>>>>> But what you describe is not recognizable as anything in actual
>>>>>>>>> evolutionary biology. Nor does Mendel have anything at all to do
>>>>>>>>> with mutations. If paleoanthropologists said that, which I
>>>>>>>>> strongly
>>>>>>>>> doubt, they were wrong.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You may not be insane, but what you're saying is nonsensical.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>           Hm, on papers 10 and more years old you can read that
>>>>>>>> Genetic Mutation Theory is by Mendel: "Genetic algorithm (GA) is an
>>>>>>>> optimization searching algorithm based on the theory of evolution
>>>>>>>> and the genetic mutation theory of Mendel (Atmar, 1994, Chaudhry et
>>>>>>>> al., 2000, Fogel, 1994, Srinivas and Patnaik, 1994)." These days,
>>>>>>>> though, everybody says that it is De Vries's. Now, what and why?
>>>>>>>> And, frankly, I am really puzzled how suddenly you don't know
>>>>>>>> anything about it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What are you quoting there? What are the cited references? If it's
>>>>>>> about genetic algorithms is would seem very peripheral to
>>>>>>> evolutionary biology, and I wouldn't be confident that it's right in
>>>>>>> its attributions.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It's true that De Vries had a theory of mutation, though Mendel
>>>>>>> did not.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>           I see a lot of different people around me. Everybody
>>>>>>>>>>>> has different dimensions, although we have similar genes.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Slightly different alleles of some of those genes, though, and
>>>>>>>>>>> this accounts for a good fraction of the differences you
>>>>>>>>>>> observe.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> This is enough for evolution to work, you don't need a gene
>>>>>>>>>>>> manipulation, there is enough of change already in it, you
>>>>>>>>>>>> don't
>>>>>>>>>>>> need more of it.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> That's true. Standing genetic variation can power evolution
>>>>>>>>>>> for a
>>>>>>>>>>> while. But eventually it runs out and evolution would stop
>>>>>>>>>>> unless
>>>>>>>>>>> there were a source of new variation, i.e. mutation.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>           Mutation will not help, mutation is malfunction, and
>>>>>>>>>> organism has the way to deal with mutations, as far as I know
>>>>>>>>>> organism corrects mutations. I can trace my five fingers long way
>>>>>>>>>> down the evolution chain, and people in this forum should know
>>>>>>>>>> about it. It didn't stop to evolve. You can find the origin of
>>>>>>>>>> everything down the evolution chain. I doubt that this would be
>>>>>>>>>> caused by mutation. The "mutation" is the answer when you don't
>>>>>>>>>> know the answer.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Again, you seem to have zero knowledge of evolutionary biology. If
>>>>>>>>> you learned about it, all those questions would be answered.
>>>>>>>>> Organisms do correct mutations; that's called proofreading and
>>>>>>>>> repair. But repair doesn't fix all mutations and it actually
>>>>>>>>> causes
>>>>>>>>> some of them. Observed mutation rates take repair into account.
>>>>>>>>> Not
>>>>>>>>> sure what "it didn't stop to evolve" is about. Mutations do
>>>>>>>>> happen,
>>>>>>>>> some of them affect phenotype, and some of them are beneficial.
>>>>>>>>> That's how adaptive evolution works.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>           I am giving up.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If only that were true.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> You only need deliberate "gene change" if you want God to be
>>>>>>>>>>>> involved in the story, and if you really desperately need some
>>>>>>>>>>>> special extraterrestrial magical effects, like "intelligence".
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Nobody said any of this mutation is deliberate. Well, nobody
>>>>>>>>>>> except ID crackpots.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>           It allows for god's intervention, this is why Catholic
>>>>>>>>>> church is pushing it. Just like the Big Bang Theory, which allows
>>>>>>>>>> for God's creation.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It also allows for God's non-intervention. Again, your statements
>>>>>>>>> are just wrong. I don't think the Catholic church is even pushing
>>>>>>>>> mutation. Where do you get this idea?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>           From the fact that the Genetic Mutation Theory was
>>>>>>>> accepted
>>>>>>>> after it was rediscovered by three independent scientists in a
>>>>>>>> matter of two months, in a time when there wasn't even a radio. If
>>>>>>>> you would use your brain you would figure out the trick, but I
>>>>>>>> don't
>>>>>>>> expect this from you:
>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregor_Mendel#Rediscovery_of_Mendel's_work
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Notice that nowhere in that article is there any mention of
>>>>>>> mutation.
>>>>>>> And if you actually read it you will find that the rediscovery of
>>>>>>> Mendel is all about the fact that inheritance is particulate, not
>>>>>>> blending. That's Mendel's work and that's Mendel's theory.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>           First, this Catholic priest was a liar, then "somebody"
>>>>>>>> used trick to sell his theory to the world.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Nobody is saying any of that.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregor_Mendel#Mendelian_paradox
>>>>>
>>>>> That has nothing to do with any of your claims.
>>>
>>> You seem to have a bee in your bonnet [are you familiar with this
>>> colloquialism?]
>>> about the Catholic Church, Mario.
>>>
>>> Your being 61 correlates to your being about 2 years old when
>>> Brezhnev took
>>> power in 1964, and so your formative years were spent until he died
>>> in 1982,
>>> when you would have been an adult. You were in Yugoslavia the whole
>>> time;
>>> and I suspect your education was steeped in anti-Catholic propaganda
>>> much of the time. Catholicism was especially opposed of the Christian
>>> denominations,
>>> because of its unified character, making it a more formidable enemy
>>> of Communism
>>> than perhaps all the Protestant denominations put together.
>>>
>>> We were once given an abominable anti-Christian book for elementary
>>> school children,
>>> written in Hungarian and published in Hungary in the 1960's. It
>>> opened with a fiction
>>> loosely based on the book of Genesis,  making God look like a
>>> bumbling idiot whose behavior
>>> was nothing like what Genesis depicts. Yet it was written "with a
>>> straight face" as though
>>> it were an accurate portrayal of what Christians believe.
>>>
>>> I say all this because what you write below reads like it was permeated
>>> with anti-Catholic propaganda that you may have accepted uncritically.
>>> I've kept it intact at first, then picked it apart because it contains
>>> such concentrated mistakes.
>>>
>>>> Mendel was a liar
>>>
>>> He simplified some data to make it look like inheritance of traits was
>>> more perfectly describable in multiples of 1/4 or 1/8 or whatever
>>> negative power of 2 was appropriate to the situation. But as
>>> a general approximation to the truth it was good enough for practical
>>> purposes.
>>>
>>> If this is  the only lie that Mendel was guilty of, then he was less
>>> of a
>>> liar than two of the participants in this thread, and many other
>>> participants
>>> in talk.origins.
>>>
>>>
>>> (just like all Catholic priests are,
>>>
>>> Is that what you were taught through much of your education?
>>>
>>>
>>>> plus a lot of them are pedophiles,
>>>
>>> About 5% engaged in sexually inappropriate behavior with underage
>>> minors during the
>>> height of sex abuse, only about one-fifth of which were children
>>> below puberty,
>>> the only young people to whom the word "pedophile" applies. You find
>>> similar
>>> figures in lots of places, including the public schools.
>>>
>>>
>>>> plus, the ones who aren't, those protect
>>>> pedophiles),
>>>
>>> You have been reading a lot of anti-Catholic propaganda that
>>> ultimately has Marxist roots. It's late, otherwise I'd go into the
>>> whole story. Maybe tomorrow I'll have the time.
>>>
>>>
>>>> and Catholic church used psychological trick to sneak in
>>>> Mendel's work.
>>>
>>> I can't imagine a source for this except Stalinist propagandists
>>> steeped in Lysenkoism.
>>>
>>>
>>>> And the Big Bang Theory also originated in Vatican.
>>>
>>> The Vatican had no role  in it, and besides, why do you
>>> think it is incorrect at all?
>>>
>>>
>>>> More
>>>> than enough said.
>>>
>>> It would probably have been best to have it all unsaid.
>>> But at least this way I think we might be able to
>>> clear up some of these misconceptions.
>>
>>          First Peter, thanks for taking care about it.
>>          Ok, lets start with clearing misconceptions about my
>> uprising, regarding Catholicism. My mother was strong believer. She
>> had some problems with communists in her life, so she never raised us
>> in Catholicism and nationalism, so, she, although being strong
>> Catholic, kept it for herself. We (me and my two twin sisters) went to
>> Catholic Sunday School. Here children go by the age of 8. I didn't go
>> at that age because my mother wanted me to go along with my sisters
>> (for obvious reasons, you say that there 5 % pedophiles, this are just
>> the proven ones), so I started to go by the age of 10 (when my sisters
>> were 8). At that age I was old enough to understand things, and smart
>> enough to pick up the logic of it. I was eager to find out what it is
>> all about. I presumed that the basis of it are 10 commandments. We had
>> Sunday School in one of the more known church in Zagreb, St.Peter's
>> Church, in Vlaska street, very close to the center of the town. But
>> the teacher wasn't a priest, ti was a layman. So, I was eager to pick
>> up the logic behind it, and I was shocked when the guy said, "We will
>> not talk about 10 Commandments, you have it in catechism (small white
>> booklet), you can do it at home by yourself.". Frankly, I got the
>> impression that the guy wouldn't be able to name all 10 Commandments
>> if somebody would ask him to do it. This was extremely strange to me,
>> since the whole logic should lay upon 10 Commandments. Instead of that
>> he was talking about two things every time:
>>          1) The first Catholics, those in Roman Empire, were living in
>> communes. This is the original Communism, a system we should strive to
>> have.
>>          2) "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a
>> needle then for a rich person to enter the Kingdom of God!",
>> explaining how in the past those "rich men" were Pharisees, while
>> today they are those ugly fat American capitalists.
>>          In other words, he was saying how communism is a system we
>> should strive to achieve, and how capitalism is bad.
>>          He was talking about it and explaining it widely every single
>> time, in fact this was the only thing he was doing. Of course, he was
>> young. I don't know what relationship he had with some of the girls of
>> my age, but they were all in love with him, and close with him.
>>          Regarding official education, Yugoslavia wasn't so rigid, in
>> fact Tito had very warm relationships with the West, so there wasn't
>> anti-catholic education at all in our school. I remember only once,
>> our elementary school teacher was asking who believes in God. There
>> were some people from my class that also went to Sunday School, but
>> only I replied that I believe in God. In fact, I didn't believe in God
>> at that time (nor ever), I just tried to protect my mother's views,
>> who is she (that teacher) to ridicule the believes of my mother. And
>> this was the only occasion when anybody said anything against Catholic
>> religion.
>>          I was never raised to be against communism also, but it was
>> obvious, from a faces she made, that my mother doesn't like it at all.
>> Of course I had strong feeling for justice since I was a kid, and I
>> noticed how bad communism is, very early. I didn't like it at all, in
>> fact, when everybody was accepted in Communist Youth (I believe it is
>> by the age of 12 or 13), I was contemplating not to do it. At the last
>> moment I decided to do it, otherwise I would be the only pupil in the
>> whole school not to do it (maybe even in the whole town, :) ), and
>> this would affect my life very badly, so I decided to do it.
>>          When I started to hate Catholicism? My country went through
>> some transitions, the moral standards of Croats were extremely low,
>> and I realized that Catholic church is the main responsible for it. I
>> followed politics, and what's going on around me, saw what is
>> happening, and realized that Catholic church is extremely bad
>> institution. Didn't you notice that Pope condemns the West for
>> Ukrainian war, and justifies Putin? Vatican hates UK and USA for the
>> reason that those two countries are the sources of democracy, Vatican
>> thinks that people should be Vatican's sheep. People take this
>> lightly, but what really is going on is that Vatican sees it in the
>> most ugly way, they really do think, and behave towards humans, like
>> humans are their stupid sheep.
>>          I even went to Catholic kindergarten, and as a really small
>> kid  I noticed how soulless those nuns are. They were behaving towards
>> children as they are things, like they are not something worthy.
>>          Anyway, I didn't learn anything in Sunday School, I didn't
>> like that I had to use my free Sundays for it (at that time normal
>> school was from Monday to Saturday), so as soon as I got first
>> Communion I stopped to go there (my sisters continued with it).
>
>         In fact, Christmas was a holiday in Yugoslavia, and Midnight
> Mass was big celebration, the whole town celebrated. It wasn't quiet, it
> wasn't "Silent Night", because this was a night when Croats were
> celebrating their Christianity publicly, so this was huge celebration,
> and everybody went to Zagreb Cathedral at that night. You may picture
> how big celebration it is when even the nonbelievers (including me)
> attended. Especially if you take into account that Orthodox Serbs
> celebrate it using Gregorian calendar, so 15 days after Catholics. So at
> Christmas it was a time for celebration for Croats. But it was so huge
> celebration that even young Serbs would come to Zagreb Cathedral and
> have fun. So, nothing like you think was happening in Yugoslavia,
> Christianity was tolerated, especially if you know that Vatican actually
> works for communists.

On 22.8.2023. 6:33, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
> On 22.8.2023. 6:29, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>> On 22.8.2023. 6:10, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>>> On 22.8.2023. 4:42, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>>> On Saturday, August 19, 2023 at 11:01:52 PM UTC-4, Mario Petrinovic
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> On 20.8.2023. 4:50, John Harshman wrote:
>>>>>> On 8/19/23 7:33 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>>>>>>> On 20.8.2023. 3:21, John Harshman wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 8/19/23 5:10 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 20.8.2023. 1:46, John Harshman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 8/19/23 1:20 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 19.8.2023. 21:19, John Harshman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/19/23 11:13 AM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 19.8.2023. 15:04, John Harshman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/18/23 9:37 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 19.8.2023. 4:12, John Harshman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You might try asking Mario what these "other ways" are. I'd
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be interested in knowing. Perhaps he's thinking of "natural
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> genetic engineering" or "morphic resonance", but I'm
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> willing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to bet it's some kind of woo.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>           No, I have not the slightest idea what these
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "other
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ways" are. I just said that science doesn't know about them.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I, too, have not the slightest idea what they are.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How do you know they exist? How do you know they're
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> important?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>           Because "evolution by errors" is stupid to the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> bone. I
>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't know who actually invented this, but it is sneaked into
>>>>>>>>>>>>> science by Catholic church, and called Genetic Mutation
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Theory,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> a very well known fact. A typical story of science,stupid, and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> manipulated by church. No sense in it at all.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm sorry, but that's insane. The Catholic Church had
>>>>>>>>>>>> nothing to
>>>>>>>>>>>> do with introducing the concept of mutations into biology, and
>>>>>>>>>>>> they were introduced because they were actually observed. We
>>>>>>>>>>>> know
>>>>>>>>>>>> mutations happen, we know how they happen, and we know what
>>>>>>>>>>>> happens to them afterwards. It's not weird magic.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>           Good for mutations. More than 20 years when I found
>>>>>>>>>>> myself learning about paleoanthropology "Genetic Mutation Theory
>>>>>>>>>>> (Mendel is the author) was them main word. It made fun of
>>>>>>>>>>> Darwin,
>>>>>>>>>>> Darwin was the past, everybody was talking about Genetic
>>>>>>>>>>> Mutation
>>>>>>>>>>> Theory. Today, if you type "Genetic Mutation Theory" into
>>>>>>>>>>> Wikipedia you will get no results. But no, I am not insane, the
>>>>>>>>>>> whole science is insane. And all this changed after I started to
>>>>>>>>>>> write about it on forums. And yes, this actually happened, I am
>>>>>>>>>>> not insane.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I don't know what was happening in paleoanthropology 20 years
>>>>>>>>>> ago.
>>>>>>>>>> But what you describe is not recognizable as anything in actual
>>>>>>>>>> evolutionary biology. Nor does Mendel have anything at all to do
>>>>>>>>>> with mutations. If paleoanthropologists said that, which I
>>>>>>>>>> strongly
>>>>>>>>>> doubt, they were wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You may not be insane, but what you're saying is nonsensical.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>           Hm, on papers 10 and more years old you can read that
>>>>>>>>> Genetic Mutation Theory is by Mendel: "Genetic algorithm (GA)
>>>>>>>>> is an
>>>>>>>>> optimization searching algorithm based on the theory of evolution
>>>>>>>>> and the genetic mutation theory of Mendel (Atmar, 1994,
>>>>>>>>> Chaudhry et
>>>>>>>>> al., 2000, Fogel, 1994, Srinivas and Patnaik, 1994)." These days,
>>>>>>>>> though, everybody says that it is De Vries's. Now, what and why?
>>>>>>>>> And, frankly, I am really puzzled how suddenly you don't know
>>>>>>>>> anything about it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What are you quoting there? What are the cited references? If it's
>>>>>>>> about genetic algorithms is would seem very peripheral to
>>>>>>>> evolutionary biology, and I wouldn't be confident that it's
>>>>>>>> right in
>>>>>>>> its attributions.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It's true that De Vries had a theory of mutation, though Mendel
>>>>>>>> did not.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>           I see a lot of different people around me. Everybody
>>>>>>>>>>>>> has different dimensions, although we have similar genes.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Slightly different alleles of some of those genes, though, and
>>>>>>>>>>>> this accounts for a good fraction of the differences you
>>>>>>>>>>>> observe.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is enough for evolution to work, you don't need a gene
>>>>>>>>>>>>> manipulation, there is enough of change already in it, you
>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't
>>>>>>>>>>>>> need more of it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> That's true. Standing genetic variation can power evolution
>>>>>>>>>>>> for a
>>>>>>>>>>>> while. But eventually it runs out and evolution would stop
>>>>>>>>>>>> unless
>>>>>>>>>>>> there were a source of new variation, i.e. mutation.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>           Mutation will not help, mutation is malfunction, and
>>>>>>>>>>> organism has the way to deal with mutations, as far as I know
>>>>>>>>>>> organism corrects mutations. I can trace my five fingers long
>>>>>>>>>>> way
>>>>>>>>>>> down the evolution chain, and people in this forum should know
>>>>>>>>>>> about it. It didn't stop to evolve. You can find the origin of
>>>>>>>>>>> everything down the evolution chain. I doubt that this would be
>>>>>>>>>>> caused by mutation. The "mutation" is the answer when you don't
>>>>>>>>>>> know the answer.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Again, you seem to have zero knowledge of evolutionary
>>>>>>>>>> biology. If
>>>>>>>>>> you learned about it, all those questions would be answered.
>>>>>>>>>> Organisms do correct mutations; that's called proofreading and
>>>>>>>>>> repair. But repair doesn't fix all mutations and it actually
>>>>>>>>>> causes
>>>>>>>>>> some of them. Observed mutation rates take repair into
>>>>>>>>>> account. Not
>>>>>>>>>> sure what "it didn't stop to evolve" is about. Mutations do
>>>>>>>>>> happen,
>>>>>>>>>> some of them affect phenotype, and some of them are beneficial.
>>>>>>>>>> That's how adaptive evolution works.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>           I am giving up.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If only that were true.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> You only need deliberate "gene change" if you want God to be
>>>>>>>>>>>>> involved in the story, and if you really desperately need some
>>>>>>>>>>>>> special extraterrestrial magical effects, like "intelligence".
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Nobody said any of this mutation is deliberate. Well, nobody
>>>>>>>>>>>> except ID crackpots.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>           It allows for god's intervention, this is why Catholic
>>>>>>>>>>> church is pushing it. Just like the Big Bang Theory, which
>>>>>>>>>>> allows
>>>>>>>>>>> for God's creation.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It also allows for God's non-intervention. Again, your statements
>>>>>>>>>> are just wrong. I don't think the Catholic church is even pushing
>>>>>>>>>> mutation. Where do you get this idea?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>           From the fact that the Genetic Mutation Theory was
>>>>>>>>> accepted
>>>>>>>>> after it was rediscovered by three independent scientists in a
>>>>>>>>> matter of two months, in a time when there wasn't even a radio. If
>>>>>>>>> you would use your brain you would figure out the trick, but I
>>>>>>>>> don't
>>>>>>>>> expect this from you:
>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregor_Mendel#Rediscovery_of_Mendel's_work
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Notice that nowhere in that article is there any mention of
>>>>>>>> mutation.
>>>>>>>> And if you actually read it you will find that the rediscovery of
>>>>>>>> Mendel is all about the fact that inheritance is particulate, not
>>>>>>>> blending. That's Mendel's work and that's Mendel's theory.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>           First, this Catholic priest was a liar, then "somebody"
>>>>>>>>> used trick to sell his theory to the world.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Nobody is saying any of that.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregor_Mendel#Mendelian_paradox
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That has nothing to do with any of your claims.
>>>>
>>>> You seem to have a bee in your bonnet [are you familiar with this
>>>> colloquialism?]
>>>> about the Catholic Church, Mario.
>>>>
>>>> Your being 61 correlates to your being about 2 years old when
>>>> Brezhnev took
>>>> power in 1964, and so your formative years were spent until he died
>>>> in 1982,
>>>> when you would have been an adult. You were in Yugoslavia the whole
>>>> time;
>>>> and I suspect your education was steeped in anti-Catholic propaganda
>>>> much of the time. Catholicism was especially opposed of the
>>>> Christian denominations,
>>>> because of its unified character, making it a more formidable enemy
>>>> of Communism
>>>> than perhaps all the Protestant denominations put together.
>>>>
>>>> We were once given an abominable anti-Christian book for elementary
>>>> school children,
>>>> written in Hungarian and published in Hungary in the 1960's. It
>>>> opened with a fiction
>>>> loosely based on the book of Genesis,  making God look like a
>>>> bumbling idiot whose behavior
>>>> was nothing like what Genesis depicts. Yet it was written "with a
>>>> straight face" as though
>>>> it were an accurate portrayal of what Christians believe.
>>>>
>>>> I say all this because what you write below reads like it was permeated
>>>> with anti-Catholic propaganda that you may have accepted uncritically.
>>>> I've kept it intact at first, then picked it apart because it contains
>>>> such concentrated mistakes.
>>>>
>>>>> Mendel was a liar
>>>>
>>>> He simplified some data to make it look like inheritance of traits was
>>>> more perfectly describable in multiples of 1/4 or 1/8 or whatever
>>>> negative power of 2 was appropriate to the situation. But as
>>>> a general approximation to the truth it was good enough for
>>>> practical purposes.
>>>>
>>>> If this is  the only lie that Mendel was guilty of, then he was less
>>>> of a
>>>> liar than two of the participants in this thread, and many other
>>>> participants
>>>> in talk.origins.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> (just like all Catholic priests are,
>>>>
>>>> Is that what you were taught through much of your education?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> plus a lot of them are pedophiles,
>>>>
>>>> About 5% engaged in sexually inappropriate behavior with underage
>>>> minors during the
>>>> height of sex abuse, only about one-fifth of which were children
>>>> below puberty,
>>>> the only young people to whom the word "pedophile" applies. You find
>>>> similar
>>>> figures in lots of places, including the public schools.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> plus, the ones who aren't, those protect
>>>>> pedophiles),
>>>>
>>>> You have been reading a lot of anti-Catholic propaganda that
>>>> ultimately has Marxist roots. It's late, otherwise I'd go into the
>>>> whole story. Maybe tomorrow I'll have the time.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> and Catholic church used psychological trick to sneak in
>>>>> Mendel's work.
>>>>
>>>> I can't imagine a source for this except Stalinist propagandists
>>>> steeped in Lysenkoism.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> And the Big Bang Theory also originated in Vatican.
>>>>
>>>> The Vatican had no role  in it, and besides, why do you
>>>> think it is incorrect at all?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> More
>>>>> than enough said.
>>>>
>>>> It would probably have been best to have it all unsaid.
>>>> But at least this way I think we might be able to
>>>> clear up some of these misconceptions.
>>>
>>>          First Peter, thanks for taking care about it.
>>>          Ok, lets start with clearing misconceptions about my
>>> uprising, regarding Catholicism. My mother was strong believer. She
>>> had some problems with communists in her life, so she never raised us
>>> in Catholicism and nationalism, so, she, although being strong
>>> Catholic, kept it for herself. We (me and my two twin sisters) went
>>> to Catholic Sunday School. Here children go by the age of 8. I didn't
>>> go at that age because my mother wanted me to go along with my
>>> sisters (for obvious reasons, you say that there 5 % pedophiles, this
>>> are just the proven ones), so I started to go by the age of 10 (when
>>> my sisters were 8). At that age I was old enough to understand
>>> things, and smart enough to pick up the logic of it. I was eager to
>>> find out what it is all about. I presumed that the basis of it are 10
>>> commandments. We had Sunday School in one of the more known church in
>>> Zagreb, St.Peter's Church, in Vlaska street, very close to the center
>>> of the town. But the teacher wasn't a priest, ti was a layman. So, I
>>> was eager to pick up the logic behind it, and I was shocked when the
>>> guy said, "We will not talk about 10 Commandments, you have it in
>>> catechism (small white booklet), you can do it at home by yourself.".
>>> Frankly, I got the impression that the guy wouldn't be able to name
>>> all 10 Commandments if somebody would ask him to do it. This was
>>> extremely strange to me, since the whole logic should lay upon 10
>>> Commandments. Instead of that he was talking about two things every
>>> time:
>>>          1) The first Catholics, those in Roman Empire, were living
>>> in communes. This is the original Communism, a system we should
>>> strive to have.
>>>          2) "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a
>>> needle then for a rich person to enter the Kingdom of God!",
>>> explaining how in the past those "rich men" were Pharisees, while
>>> today they are those ugly fat American capitalists.
>>>          In other words, he was saying how communism is a system we
>>> should strive to achieve, and how capitalism is bad.
>>>          He was talking about it and explaining it widely every
>>> single time, in fact this was the only thing he was doing. Of course,
>>> he was young. I don't know what relationship he had with some of the
>>> girls of my age, but they were all in love with him, and close with him.
>>>          Regarding official education, Yugoslavia wasn't so rigid, in
>>> fact Tito had very warm relationships with the West, so there wasn't
>>> anti-catholic education at all in our school. I remember only once,
>>> our elementary school teacher was asking who believes in God. There
>>> were some people from my class that also went to Sunday School, but
>>> only I replied that I believe in God. In fact, I didn't believe in
>>> God at that time (nor ever), I just tried to protect my mother's
>>> views, who is she (that teacher) to ridicule the believes of my
>>> mother. And this was the only occasion when anybody said anything
>>> against Catholic religion.
>>>          I was never raised to be against communism also, but it was
>>> obvious, from a faces she made, that my mother doesn't like it at
>>> all. Of course I had strong feeling for justice since I was a kid,
>>> and I noticed how bad communism is, very early. I didn't like it at
>>> all, in fact, when everybody was accepted in Communist Youth (I
>>> believe it is by the age of 12 or 13), I was contemplating not to do
>>> it. At the last moment I decided to do it, otherwise I would be the
>>> only pupil in the whole school not to do it (maybe even in the whole
>>> town, :) ), and this would affect my life very badly, so I decided to
>>> do it.
>>>          When I started to hate Catholicism? My country went through
>>> some transitions, the moral standards of Croats were extremely low,
>>> and I realized that Catholic church is the main responsible for it. I
>>> followed politics, and what's going on around me, saw what is
>>> happening, and realized that Catholic church is extremely bad
>>> institution. Didn't you notice that Pope condemns the West for
>>> Ukrainian war, and justifies Putin? Vatican hates UK and USA for the
>>> reason that those two countries are the sources of democracy, Vatican
>>> thinks that people should be Vatican's sheep. People take this
>>> lightly, but what really is going on is that Vatican sees it in the
>>> most ugly way, they really do think, and behave towards humans, like
>>> humans are their stupid sheep.
>>>          I even went to Catholic kindergarten, and as a really small
>>> kid  I noticed how soulless those nuns are. They were behaving
>>> towards children as they are things, like they are not something worthy.
>>>          Anyway, I didn't learn anything in Sunday School, I didn't
>>> like that I had to use my free Sundays for it (at that time normal
>>> school was from Monday to Saturday), so as soon as I got first
>>> Communion I stopped to go there (my sisters continued with it).
>>
>>          In fact, Christmas was a holiday in Yugoslavia, and Midnight
>> Mass was big celebration, the whole town celebrated. It wasn't quiet,
>> it wasn't "Silent Night", because this was a night when Croats were
>> celebrating their Christianity publicly, so this was huge celebration,
>> and everybody went to Zagreb Cathedral at that night. You may picture
>> how big celebration it is when even the nonbelievers (including me)
>> attended. Especially if you take into account that Orthodox Serbs
>> celebrate it using Gregorian calendar, so 15 days after Catholics. So
>> at Christmas it was a time for celebration for Croats. But it was so
>> huge celebration that even young Serbs would come to Zagreb Cathedral
>> and have fun. So, nothing like you think was happening in Yugoslavia,
>> Christianity was tolerated, especially if you know that Vatican
>> actually works for communists.
>
>         Oh yes, it was big celebration, loud, with firecrackers.
> Actually, it was the only occasion when you could hit firecracker behind
> a policeman (police was very austere back then), and he wouldn't do
> anything about it, :) .

On 22.8.2023. 8:04, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
> On 22.8.2023. 6:33, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>> On 22.8.2023. 6:29, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>>> On 22.8.2023. 6:10, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>>>> On 22.8.2023. 4:42, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>>>> On Saturday, August 19, 2023 at 11:01:52 PM UTC-4, Mario Petrinovic
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> On 20.8.2023. 4:50, John Harshman wrote:
>>>>>>> On 8/19/23 7:33 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 20.8.2023. 3:21, John Harshman wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 8/19/23 5:10 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 20.8.2023. 1:46, John Harshman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/19/23 1:20 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 19.8.2023. 21:19, John Harshman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/19/23 11:13 AM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 19.8.2023. 15:04, John Harshman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/18/23 9:37 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 19.8.2023. 4:12, John Harshman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You might try asking Mario what these "other ways" are.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'd
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be interested in knowing. Perhaps he's thinking of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "natural
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> genetic engineering" or "morphic resonance", but I'm
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> willing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to bet it's some kind of woo.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>           No, I have not the slightest idea what these
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "other
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ways" are. I just said that science doesn't know about
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> them.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I, too, have not the slightest idea what they are.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How do you know they exist? How do you know they're
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> important?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>           Because "evolution by errors" is stupid to the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bone. I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't know who actually invented this, but it is sneaked into
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> science by Catholic church, and called Genetic Mutation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Theory,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a very well known fact. A typical story of science,stupid,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> manipulated by church. No sense in it at all.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm sorry, but that's insane. The Catholic Church had
>>>>>>>>>>>>> nothing to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> do with introducing the concept of mutations into biology, and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> they were introduced because they were actually observed.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> We know
>>>>>>>>>>>>> mutations happen, we know how they happen, and we know what
>>>>>>>>>>>>> happens to them afterwards. It's not weird magic.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>           Good for mutations. More than 20 years when I found
>>>>>>>>>>>> myself learning about paleoanthropology "Genetic Mutation
>>>>>>>>>>>> Theory
>>>>>>>>>>>> (Mendel is the author) was them main word. It made fun of
>>>>>>>>>>>> Darwin,
>>>>>>>>>>>> Darwin was the past, everybody was talking about Genetic
>>>>>>>>>>>> Mutation
>>>>>>>>>>>> Theory. Today, if you type "Genetic Mutation Theory" into
>>>>>>>>>>>> Wikipedia you will get no results. But no, I am not insane, the
>>>>>>>>>>>> whole science is insane. And all this changed after I
>>>>>>>>>>>> started to
>>>>>>>>>>>> write about it on forums. And yes, this actually happened, I am
>>>>>>>>>>>> not insane.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I don't know what was happening in paleoanthropology 20 years
>>>>>>>>>>> ago.
>>>>>>>>>>> But what you describe is not recognizable as anything in actual
>>>>>>>>>>> evolutionary biology. Nor does Mendel have anything at all to do
>>>>>>>>>>> with mutations. If paleoanthropologists said that, which I
>>>>>>>>>>> strongly
>>>>>>>>>>> doubt, they were wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> You may not be insane, but what you're saying is nonsensical.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>           Hm, on papers 10 and more years old you can read that
>>>>>>>>>> Genetic Mutation Theory is by Mendel: "Genetic algorithm (GA)
>>>>>>>>>> is an
>>>>>>>>>> optimization searching algorithm based on the theory of evolution
>>>>>>>>>> and the genetic mutation theory of Mendel (Atmar, 1994,
>>>>>>>>>> Chaudhry et
>>>>>>>>>> al., 2000, Fogel, 1994, Srinivas and Patnaik, 1994)." These days,
>>>>>>>>>> though, everybody says that it is De Vries's. Now, what and why?
>>>>>>>>>> And, frankly, I am really puzzled how suddenly you don't know
>>>>>>>>>> anything about it.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> What are you quoting there? What are the cited references? If it's
>>>>>>>>> about genetic algorithms is would seem very peripheral to
>>>>>>>>> evolutionary biology, and I wouldn't be confident that it's
>>>>>>>>> right in
>>>>>>>>> its attributions.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It's true that De Vries had a theory of mutation, though Mendel
>>>>>>>>> did not.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>           I see a lot of different people around me.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Everybody
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has different dimensions, although we have similar genes.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Slightly different alleles of some of those genes, though, and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> this accounts for a good fraction of the differences you
>>>>>>>>>>>>> observe.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is enough for evolution to work, you don't need a gene
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> manipulation, there is enough of change already in it, you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> need more of it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's true. Standing genetic variation can power evolution
>>>>>>>>>>>>> for a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> while. But eventually it runs out and evolution would stop
>>>>>>>>>>>>> unless
>>>>>>>>>>>>> there were a source of new variation, i.e. mutation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>           Mutation will not help, mutation is malfunction, and
>>>>>>>>>>>> organism has the way to deal with mutations, as far as I know
>>>>>>>>>>>> organism corrects mutations. I can trace my five fingers
>>>>>>>>>>>> long way
>>>>>>>>>>>> down the evolution chain, and people in this forum should know
>>>>>>>>>>>> about it. It didn't stop to evolve. You can find the origin of
>>>>>>>>>>>> everything down the evolution chain. I doubt that this would be
>>>>>>>>>>>> caused by mutation. The "mutation" is the answer when you don't
>>>>>>>>>>>> know the answer.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Again, you seem to have zero knowledge of evolutionary
>>>>>>>>>>> biology. If
>>>>>>>>>>> you learned about it, all those questions would be answered.
>>>>>>>>>>> Organisms do correct mutations; that's called proofreading and
>>>>>>>>>>> repair. But repair doesn't fix all mutations and it actually
>>>>>>>>>>> causes
>>>>>>>>>>> some of them. Observed mutation rates take repair into
>>>>>>>>>>> account. Not
>>>>>>>>>>> sure what "it didn't stop to evolve" is about. Mutations do
>>>>>>>>>>> happen,
>>>>>>>>>>> some of them affect phenotype, and some of them are beneficial.
>>>>>>>>>>> That's how adaptive evolution works.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>           I am giving up.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If only that were true.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You only need deliberate "gene change" if you want God to be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> involved in the story, and if you really desperately need
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> special extraterrestrial magical effects, like
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "intelligence".
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nobody said any of this mutation is deliberate. Well, nobody
>>>>>>>>>>>>> except ID crackpots.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>           It allows for god's intervention, this is why
>>>>>>>>>>>> Catholic
>>>>>>>>>>>> church is pushing it. Just like the Big Bang Theory, which
>>>>>>>>>>>> allows
>>>>>>>>>>>> for God's creation.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> It also allows for God's non-intervention. Again, your
>>>>>>>>>>> statements
>>>>>>>>>>> are just wrong. I don't think the Catholic church is even
>>>>>>>>>>> pushing
>>>>>>>>>>> mutation. Where do you get this idea?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>           From the fact that the Genetic Mutation Theory was
>>>>>>>>>> accepted
>>>>>>>>>> after it was rediscovered by three independent scientists in a
>>>>>>>>>> matter of two months, in a time when there wasn't even a
>>>>>>>>>> radio. If
>>>>>>>>>> you would use your brain you would figure out the trick, but I
>>>>>>>>>> don't
>>>>>>>>>> expect this from you:
>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregor_Mendel#Rediscovery_of_Mendel's_work
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Notice that nowhere in that article is there any mention of
>>>>>>>>> mutation.
>>>>>>>>> And if you actually read it you will find that the rediscovery of
>>>>>>>>> Mendel is all about the fact that inheritance is particulate, not
>>>>>>>>> blending. That's Mendel's work and that's Mendel's theory.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>           First, this Catholic priest was a liar, then "somebody"
>>>>>>>>>> used trick to sell his theory to the world.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Nobody is saying any of that.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregor_Mendel#Mendelian_paradox
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That has nothing to do with any of your claims.
>>>>>
>>>>> You seem to have a bee in your bonnet [are you familiar with this
>>>>> colloquialism?]
>>>>> about the Catholic Church, Mario.
>>>>>
>>>>> Your being 61 correlates to your being about 2 years old when
>>>>> Brezhnev took
>>>>> power in 1964, and so your formative years were spent until he died
>>>>> in 1982,
>>>>> when you would have been an adult. You were in Yugoslavia the whole
>>>>> time;
>>>>> and I suspect your education was steeped in anti-Catholic propaganda
>>>>> much of the time. Catholicism was especially opposed of the
>>>>> Christian denominations,
>>>>> because of its unified character, making it a more formidable enemy
>>>>> of Communism
>>>>> than perhaps all the Protestant denominations put together.
>>>>>
>>>>> We were once given an abominable anti-Christian book for elementary
>>>>> school children,
>>>>> written in Hungarian and published in Hungary in the 1960's. It
>>>>> opened with a fiction
>>>>> loosely based on the book of Genesis,  making God look like a
>>>>> bumbling idiot whose behavior
>>>>> was nothing like what Genesis depicts. Yet it was written "with a
>>>>> straight face" as though
>>>>> it were an accurate portrayal of what Christians believe.
>>>>>
>>>>> I say all this because what you write below reads like it was
>>>>> permeated
>>>>> with anti-Catholic propaganda that you may have accepted uncritically.
>>>>> I've kept it intact at first, then picked it apart because it contains
>>>>> such concentrated mistakes.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Mendel was a liar
>>>>>
>>>>> He simplified some data to make it look like inheritance of traits was
>>>>> more perfectly describable in multiples of 1/4 or 1/8 or whatever
>>>>> negative power of 2 was appropriate to the situation. But as
>>>>> a general approximation to the truth it was good enough for
>>>>> practical purposes.
>>>>>
>>>>> If this is  the only lie that Mendel was guilty of, then he was
>>>>> less of a
>>>>> liar than two of the participants in this thread, and many other
>>>>> participants
>>>>> in talk.origins.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> (just like all Catholic priests are,
>>>>>
>>>>> Is that what you were taught through much of your education?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> plus a lot of them are pedophiles,
>>>>>
>>>>> About 5% engaged in sexually inappropriate behavior with underage
>>>>> minors during the
>>>>> height of sex abuse, only about one-fifth of which were children
>>>>> below puberty,
>>>>> the only young people to whom the word "pedophile" applies. You
>>>>> find similar
>>>>> figures in lots of places, including the public schools.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> plus, the ones who aren't, those protect
>>>>>> pedophiles),
>>>>>
>>>>> You have been reading a lot of anti-Catholic propaganda that
>>>>> ultimately has Marxist roots. It's late, otherwise I'd go into the
>>>>> whole story. Maybe tomorrow I'll have the time.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> and Catholic church used psychological trick to sneak in
>>>>>> Mendel's work.
>>>>>
>>>>> I can't imagine a source for this except Stalinist propagandists
>>>>> steeped in Lysenkoism.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> And the Big Bang Theory also originated in Vatican.
>>>>>
>>>>> The Vatican had no role  in it, and besides, why do you
>>>>> think it is incorrect at all?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> More
>>>>>> than enough said.
>>>>>
>>>>> It would probably have been best to have it all unsaid.
>>>>> But at least this way I think we might be able to
>>>>> clear up some of these misconceptions.
>>>>
>>>>          First Peter, thanks for taking care about it.
>>>>          Ok, lets start with clearing misconceptions about my
>>>> uprising, regarding Catholicism. My mother was strong believer. She
>>>> had some problems with communists in her life, so she never raised
>>>> us in Catholicism and nationalism, so, she, although being strong
>>>> Catholic, kept it for herself. We (me and my two twin sisters) went
>>>> to Catholic Sunday School. Here children go by the age of 8. I
>>>> didn't go at that age because my mother wanted me to go along with
>>>> my sisters (for obvious reasons, you say that there 5 % pedophiles,
>>>> this are just the proven ones), so I started to go by the age of 10
>>>> (when my sisters were 8). At that age I was old enough to understand
>>>> things, and smart enough to pick up the logic of it. I was eager to
>>>> find out what it is all about. I presumed that the basis of it are
>>>> 10 commandments. We had Sunday School in one of the more known
>>>> church in Zagreb, St.Peter's Church, in Vlaska street, very close to
>>>> the center of the town. But the teacher wasn't a priest, ti was a
>>>> layman. So, I was eager to pick up the logic behind it, and I was
>>>> shocked when the guy said, "We will not talk about 10 Commandments,
>>>> you have it in catechism (small white booklet), you can do it at
>>>> home by yourself.". Frankly, I got the impression that the guy
>>>> wouldn't be able to name all 10 Commandments if somebody would ask
>>>> him to do it. This was extremely strange to me, since the whole
>>>> logic should lay upon 10 Commandments. Instead of that he was
>>>> talking about two things every time:
>>>>          1) The first Catholics, those in Roman Empire, were living
>>>> in communes. This is the original Communism, a system we should
>>>> strive to have.
>>>>          2) "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a
>>>> needle then for a rich person to enter the Kingdom of God!",
>>>> explaining how in the past those "rich men" were Pharisees, while
>>>> today they are those ugly fat American capitalists.
>>>>          In other words, he was saying how communism is a system we
>>>> should strive to achieve, and how capitalism is bad.
>>>>          He was talking about it and explaining it widely every
>>>> single time, in fact this was the only thing he was doing. Of
>>>> course, he was young. I don't know what relationship he had with
>>>> some of the girls of my age, but they were all in love with him, and
>>>> close with him.
>>>>          Regarding official education, Yugoslavia wasn't so rigid,
>>>> in fact Tito had very warm relationships with the West, so there
>>>> wasn't anti-catholic education at all in our school. I remember only
>>>> once, our elementary school teacher was asking who believes in God.
>>>> There were some people from my class that also went to Sunday
>>>> School, but only I replied that I believe in God. In fact, I didn't
>>>> believe in God at that time (nor ever), I just tried to protect my
>>>> mother's views, who is she (that teacher) to ridicule the believes
>>>> of my mother. And this was the only occasion when anybody said
>>>> anything against Catholic religion.
>>>>          I was never raised to be against communism also, but it was
>>>> obvious, from a faces she made, that my mother doesn't like it at
>>>> all. Of course I had strong feeling for justice since I was a kid,
>>>> and I noticed how bad communism is, very early. I didn't like it at
>>>> all, in fact, when everybody was accepted in Communist Youth (I
>>>> believe it is by the age of 12 or 13), I was contemplating not to do
>>>> it. At the last moment I decided to do it, otherwise I would be the
>>>> only pupil in the whole school not to do it (maybe even in the whole
>>>> town, :) ), and this would affect my life very badly, so I decided
>>>> to do it.
>>>>          When I started to hate Catholicism? My country went through
>>>> some transitions, the moral standards of Croats were extremely low,
>>>> and I realized that Catholic church is the main responsible for it.
>>>> I followed politics, and what's going on around me, saw what is
>>>> happening, and realized that Catholic church is extremely bad
>>>> institution. Didn't you notice that Pope condemns the West for
>>>> Ukrainian war, and justifies Putin? Vatican hates UK and USA for the
>>>> reason that those two countries are the sources of democracy,
>>>> Vatican thinks that people should be Vatican's sheep. People take
>>>> this lightly, but what really is going on is that Vatican sees it in
>>>> the most ugly way, they really do think, and behave towards humans,
>>>> like humans are their stupid sheep.
>>>>          I even went to Catholic kindergarten, and as a really small
>>>> kid  I noticed how soulless those nuns are. They were behaving
>>>> towards children as they are things, like they are not something
>>>> worthy.
>>>>          Anyway, I didn't learn anything in Sunday School, I didn't
>>>> like that I had to use my free Sundays for it (at that time normal
>>>> school was from Monday to Saturday), so as soon as I got first
>>>> Communion I stopped to go there (my sisters continued with it).
>>>
>>>          In fact, Christmas was a holiday in Yugoslavia, and Midnight
>>> Mass was big celebration, the whole town celebrated. It wasn't quiet,
>>> it wasn't "Silent Night", because this was a night when Croats were
>>> celebrating their Christianity publicly, so this was huge
>>> celebration, and everybody went to Zagreb Cathedral at that night.
>>> You may picture how big celebration it is when even the nonbelievers
>>> (including me) attended. Especially if you take into account that
>>> Orthodox Serbs celebrate it using Gregorian calendar, so 15 days
>>> after Catholics. So at Christmas it was a time for celebration for
>>> Croats. But it was so huge celebration that even young Serbs would
>>> come to Zagreb Cathedral and have fun. So, nothing like you think was
>>> happening in Yugoslavia, Christianity was tolerated, especially if
>>> you know that Vatican actually works for communists.
>>
>>          Oh yes, it was big celebration, loud, with firecrackers.
>> Actually, it was the only occasion when you could hit firecracker
>> behind a policeman (police was very austere back then), and he
>> wouldn't do anything about it, :) .
>
>         Hm, I still wasn't clear enough. The strange things that I
> noticed in the past were nothing more than strange things, I thought
> that they were exceptions, I thought about priests that they are good
> mellow people, just like they like to present themselves. The hatred
> towards Catholic church is new, maybe in the last 20 years.
>         There was one extremely amoral period in Croatian transition,
> some 20 years ago. In order to take loan from bank you needed to have
> two guarantees. Well, the one who took loan would pay back, and
> guarantees would need to pay back this loan. And it was one, or few
> occasions, it was mass occurrence, everybody was screwing everybody,
> best friend would screw best friends. I gave my sister 8.000 $, and she
> didn't pay me back. And she even isn't particularly bad person, it is
> just that everybody behaved like this at that time. We had low wages, it
> took me three years to get out of this depth.
>         We already had internet, and I was writing on political forums.
> And I was thinking about it. I thought, Catholic church is so strong
> here, they are in charge of moral of this nation, what are they doing?
> And then I started to unveil the truth, little by little. I guarantee
> you, Catholic church is one extremely ugly and mean organization. When
> Ukraine was attacked, every European country stand behind Ukraine, in a
> matter of few days. For Vatican it took another two weeks, they waited
> the last minute. But when Russians reached their maximum advance, and
> now they needed peace agreement, Vatican reacted the same day, pushing
> for peace. See this:
> https://www.politico.eu/article/pope-francis-nato-cause-ukraine-invasion-russia/
>         It is Vatican who is financing and organizing Muslim migrant
> invasion on Europe, for the reason to harm European democracy.
>         I was waiting for the transition, waiting eagerly to leave
> communism and join capitalist West, while Catholic church was spiting on
> the West, accusing them of every evil, and pulling as back to Middle Ages.
>         This is what Serbian church organized one year ago:
> https://youtube.com/shorts/B7o2XT2I6qI?feature=share
>         Catholic church saw that and now we have every first Saturday
> in month Middle Age circus on the main square in Zagreb and other cities
> in Croatia:
> https://youtu.be/eoPq89g1pIQ

On 22.8.2023. 8:06, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
> On 22.8.2023. 8:04, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>> On 22.8.2023. 6:33, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>>> On 22.8.2023. 6:29, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>>>> On 22.8.2023. 6:10, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>>>>> On 22.8.2023. 4:42, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>>>>> On Saturday, August 19, 2023 at 11:01:52 PM UTC-4, Mario
>>>>>> Petrinovic wrote:
>>>>>>> On 20.8.2023. 4:50, John Harshman wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 8/19/23 7:33 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 20.8.2023. 3:21, John Harshman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 8/19/23 5:10 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 20.8.2023. 1:46, John Harshman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/19/23 1:20 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 19.8.2023. 21:19, John Harshman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/19/23 11:13 AM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 19.8.2023. 15:04, John Harshman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/18/23 9:37 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 19.8.2023. 4:12, John Harshman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You might try asking Mario what these "other ways"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are. I'd
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be interested in knowing. Perhaps he's thinking of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "natural
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> genetic engineering" or "morphic resonance", but I'm
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> willing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to bet it's some kind of woo.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>           No, I have not the slightest idea what these
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "other
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ways" are. I just said that science doesn't know about
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> them.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I, too, have not the slightest idea what they are.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How do you know they exist? How do you know they're
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> important?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>           Because "evolution by errors" is stupid to the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bone. I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't know who actually invented this, but it is sneaked
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> into
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> science by Catholic church, and called Genetic Mutation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Theory,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a very well known fact. A typical story of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> science,stupid, and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> manipulated by church. No sense in it at all.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm sorry, but that's insane. The Catholic Church had
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nothing to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do with introducing the concept of mutations into biology,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they were introduced because they were actually observed.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We know
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mutations happen, we know how they happen, and we know what
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> happens to them afterwards. It's not weird magic.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>           Good for mutations. More than 20 years when I found
>>>>>>>>>>>>> myself learning about paleoanthropology "Genetic Mutation
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Theory
>>>>>>>>>>>>> (Mendel is the author) was them main word. It made fun of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Darwin,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Darwin was the past, everybody was talking about Genetic
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Mutation
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Theory. Today, if you type "Genetic Mutation Theory" into
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Wikipedia you will get no results. But no, I am not insane,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> whole science is insane. And all this changed after I
>>>>>>>>>>>>> started to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> write about it on forums. And yes, this actually happened,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am
>>>>>>>>>>>>> not insane.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't know what was happening in paleoanthropology 20
>>>>>>>>>>>> years ago.
>>>>>>>>>>>> But what you describe is not recognizable as anything in actual
>>>>>>>>>>>> evolutionary biology. Nor does Mendel have anything at all
>>>>>>>>>>>> to do
>>>>>>>>>>>> with mutations. If paleoanthropologists said that, which I
>>>>>>>>>>>> strongly
>>>>>>>>>>>> doubt, they were wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> You may not be insane, but what you're saying is nonsensical.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>           Hm, on papers 10 and more years old you can read that
>>>>>>>>>>> Genetic Mutation Theory is by Mendel: "Genetic algorithm (GA)
>>>>>>>>>>> is an
>>>>>>>>>>> optimization searching algorithm based on the theory of
>>>>>>>>>>> evolution
>>>>>>>>>>> and the genetic mutation theory of Mendel (Atmar, 1994,
>>>>>>>>>>> Chaudhry et
>>>>>>>>>>> al., 2000, Fogel, 1994, Srinivas and Patnaik, 1994)." These
>>>>>>>>>>> days,
>>>>>>>>>>> though, everybody says that it is De Vries's. Now, what and why?
>>>>>>>>>>> And, frankly, I am really puzzled how suddenly you don't know
>>>>>>>>>>> anything about it.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> What are you quoting there? What are the cited references? If
>>>>>>>>>> it's
>>>>>>>>>> about genetic algorithms is would seem very peripheral to
>>>>>>>>>> evolutionary biology, and I wouldn't be confident that it's
>>>>>>>>>> right in
>>>>>>>>>> its attributions.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It's true that De Vries had a theory of mutation, though
>>>>>>>>>> Mendel did not.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>           I see a lot of different people around me.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Everybody
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has different dimensions, although we have similar genes.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Slightly different alleles of some of those genes, though,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this accounts for a good fraction of the differences you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> observe.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is enough for evolution to work, you don't need a gene
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> manipulation, there is enough of change already in it,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you don't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> need more of it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's true. Standing genetic variation can power
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> evolution for a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> while. But eventually it runs out and evolution would stop
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unless
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there were a source of new variation, i.e. mutation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>           Mutation will not help, mutation is malfunction, and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> organism has the way to deal with mutations, as far as I know
>>>>>>>>>>>>> organism corrects mutations. I can trace my five fingers
>>>>>>>>>>>>> long way
>>>>>>>>>>>>> down the evolution chain, and people in this forum should know
>>>>>>>>>>>>> about it. It didn't stop to evolve. You can find the origin of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> everything down the evolution chain. I doubt that this
>>>>>>>>>>>>> would be
>>>>>>>>>>>>> caused by mutation. The "mutation" is the answer when you
>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't
>>>>>>>>>>>>> know the answer.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Again, you seem to have zero knowledge of evolutionary
>>>>>>>>>>>> biology. If
>>>>>>>>>>>> you learned about it, all those questions would be answered.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Organisms do correct mutations; that's called proofreading and
>>>>>>>>>>>> repair. But repair doesn't fix all mutations and it actually
>>>>>>>>>>>> causes
>>>>>>>>>>>> some of them. Observed mutation rates take repair into
>>>>>>>>>>>> account. Not
>>>>>>>>>>>> sure what "it didn't stop to evolve" is about. Mutations do
>>>>>>>>>>>> happen,
>>>>>>>>>>>> some of them affect phenotype, and some of them are beneficial.
>>>>>>>>>>>> That's how adaptive evolution works.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>           I am giving up.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> If only that were true.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You only need deliberate "gene change" if you want God to be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> involved in the story, and if you really desperately need
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> special extraterrestrial magical effects, like
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "intelligence".
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nobody said any of this mutation is deliberate. Well, nobody
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> except ID crackpots.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>           It allows for god's intervention, this is why
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Catholic
>>>>>>>>>>>>> church is pushing it. Just like the Big Bang Theory, which
>>>>>>>>>>>>> allows
>>>>>>>>>>>>> for God's creation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> It also allows for God's non-intervention. Again, your
>>>>>>>>>>>> statements
>>>>>>>>>>>> are just wrong. I don't think the Catholic church is even
>>>>>>>>>>>> pushing
>>>>>>>>>>>> mutation. Where do you get this idea?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>           From the fact that the Genetic Mutation Theory was
>>>>>>>>>>> accepted
>>>>>>>>>>> after it was rediscovered by three independent scientists in a
>>>>>>>>>>> matter of two months, in a time when there wasn't even a
>>>>>>>>>>> radio. If
>>>>>>>>>>> you would use your brain you would figure out the trick, but
>>>>>>>>>>> I don't
>>>>>>>>>>> expect this from you:
>>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregor_Mendel#Rediscovery_of_Mendel's_work
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Notice that nowhere in that article is there any mention of
>>>>>>>>>> mutation.
>>>>>>>>>> And if you actually read it you will find that the rediscovery of
>>>>>>>>>> Mendel is all about the fact that inheritance is particulate, not
>>>>>>>>>> blending. That's Mendel's work and that's Mendel's theory.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>           First, this Catholic priest was a liar, then
>>>>>>>>>>> "somebody"
>>>>>>>>>>> used trick to sell his theory to the world.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Nobody is saying any of that.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregor_Mendel#Mendelian_paradox
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That has nothing to do with any of your claims.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You seem to have a bee in your bonnet [are you familiar with this
>>>>>> colloquialism?]
>>>>>> about the Catholic Church, Mario.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Your being 61 correlates to your being about 2 years old when
>>>>>> Brezhnev took
>>>>>> power in 1964, and so your formative years were spent until he
>>>>>> died in 1982,
>>>>>> when you would have been an adult. You were in Yugoslavia the
>>>>>> whole time;
>>>>>> and I suspect your education was steeped in anti-Catholic propaganda
>>>>>> much of the time. Catholicism was especially opposed of the
>>>>>> Christian denominations,
>>>>>> because of its unified character, making it a more formidable
>>>>>> enemy of Communism
>>>>>> than perhaps all the Protestant denominations put together.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We were once given an abominable anti-Christian book for
>>>>>> elementary school children,
>>>>>> written in Hungarian and published in Hungary in the 1960's. It
>>>>>> opened with a fiction
>>>>>> loosely based on the book of Genesis,  making God look like a
>>>>>> bumbling idiot whose behavior
>>>>>> was nothing like what Genesis depicts. Yet it was written "with a
>>>>>> straight face" as though
>>>>>> it were an accurate portrayal of what Christians believe.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I say all this because what you write below reads like it was
>>>>>> permeated
>>>>>> with anti-Catholic propaganda that you may have accepted
>>>>>> uncritically.
>>>>>> I've kept it intact at first, then picked it apart because it
>>>>>> contains
>>>>>> such concentrated mistakes.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Mendel was a liar
>>>>>>
>>>>>> He simplified some data to make it look like inheritance of traits
>>>>>> was
>>>>>> more perfectly describable in multiples of 1/4 or 1/8 or whatever
>>>>>> negative power of 2 was appropriate to the situation. But as
>>>>>> a general approximation to the truth it was good enough for
>>>>>> practical purposes.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If this is  the only lie that Mendel was guilty of, then he was
>>>>>> less of a
>>>>>> liar than two of the participants in this thread, and many other
>>>>>> participants
>>>>>> in talk.origins.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (just like all Catholic priests are,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Is that what you were taught through much of your education?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> plus a lot of them are pedophiles,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> About 5% engaged in sexually inappropriate behavior with underage
>>>>>> minors during the
>>>>>> height of sex abuse, only about one-fifth of which were children
>>>>>> below puberty,
>>>>>> the only young people to whom the word "pedophile" applies. You
>>>>>> find similar
>>>>>> figures in lots of places, including the public schools.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> plus, the ones who aren't, those protect
>>>>>>> pedophiles),
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You have been reading a lot of anti-Catholic propaganda that
>>>>>> ultimately has Marxist roots. It's late, otherwise I'd go into the
>>>>>> whole story. Maybe tomorrow I'll have the time.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> and Catholic church used psychological trick to sneak in
>>>>>>> Mendel's work.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I can't imagine a source for this except Stalinist propagandists
>>>>>> steeped in Lysenkoism.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And the Big Bang Theory also originated in Vatican.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The Vatican had no role  in it, and besides, why do you
>>>>>> think it is incorrect at all?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> More
>>>>>>> than enough said.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It would probably have been best to have it all unsaid.
>>>>>> But at least this way I think we might be able to
>>>>>> clear up some of these misconceptions.
>>>>>
>>>>>          First Peter, thanks for taking care about it.
>>>>>          Ok, lets start with clearing misconceptions about my
>>>>> uprising, regarding Catholicism. My mother was strong believer. She
>>>>> had some problems with communists in her life, so she never raised
>>>>> us in Catholicism and nationalism, so, she, although being strong
>>>>> Catholic, kept it for herself. We (me and my two twin sisters) went
>>>>> to Catholic Sunday School. Here children go by the age of 8. I
>>>>> didn't go at that age because my mother wanted me to go along with
>>>>> my sisters (for obvious reasons, you say that there 5 % pedophiles,
>>>>> this are just the proven ones), so I started to go by the age of 10
>>>>> (when my sisters were 8). At that age I was old enough to
>>>>> understand things, and smart enough to pick up the logic of it. I
>>>>> was eager to find out what it is all about. I presumed that the
>>>>> basis of it are 10 commandments. We had Sunday School in one of the
>>>>> more known church in Zagreb, St.Peter's Church, in Vlaska street,
>>>>> very close to the center of the town. But the teacher wasn't a
>>>>> priest, ti was a layman. So, I was eager to pick up the logic
>>>>> behind it, and I was shocked when the guy said, "We will not talk
>>>>> about 10 Commandments, you have it in catechism (small white
>>>>> booklet), you can do it at home by yourself.". Frankly, I got the
>>>>> impression that the guy wouldn't be able to name all 10
>>>>> Commandments if somebody would ask him to do it. This was extremely
>>>>> strange to me, since the whole logic should lay upon 10
>>>>> Commandments. Instead of that he was talking about two things every
>>>>> time:
>>>>>          1) The first Catholics, those in Roman Empire, were living
>>>>> in communes. This is the original Communism, a system we should
>>>>> strive to have.
>>>>>          2) "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a
>>>>> needle then for a rich person to enter the Kingdom of God!",
>>>>> explaining how in the past those "rich men" were Pharisees, while
>>>>> today they are those ugly fat American capitalists.
>>>>>          In other words, he was saying how communism is a system we
>>>>> should strive to achieve, and how capitalism is bad.
>>>>>          He was talking about it and explaining it widely every
>>>>> single time, in fact this was the only thing he was doing. Of
>>>>> course, he was young. I don't know what relationship he had with
>>>>> some of the girls of my age, but they were all in love with him,
>>>>> and close with him.
>>>>>          Regarding official education, Yugoslavia wasn't so rigid,
>>>>> in fact Tito had very warm relationships with the West, so there
>>>>> wasn't anti-catholic education at all in our school. I remember
>>>>> only once, our elementary school teacher was asking who believes in
>>>>> God. There were some people from my class that also went to Sunday
>>>>> School, but only I replied that I believe in God. In fact, I didn't
>>>>> believe in God at that time (nor ever), I just tried to protect my
>>>>> mother's views, who is she (that teacher) to ridicule the believes
>>>>> of my mother. And this was the only occasion when anybody said
>>>>> anything against Catholic religion.
>>>>>          I was never raised to be against communism also, but it
>>>>> was obvious, from a faces she made, that my mother doesn't like it
>>>>> at all. Of course I had strong feeling for justice since I was a
>>>>> kid, and I noticed how bad communism is, very early. I didn't like
>>>>> it at all, in fact, when everybody was accepted in Communist Youth
>>>>> (I believe it is by the age of 12 or 13), I was contemplating not
>>>>> to do it. At the last moment I decided to do it, otherwise I would
>>>>> be the only pupil in the whole school not to do it (maybe even in
>>>>> the whole town, :) ), and this would affect my life very badly, so
>>>>> I decided to do it.
>>>>>          When I started to hate Catholicism? My country went
>>>>> through some transitions, the moral standards of Croats were
>>>>> extremely low, and I realized that Catholic church is the main
>>>>> responsible for it. I followed politics, and what's going on around
>>>>> me, saw what is happening, and realized that Catholic church is
>>>>> extremely bad institution. Didn't you notice that Pope condemns the
>>>>> West for Ukrainian war, and justifies Putin? Vatican hates UK and
>>>>> USA for the reason that those two countries are the sources of
>>>>> democracy, Vatican thinks that people should be Vatican's sheep.
>>>>> People take this lightly, but what really is going on is that
>>>>> Vatican sees it in the most ugly way, they really do think, and
>>>>> behave towards humans, like humans are their stupid sheep.
>>>>>          I even went to Catholic kindergarten, and as a really
>>>>> small kid  I noticed how soulless those nuns are. They were
>>>>> behaving towards children as they are things, like they are not
>>>>> something worthy.
>>>>>          Anyway, I didn't learn anything in Sunday School, I didn't
>>>>> like that I had to use my free Sundays for it (at that time normal
>>>>> school was from Monday to Saturday), so as soon as I got first
>>>>> Communion I stopped to go there (my sisters continued with it).
>>>>
>>>>          In fact, Christmas was a holiday in Yugoslavia, and
>>>> Midnight Mass was big celebration, the whole town celebrated. It
>>>> wasn't quiet, it wasn't "Silent Night", because this was a night
>>>> when Croats were celebrating their Christianity publicly, so this
>>>> was huge celebration, and everybody went to Zagreb Cathedral at that
>>>> night. You may picture how big celebration it is when even the
>>>> nonbelievers (including me) attended. Especially if you take into
>>>> account that Orthodox Serbs celebrate it using Gregorian calendar,
>>>> so 15 days after Catholics. So at Christmas it was a time for
>>>> celebration for Croats. But it was so huge celebration that even
>>>> young Serbs would come to Zagreb Cathedral and have fun. So, nothing
>>>> like you think was happening in Yugoslavia, Christianity was
>>>> tolerated, especially if you know that Vatican actually works for
>>>> communists.
>>>
>>>          Oh yes, it was big celebration, loud, with firecrackers.
>>> Actually, it was the only occasion when you could hit firecracker
>>> behind a policeman (police was very austere back then), and he
>>> wouldn't do anything about it, :) .
>>
>>          Hm, I still wasn't clear enough. The strange things that I
>> noticed in the past were nothing more than strange things, I thought
>> that they were exceptions, I thought about priests that they are good
>> mellow people, just like they like to present themselves. The hatred
>> towards Catholic church is new, maybe in the last 20 years.
>>          There was one extremely amoral period in Croatian transition,
>> some 20 years ago. In order to take loan from bank you needed to have
>> two guarantees. Well, the one who took loan would pay back, and
>> guarantees would need to pay back this loan. And it was one, or few
>> occasions, it was mass occurrence, everybody was screwing everybody,
>> best friend would screw best friends. I gave my sister 8.000 $, and
>> she didn't pay me back. And she even isn't particularly bad person, it
>> is just that everybody behaved like this at that time. We had low
>> wages, it took me three years to get out of this depth.
>>          We already had internet, and I was writing on political
>> forums. And I was thinking about it. I thought, Catholic church is so
>> strong here, they are in charge of moral of this nation, what are they
>> doing? And then I started to unveil the truth, little by little. I
>> guarantee you, Catholic church is one extremely ugly and mean
>> organization. When Ukraine was attacked, every European country stand
>> behind Ukraine, in a matter of few days. For Vatican it took another
>> two weeks, they waited the last minute. But when Russians reached
>> their maximum advance, and now they needed peace agreement, Vatican
>> reacted the same day, pushing for peace. See this:
>> https://www.politico.eu/article/pope-francis-nato-cause-ukraine-invasion-russia/
>>          It is Vatican who is financing and organizing Muslim migrant
>> invasion on Europe, for the reason to harm European democracy.
>>          I was waiting for the transition, waiting eagerly to leave
>> communism and join capitalist West, while Catholic church was spiting
>> on the West, accusing them of every evil, and pulling as back to
>> Middle Ages.
>>          This is what Serbian church organized one year ago:
>> https://youtube.com/shorts/B7o2XT2I6qI?feature=share
>>          Catholic church saw that and now we have every first Saturday
>> in month Middle Age circus on the main square in Zagreb and other
>> cities in Croatia:
>> https://youtu.be/eoPq89g1pIQ
>
>         Oops, I made a mistake, the one who took a loan didn't pay
> back, and guarantees would need to pay back instead.