I need Matt: (Introduction)

by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Thursday, June 17, 2010, 22:51 (5272 days ago) @ David Turell

I need Matt again.I can follow to some degree this line of thinking and the hierarchy, as one sees in software algorithms and can be seen in the hierarchy in DNA/RNA controls. But does this meet math requirements, the 1+2+3+4=10, means what?
> 
> http://www.uncommondescent.com/evolution/functional-hierarchy/#more-13790-Heh. The Pythagoreans. I find it intriguing that he's attempting to resurrect esoterica from a group of mathematicians that denied the reality of irrational numbers. -From a math perspective, the study he shows is childishly easy. Ultimately it's nothing more than a mathematical replica of the "Irreducible complexity" argument. For all other "functions" to exist, it requires another function. But he too ignores origins and is scouting the forest while missing the trees. -Origins aside, mutations in an organism are often completely random; when you study the genetic differences in say, hemoglobin among primates, you see exactly the kind of slow, methodical--and random--processes one would expect in a traditional evolutionary perspective. New-world primates have drastically different hemoglobin sequences than old-world primates. We all split from the same ultimate common ancestor, so why does the change appear to be linearly slow? Again, I bring this up because he seems to exclude randomness entirely when discussing life. (and we all know I tend to hate absolutes.) -I've often said here that trying to untangle life by looking at the way it is now is impossible.

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"