The evolution of biological species and chance ...

[Janic]

The National Assembly votes to switch from three to eleven compulsory vaccines
The government's announcement on the subject, which had been made in July, had sparked controversy and anger among those who opposed the use of this type of treatment.
THE WORLD | 27.10.2017 to 20h22 • Updated 28.10.2017 to 06h39
The National Assembly gave its approval by voting, Friday, October 27, the extension of the number of compulsory vaccines, from three to eleven, for young children who will be born from January 1, 2018. The provision was adopted at first reading through 63 votes for and 3 against (including two elected representatives from La République en Marche (LRM). Nine members abstained, to the left of the left.
Learn more about http://www.lemonde.fr/sante/article/201 ... 63eSluM.99

As we can see, the subject interests so little the 577 deputies of the national assembly that only 66 +9 abstentions were expressed. Or 13% expressed and 11% having voted for! which is far from a representativeness of the population estimated at nearly 50% reserved vis-à-vis vaccines.

11 compulsory vaccines: half of the French opposed
By Lise Loumé on 25.07.2017/10/41 XNUMX a.m.
According to an Odoxa poll, one in two French is opposed to the extension of the vaccination obligation announced by Minister of Health Agnès Buzyn. And one in four even believes that the risks involved are ... greater than the benefits !
In early July 2017, the Minister of Health Agnès Buzyn announced that 11 vaccines for early childhood will become compulsory from 2018, judging the situation of vaccination coverage in France "intolerable". To the 3 vaccines currently obligatory (diphtheria, tetanus and poliomyelitis) will be added those which were only "recommended": whooping cough, hepatitis B, measles, mumps, rubella, meningococcus C, haemophilius influenza B and pneumococcus. But half of the French population opposes this measure, reveals a poll conducted by Odoxa (1.011 adults representing the French population) and published on July 20, 2017. In addition, distrust of vaccination has increased over the past two years, highlights the poll: 39% believe the risks involved outweigh the benefits, an increase of 12 points in two years!
https://www.sciencesetavenir.fr/sante/1 ... ses_115007

One can only be amazed at the difference between this opinion of half the population and the taxation made of such a small quantity of unrepresentative deputies: Is this democracy?
But is it a coincidence that Ms. Busyn is on the board of directors of two large pharmaceutical companies including one French (guess which one!)

Heidi Larson and her co-authors note that while the importance of vaccines is generally recognized, despite notable differences between countries, European citizens, and in particular in France, trust them the least : 41% of French respondents believe that they are not sure, a world record, 17% doubt their effectiveness and 12% do not consider childhood vaccines to be important. Overall, it appears that the level of education increases confidence in the importance and effectiveness of vaccines, but not in their safety.
Read also: Health scandals, controversies ... the reasons for mistrust in France against vaccines
This last point is surprising when other surveys note the opposite, namely that it is precisely those with the highest level of education who doubt and question the doctrines and dogmas on the subject.

13% on average of skeptics
For this study, respondents responded to four statements: "It is important for children to get the vaccines", "Overall, I think the vaccines are safe", "Overall, I think the vaccines are working" and "The vaccines are compatible with my religious beliefs. " The vaccines were considered as a whole, without mentioning one in particular. Sex, age, income level, religion, professional status and education level were specified.

Likewise this:

The difficult challenge of adult vaccines
In France, which is one of the rare European countries to maintain certain compulsory vaccinations, there has been the accumulation of several vaccines which have given rise to doubts: vaccinations against papillomavirus, pandemic influenza A (H1N1), and hepatitis B , which concern an older or adult population. Vaccines for adults are the most difficult challenge. »

Learn more about http://www.lemonde.fr/sante/article/201 ... bOfb13z.99

Note that these 4-question surveys do not ask the one vaccines are dangerous, ineffective Barely oriented as an investigation !. "to be overcome without peril, one triumphs without glory!"

[Bardal]

I agree that having inherited an assembly of boots is not progress for democracy ...

That said, to oppose it with a "democracy" of the polls is to confuse politics and marketting, a scientific approach and blind belief, mass manipulation and collective creativity. Four centuries ago, 4% of the people believed that the earth did not revolve around the sun; it never stopped the earth from turning ...

[sen-no-sen]

What does this have to do with the evolution of species?

[Janic]

I agree that having inherited an assembly of boots is not progress for democracy ...

It's already taken!

That said, to oppose it with a "democracy" of the polls is to confuse politics and marketting, a scientific approach and blind belief, mass manipulation and collective creativity.

How oh true! but how to find one's way around it and according to what authority recognizable by all?
However each point of view, scientific or simple belief (as far as there is a difference) is dependent, on our cultures, our experiences, our conditioning, our affect and therefore, in France, 67 million opinions different. To use Plato's formula: " the intermediary between knowledge and ignorance is opinion And even the greatest scientists have only opinions, like the others.

Four centuries ago, 4% of the people believed that the earth did not revolve around the sun; it never stopped the earth from turning ...

Still fair, but we must place ourselves in the context and of the so-called "scientific" knowledge of the time. We keep saying that the sun rises and that the sun sets as if it were the sun which revolves around the earth, and this resulted from observation, it was a fact. Same thing for the flat earth which makes some smile. Observation showed that water did not remain in place on a ball, but remained in a plateau, even a shallow one and as there were no satellites yet, the fact therefore took precedence over an unknown reality. Knowledge certainly increases, but the little that we know remains a chasm of ignorance.

What does this have to do with the evolution of species?

Indeed, I do not know how or why it landed here, especially since this site is supposed to be locked. You just have to transfer it to the right place.

[sen-no-sen]

Yes, it must be that ! the opposite of chance

Le finalism(which corresponds to the notion of intelligent design) is based on a reasoning bias, it is a hasty projection of human points of view on phenomena whose complexity escapes us.
However, the vision strictly mechanistic a blind evolution advancing by trial and error is not sufficient to explain the complexity of the living.
Life follows a kind of process * which leads it towards ever more complexity, but this has nothing to do with an obscure divinity, if life forms follow an intelligence, it is that of the super-organism of biosphere.
The set of life forms on earth forms a global brain in fact forming a sum of intelligences **, this one self-complexifies via classic Darwinian processes, but facilitates mutations (which remains to be discovered) most able to maximize its energy dissipation, which would explain very curious mutations so difficult to explain by chance.



* By excluding any form of finality of course, the complexity of living things can be explained by the second principle of thermodynamics.
** This is an idea that has not yet been widely studied because intelligence is too often considered as an individual item.

[Janic]

And off we go for a ride!

Finalism (which corresponds to the concept of intelligent design) is based on a bias of reasoning, it is a hasty projection of human points of view on phenomena whose complexity escapes us.

To consider that this is a reasoning bias, it must be demonstrated and that, apart from another abstract act of faith, it is not won in advance.

However, the strictly mechanistic vision of a blind evolution advancing by trial and error is not sufficient to explain the complexity of the living.

There is an improvement in the reasoning then, since it is the basic postulate of "creationism" to note that chance does not explain and especially does not demonstrate anything!

Life follows a kind of process * which leads it towards ever more complexity,

Life is just not a process of complexity. The so-called simplest forms are themselves extremely complex, which must not happen to happen at random, or else it would have to be proven since evolutionists are clamoring for tangible proof.

but this one has nothing to do with an obscure deity,

This is a simple postulate which cannot explain and prove the appearance of life, uses a negationism of principle, as if a negation had the value of proof.

if the forms of life follow an intelligence, it is that of the super-organism of the biosphere.

This is where the confusion is made between a purely mechanistic vision, that of movement, to make it a model for the living which is far beyond a simple thermodynamic mechanism. All our mechanical realizations are "animated" like the biosphere and are only lifeless objects. Does the automobile, the plane, the washing machines which have spread on our planet represent a kind of super organism of the biosphere? No, of course! Now if these lives follow an intelligence, it is the one you exclude on principle.

The set of life forms on earth forms a global brain in fact forming a sum of intelligences **, this self-complexifies via classic Darwinian processes,

A fine act of faith through a comparison that fishes through assimilation, a specious comparison. Indeed, a set of juxtaposed elements does not form a single product which has become more complex by itself. Example our cars, once again, where a juxtaposition of various elements does not make a motor intelligence for as much because what studied them, invented, created, it comes from an external intelligence that are our gray cells and not a sum of intelligence internal to the various components of our scrap heaps. This is what distinguishes a simple view of the mind from the reality of the world in which we exist.

but facilitates by various interactions (which remains to be discovered) the mutations most likely to maximize its energy dissipation,

Yep! Who remains to be discovered (assuming it happens one day!)

which would explain very curious mutations so difficult to explain by chance.

A postulate which proceeds by exclusion, a priori, can only lead to a lame result. : "*By excluding any form of purpose of course, »
Admittedly the notion of chance (which is only to admit an ignorance which you underline here,) cannot be satisfied with a linguistic substitution by replacing a word by another, newly invented, but of the same meaning.

the complexity of living things can be explained by the second principle of thermodynamics.

Thermodynamics neither explains nor can explain living things, whereas this is very suitable for inert matter.

I have the current curiosity to listen

, we understand better all the confusions that then arise between life and non-life from an evolutionary discourse. But it is his approach and therefore his right to extravagant in this way!

[izentrop]

The set of life forms on earth forms a global brain in fact forming a sum of intelligences **, this one self-complexifies via classic Darwinian processes, but facilitates mutations (which remains to be discovered) most able to maximize its energy dissipation,

It still smells like the supreme being pulling the strings.
None of this in the uniformly recognized Synthetic Theory of Evolution https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Th%C3%A9o ... A9volution

which would explain very curious mutations so difficult to explain by chance.

For example ?

The conclusion of Maxime Hervé's conference is well placed here

[sen-no-sen]

The set of life forms on earth forms a global brain in fact forming a sum of intelligences **, this one self-complexifies via classic Darwinian processes, but facilitates mutations (which remains to be discovered) most able to maximize its energy dissipation,

It still smells like the supreme being pulling the strings.

Above all, it says that you have a rather limited vision of the question, does systems theory mean anything to you?
Did you just listen to the video that you linked?
From 1'17 50 "it is a question of neutralist theory of molecular evolution *, at first it was considered anti-Darwinist ... before being considered compatible ... and it is not the only one.
The speaker clearly explains (at 1'16 55 '') that "we do not have enough historical perspective" over the last 60 years to establish a precise map of the totality of knowledge in evolutionary biology.
For the rest Maxime Herve repeatedly explains that selection cannot explain all evolutionary phenomena.
All that to say that Darwinism is a valid theory, but that it constitutes only a skeleton which will then come to be dressed in new theories, except what should boost this one, it is in another epigenetics, the systems theory and quantum biology.



*

Principle of the neutralist theory
This theory postulates that genetic mutations escape natural selection and diffuse independently of it within populations.
In fact, many mutations do not affect proteins and their functions, either because they concern non-coding DNA, or because they modify an amino acid without modifying the codon involved. Consequently, they induce neither selective advantage nor disadvantage.
The transmission of these neutral mutations therefore takes place according to other parameters (like chance) that become just as important as natural selection.
Neutralist theory explains part of the genetic diversity.

https://www.futura-sciences.com/sante/definitions/genetique-theorie-neutraliste-7481/

Chance, nothing to do with quantum indeterminism can be?

[sen-no-sen]

Janic you are proof that evolution (of thought) does not exist!

All our mechanical realizations are "animated" like the biosphere and are only lifeless objects.

Isn't the biosphere a thin film of life covering a terrestrial planet?

There is an improvement in the reasoning then, since it is the basic postulate of "creationism" to note that chance does not explain and especially does not demonstrate anything!

All I'm saying is that the complexity of the living forms a whole greater than the sum of its elementsis the foundation of ecology.
Denying a form of intelligence to an ecosystem seems absurd to me, it is so obvious when we study the economy (intelligent techno-system).
Intelligence appears at a certain level of interaction, through adaptive capacities, speed of reactivity:
Intelligence is the set of processes found in systems, more or less complex, living or not, which allow to understand, learn or adapt to new situations.
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence
Isn't this what the biosphere has been doing for more than 3 billion years ???
It has absolutely nothing to do with creationism.

Thermodynamics neither explains nor can explain living things, whereas this is very suitable for inert matter.

She explains it wonderfully, we are all thermodynamic beings!

[izentrop]

Did you just listen to the video that you linked?
From 1'17 50 "it is a question of the neutralist theory of molecular evolution

Yes and that confirms even more that the mutations are done by chance. Afterwards, if it promotes survival, there is a better chance that the gene will be passed on to subsequent generations, it's as easy as "hello".

No, but "the global brain actually forming a sum of intelligences" you want to laugh