The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: What slows the progression of the sciences to prove Evolution?  (Read 11934 times)

Offline Bishadi

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 75
    • View Profile
Who knows what the primary reason that evolution has not been perfected and taught in the schools worldwide?

Does anyone know this answer?


 

lyner

  • Guest
Human nature, power, bigotry, fringe religions, to name but a few.
In any case, there is no question that evolution happens; things can be seen to be changing. It's just a matter of providing a 'reason' (the intelligent design merchants)  or realising that you don't actually need a reason (people who have actually thought it through).
I can well appreciate that the more enlightened view could seem unsatisfactory to people who don't think much. They probably also believe in the Law of Averages.
 

Offline Bishadi

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 75
    • View Profile
Human nature, power, bigotry, fringe religions, to name but a few.
In any case, there is no question that evolution happens; things can be seen to be changing. It's just a matter of providing a 'reason' (the intelligent design merchants)  or realising that you don't actually need a reason (people who have actually thought it through).
I can well appreciate that the more enlightened view could seem unsatisfactory to people who don't think much. They probably also believe in the Law of Averages.

what about the math?

what about the 'laws' of physics?

does anyone know why in biological frames, when physics is applied; the math don't work?

does anyone know why?
 

Offline BenV

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1503
    • View Profile
Actually, the maths of evolution are pretty well understood - we can map and predict changes in allele frequency reliably.

I'm not sure what you mean about physics not applying to biological systems though.
 

lyner

  • Guest
Quote
does anyone know why in biological frames, when physics is applied; the math don't work?
 
I think that statement is not quite 'fair'. You can't just state that "the maths doesn't work". Which bit doesn't work?
Physics (and Chemistry) deals with, essentially, simple systems and determines how they are most likely to behave. These are what you refer to as the 'Laws'. The Laws allow you to predict, with reasonable certainty, how a situation will progress.

When you come to biological systems, the variety of combinations is very much greater and the possible outcomes are correspondingly. The number of possible combinations increases in a factorial manner as the factors multiply - which makes an incredible difference (and I do mean "not believable").
Hence you cannot make predictions in the same way as you can with Physics.
You CAN, of course, use Physics to rule out certain possibilities - e.g. possible maximum sizes for Insects or minimum sizes for Mammals - based on solid calculations. The statistics of genetics is fairly predictable (BenV) but there is a limit to how much you can identify which alleles are, in fact, the most advantageous. I do detect a worrying arrogance and misplaced confidence in the modern genetic technology.
Many people find it impossible to grasp the statistics of probabilities and combinations because it requires familiarity with Maths which allows one to 'believe the numbers'. Without this ability, it is much easier to think in terms of someone actually making things happen and 'designing' our world.

Personally, I attribute this to basic feelings of insecurity. It has never bothered me, though.

On the other hand, I don't feel antagonistic towards Religions; they are, in fact, incredibly effective ways of modifying and regulating behaviour. Consider how badly people behave in the absence of any Religious influence. The shocking behaviour of religious extremists is a sign of manipulation by cynical users of those same religions. Either way you get human nature involved.
 

Offline Bishadi

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 75
    • View Profile
Actually, the maths of evolution are pretty well understood - we can map and predict changes in allele frequency reliably.
  Sir....  there is not even a mathematical reprsentation of the phospholipid bilayers.

they have no idea (in physics/math) how the lipids align in the inversion form awith no peptide bonds....

i say it is resonance; 

see what a Nobel guy said

My adult scientific career began with graduate study in
chemical physics with Harden McConnell at Stanford. I had
the idea of elucidating the mechanism of ion transport across
biological membranes by nuclear resonance. I thought ion
transport must involve rotation of the transport protein in the
membrane. Struggling to prove this wrong idea, it occurred
to me to study the rotation in the membrane of a lipid
molecule, about 1,000 molecular weight, rather than a
protein fifty times larger. This led to my discoveries, by
nuclear and paramagnetic resonance methods, of
phospholipid flip-flop, an exceedingly slow process, and
lateral diffusion, exceedingly fast (Kornberg and McConnell,
1971a ; Kornberg and McConnell, 1971b)


Quote
 
I'm not sure what you mean about physics not applying to biological systems though.
  in biology everythnig is considered chemical

i.e... look up atp synthesis..... it is funny
« Last Edit: 21/07/2008 18:19:34 by Bishadi »
 

Offline Bishadi

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 75
    • View Profile
Quote
does anyone know why in biological frames, when physics is applied; the math don't work?
 
I think that statement is not quite 'fair'. You can't just state that "the maths doesn't work". Which bit doesn't work?
  See any metabolic process, or specifically let's play with ATPs

or how about hemoglobin and the reactive mechanism?

or even the idea that neural interactions are of electrical impulse (binary wiring)....  this was a subject, that in 1982 i wrote a paper Photon Neuron Conduction (PNC theory) .... i was a 16 year old kid and shared the exchange at synaptic junction in a physics form rather than chemistry form, which provided a method of reflecting 'exactly' how signals exchange between the cells..

what if I told you memories are held within the glial and are refracting crystaline structures; would that just ruin your day?


Quote

When you come to biological systems, the variety of combinations is very much greater and the possible outcomes are correspondingly. The number of possible combinations increases in a factorial manner as the factors multiply - which makes an incredible difference (and I do mean "not believable").
Hence you cannot make predictions in the same way as you can with Physics.
  DO you know why?

i do.......... in chemistry the only thing important is the structure; they pay no attention to the energy upon the structure; hence the reactions and catalyst are misunderstood

the reason why evolution is not written in pure form unquestionable; is that the process of how energy can be of intent, or purely said; how energy upon mass is the life upon mass, has no purpose in the understanding of chemistry.

in chemistry, like in entropy.........  it is all intended to chaos

which in reality is exactly opposite; life does have purpose; to continue!

the math to prove this is a physics constraint will not allow it while walking the planck.....

of simply before answers can be understood, many of the sciences need to step back and rehash the benchmarks..... if not take a seat and ask questions because there is a person who did just that...


« Last Edit: 21/07/2008 18:22:24 by Bishadi »
 

lyner

  • Guest
You are actually rejecting the Model, not the Maths.
Chemistry most certainly does deal with non-static situations but, once the number of variables gets too high, it can't cope.
Are you looking for some sort of magical reason rather than the huge number of variables involved?

Quote
what if I told you memories are held within the glial and are refracting crystaline structures; would that just ruin your day?
Why should it? Are you just showing off?
When you grow up, you may be able to solve all these problems for us. Thank you, in advance.
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8665
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
"in chemistry the only thing important is the structure; they pay no attention to the energy upon the structure; hence the reactions and catalyst are misunderstood"
Please don't talk such unmitigated bollocks about my profession.
If you know so little about it that you think that statement is true then you would be better advised to keep quiet until you have learned something.
 

Offline Bishadi

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 75
    • View Profile
"in chemistry the only thing important is the structure; they pay no attention to the energy upon the structure; hence the reactions and catalyst are misunderstood"
Please don't talk such unmitigated bollocks about my profession.
If you know so little about it that you think that statement is true then you would be better advised to keep quiet until you have learned something.

chemistry is a joke

does that bother you?

why would it?

why not embrace what is good and realize; hey, that means the kids might be able to cure cancer, diabetes, malaria, etc etc etc ...

because we can all see, you ain't doing it; nor is the billions spent every years.....

and no one is even curious to ask why?

the reason is the paradigm is incorrect...


not trying to harm anyone; just share truths that MUST be addressed... and be certain... i have no problem with looking up items that i may not understand; but truth be known

the representations of living processes by chemistry are a joke...



 

Offline Bishadi

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 75
    • View Profile
What slows the progression of the sciences to prove Evolution?
« Reply #10 on: 21/07/2008 19:05:24 »
You are actually rejecting the Model, not the Maths.
  they be interrelated......

i do not care if the model said we were all monkeys with strings tied to our back; if the math does not work, then it is wrong


Quote
Chemistry most certainly does deal with non-static situations but, once the number of variables gets too high, it can't cope.
Are you looking for some sort of magical reason rather than the huge number of variables involved? 
  That is good, as there are a huge number of variables unaccounted for and as for magic; there is no such thing.

Quote
what if I told you memories are held within the glial and are refracting crystaline structures; would that just ruin your day?


then you said


Why should it? Are you just showing off?
Why?  How can you say that... billions spent in the field and alzheimers still exists......

in polaritonics http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0409/0409111.pdf

they can affixed a structure, then send a signal through it and the signal takes up the properties...

this is what memories are in living structures

as well Sanchez and Grau published a paper sharing how DNA and the genetic evolution occurs and what they did was share that the energy upon the structures and then environment changes the parameters of the configurations...

Quote

When you grow up, you may be able to solve all these problems for us. Thank you, in advance.

i have know for over 25 years how the brain works and even presented it, then over these last 2 decades have covered about every phenomenon on this earth

and to this day, the goofs that keep punching at me, simply because they do not understand is why i could care less for the community and when someone finally figures out what i have been saying is in fact real; then maybe i will come out

otherwise.... i am already sick of this site
 

lyner

  • Guest
What slows the progression of the sciences to prove Evolution?
« Reply #11 on: 21/07/2008 22:48:45 »
Well, there is a simple solution for you.
 

Offline DoctorBeaver

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12656
  • Thanked: 3 times
  • A stitch in time would have confused Einstein.
    • View Profile
What slows the progression of the sciences to prove Evolution?
« Reply #12 on: 21/07/2008 22:52:57 »
 

Offline Ian Scott

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 101
    • View Profile
What slows the progression of the sciences to prove Evolution?
« Reply #13 on: 22/07/2008 02:59:30 »
Bishadi's original question was


"Who knows what the primary reason that evolution has not been perfected and taught in the schools worldwide?"

Perhaps the question is complex - evolution is taught but maybe not worldwide. Can a theory be "perfected" - no, a theory can only be disproved. Finally, why assume that knowledge should be taught in a school - some may say that these institutions serve a social purpose in behavior not so much as education.

Evolution cannot be disproved - this relieves it as having any status, to be disprovable is important. An experiment is needed to disprove and no amount of agreed opinion constitutes proof. Lots of people thought dark skinned people should be slaves and we know this is wrong. But there was a time when we did not.

Maybe we can only ask questions as a process rather than to seek some magic a destination.

 

Offline Madidus_Scientia

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1451
    • View Profile
What slows the progression of the sciences to prove Evolution?
« Reply #14 on: 22/07/2008 07:37:12 »
Quote
because we can all see, you ain't doing it; nor is the billions spent every years.....

and no one is even curious to ask why?

Quote
Why?  How can you say that... billions spent in the field and alzheimers still exists......

Because new knowledge isn't something that's for sale sitting on a shelf that can be bought, someone has to come up with it first.
 

Offline Bishadi

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 75
    • View Profile
What slows the progression of the sciences to prove Evolution?
« Reply #15 on: 22/07/2008 22:31:30 »

Because new knowledge isn't something that's for sale sitting on a shelf that can be bought, someone has to come up with it first.

apparently you are not familiar with how patents and knowledge is conveyed in the scientific community.

they all want their name in print

since Einstein, there are very few contributions of such scale

in which the contributor was more intent on getting the job done than what people think about them
 

Offline Bishadi

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 75
    • View Profile
What slows the progression of the sciences to prove Evolution?
« Reply #16 on: 22/07/2008 22:37:08 »
Bishadi's original question was


"Who knows what the primary reason that evolution has not been perfected and taught in the schools worldwide?"

Perhaps the question is complex - evolution is taught but maybe not worldwide. Can a theory be "perfected" - no, a theory can only be disproved. Finally, why assume that knowledge should be taught in a school - some may say that these institutions serve a social purpose in behavior not so much as education.

Evolution cannot be disproved - this relieves it as having any status, to be disprovable is important. An experiment is needed to disprove and no amount of agreed opinion constitutes proof.

because the math does not work.

Quote

Maybe we can only ask questions as a process rather than to seek some magic a destination. 
  there is no magic, nor the creation as per the old stories...

the reason the kids do not go to school with the ability to learn evolution and the pure laws of mass and energy as they exist in evolution, the galaxies, atom and energy (adam and eve)....  all the way to how the brain works and why we sleep.

the knowledge of how the base elements combine in an evolutionary form for life to progress is because the physics "do not exist" within a mathematical framework......

that is why!
 

Offline BenV

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1503
    • View Profile
What slows the progression of the sciences to prove Evolution?
« Reply #17 on: 22/07/2008 22:51:31 »
Actually, the maths of evolution are pretty well understood - we can map and predict changes in allele frequency reliably.
  Sir....  there is not even a mathematical reprsentation of the phospholipid bilayers.

they have no idea (in physics/math) how the lipids align in the inversion form awith no peptide bonds....

But that's not relevant, is it?  As I said, the maths behind evolution are well understood.

So...

"Who knows what the primary reason that evolution has not been perfected and taught in the schools worldwide?"

Evolution has not been perfected as that's not how evolution works, it's entirely dependent on environmental conditions and genetic history - that's why evolution has not been 'perfected'.

Why is it not not taught in schools worldwide? - That decision has nothing to do with science.


Your subsequent replies suggest that this thread has nothing to do with evolution, but in fact is a discussion of the mathematics of biology.  Would you rather discuss that?
 

Offline Bishadi

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 75
    • View Profile
What slows the progression of the sciences to prove Evolution?
« Reply #18 on: 23/07/2008 01:42:19 »

But that's not relevant, is it?  As I said, the maths behind evolution are well understood.
  no it is not.....

you really are not aware are you?

evolution is something we can recognize that is similar to what Darwin suggested in Origins of species...

but the math to address how energy upon mass can do this; is not in any math as this is the dichotomy behind the whole issue
Quote

Evolution has not been perfected as that's not how evolution works, it's entirely dependent on environmental conditions and genetic history - that's why evolution has not been 'perfected'.
  which is what Schroadinger meant while talking about the cat  (the environment is relevant)

that chaotic idea of a neutral parity is really non existent; the environments entanglement is more important than observed...

because of this, the physics behind a living structure cannot be reconciled

Quote
Why is it not taught in schools worldwide? - That decision has nothing to do with science.

which is less than true; religions have no choice unless religions can isolate the children.

if the children were taught the correct math and not the mess of millinium of patch work; there be no doubts about what is true and what is believed

that is the beauty behind the truth; math removes any requisite of belief

the point is, to address life within a living structure and allow for the comprehension of em (light) as the energy upon mass, then by observing the properties of that energy in relation to the environment; then the revealing of the true nature of energy or literally life itself; perfects the final TOE

knowledge evolves

and that pinnacle is when mass knows how it exists
 

Offline Andrew K Fletcher

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2331
  • KIS Keep It Simple
    • View Profile
What slows the progression of the sciences to prove Evolution?
« Reply #19 on: 23/07/2008 10:36:48 »
The answer is Gravity!
 

Offline BenV

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1503
    • View Profile
What slows the progression of the sciences to prove Evolution?
« Reply #20 on: 23/07/2008 11:30:42 »
I think I must have totally misunderstood this topic. Could some one explain what the real jist of this is?

If we're talking about how we don't have a mathematical model for the incredibly complex processes of biology, then I can't really comment anyway.  One point to address would be that the maths of this would be very complex (as befits a complex system), and so almost certainly would not be taught below degree level.

As to why evolution isn't taught in schools worldwide, it really does have nothing to do with science.  The research that continues to add evidence in support of evolution continues regardless of whether it's taught everywhere or nowhere - it's a political/cultural/personal decision whether or not to teach it, not a scientific one.
 

Offline Bishadi

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 75
    • View Profile
What slows the progression of the sciences to prove Evolution?
« Reply #21 on: 24/07/2008 02:01:41 »
I think I must have totally misunderstood this topic. Could some one explain what the real jist of this is?

If we're talking about how we don't have a mathematical model for the incredibly complex processes of biology, then I can't really comment anyway.  One point to address would be that the maths of this would be very complex (as befits a complex system), and so almost certainly would not be taught below degree level.
 

the same rules that apply to any single atom or 5 billion atoms, the rules are the same.

so it is not how difficult the knowledge is to absorb but how the current paradigm is a little off the mark

Quote

As to why evolution isn't taught in schools worldwide, it really does have nothing to do with science. 
  it is 100% because of the sciences

because if the math was correct in the first place than evolution would be a historical document just like the bible is

meaning to understand how to heat a cup of coffee will also be of the same foundations as keep proper time......

its time for a paradigm shift

that is what observing energy correctly does, and since it is not the math you are so concerned with, then it seems that others may have to approve what is being suggested before you will accept it

Quote

The research that continues to add evidence in support of evolution continues regardless of whether it's taught everywhere or nowhere - it's a political/cultural/personal decision whether or not to teach it, not a scientific one.

well you have my disagreement and even why if you read through the thread
« Last Edit: 24/07/2008 02:04:19 by Bishadi »
 

Offline BenV

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1503
    • View Profile
What slows the progression of the sciences to prove Evolution?
« Reply #22 on: 26/07/2008 21:15:45 »
it is 100% because of the sciences

because if the math was correct in the first place than evolution would be a historical document just like the bible is

meaning to understand how to heat a cup of coffee will also be of the same foundations as keep proper time......

its time for a paradigm shift

that is what observing energy correctly does, and since it is not the math you are so concerned with, then it seems that others may have to approve what is being suggested before you will accept it

Oh, now I see - you're a creationist of sorts who is spouting nonsense.  I should have realised, but I foolishly thought you wanted to ask questions about why evolution isn't taught in some schools, that being the question you asked in the first post.  I see no need to continue with this rubbish.
« Last Edit: 26/07/2008 21:17:16 by BenV »
 

Offline Bishadi

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 75
    • View Profile
What slows the progression of the sciences to prove Evolution?
« Reply #23 on: 27/07/2008 14:37:22 »
it is 100% because of the sciences

because if the math was correct in the first place than evolution would be a historical document just like the bible is

meaning to understand how to heat a cup of coffee will also be of the same foundations as keep proper time......

its time for a paradigm shift

that is what observing energy correctly does, and since it is not the math you are so concerned with, then it seems that others may have to approve what is being suggested before you will accept it

Oh, now I see - you're a creationist of sorts who is spouting nonsense. 
  the only creation ever to exist was 'created' by mankind....  i.e...  words are the creation of mankind

we live within all mass, all energy, all time; that is your trinity known as God.

Quote
I should have realised, but I foolishly thought you wanted to ask questions about why evolution isn't taught in some schools,  that being the question you asked in the first post.  I see no need to continue with this rubbish.
  the reason the bible thumpers still believe in a magical God is because the math to perfect the sciences is incomplete.

If the math was pure, the we could call it "understanding" and forget the word evolution until we blow out the religious right. (the complacent).

Of all the people on this globe; me not a complacent one......  we evolve and the very first part of allowing knowledge to evolve is to be honest with the data observed and interpreted.

If you want to know why a goof like me would be on a site like this, conveying versus just pursuing a peer reviewed publication; is because that math is not for sale or to be used before the coming war.

to put enough questions out there to the kids, they will do what needs to all by themselves....

it is why i like that one little prophecy that suggest
when the truth exists; 'the young will begin to teach the old'

the kids need us more than the community of the so called educated....

and the point of the thread was that evolution is not taught because the sciences are too busy chasing the buck to return to the key questions every person on this earth ever born has wanted to know

'what makes me alive?"

the community never finished the math!
 

Offline BenV

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1503
    • View Profile
What slows the progression of the sciences to prove Evolution?
« Reply #24 on: 27/07/2008 21:51:26 »
My apologies.  When you said:
Quote
because if the math was correct in the first place than evolution would be a historical document just like the bible is
I thought you were saying that the bible was a historically accurate document, hence thinking you were a creationist spouting nonsense.

The fact remains though, that the maths of several aspects of evolution are well understood.  Also, it is not the scientific community that determines what is taught in schools, and I stand by my comment that the schools which decide not to teach evolution do so for reasons other than the science itself.

Also, it is possible to understand a great deal of the sciences (especially at high school level) without even touching the maths behind it, so I hardly see the relevence.
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

What slows the progression of the sciences to prove Evolution?
« Reply #24 on: 27/07/2008 21:51:26 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums
 
Login
Login with username, password and session length