Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: sim on 10/03/2020 18:57:56
-
Hi There are a lot of people that rubbish Magister colin leslie dean for his views on mathematics and science Here for your interest are his views on biology natural selection
Biology not a science & evolution/natural selection meaningless
1) Biology is not a science
bear in mind we are told by science
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life
"Biology is the science concerned with the study of life."
but
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life
"There is currently no consensus regarding the definition of life"
so basically
without science knowing what life is
then dead and alive have no meaning
biology science dont even know what life is-how ironic they study life but dont know what life is
that is why biology is not a science
2) Natural selection-as Origin of species is invalid
1)Darwins book is called On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection ....
but
this paper shows natural selection is not the origin of new species Natural selection is not the origin of new species
"Natural selection does not generate new genes/species Natural selection adds no new genetic information as it only deals with the passing on of genes/traits already present and it will be pointed out genetics cannot account for the generation of new species/genes as it is claimed the generation of new genes [via mutation] is a random process due to radiation, viruses, chemicals etc and genetic cannot account for these process happening as they are out side the scope of genetics physics, chaos theory etc may give some explanation but genetics cant"
3) the notion of species/evolution of species ends in meaninglessness-not valid
Biologist cant tell us what a species is -without contradiction thus evolution theory ie evolving species is nonsense
http://.yellowgum.com/wp-content/uploads/BIOLOGISTS-DON.pdf (http://com/wp-content/uploads/BIOLOGISTS-DON.pdf)
Biologists agree there is species hybridization
but that contradicts what a species is
thus
Biology not a science & evolution/natural selection meaningless
"[Deans] philosophy is the sickest, most paralyzing and most destructive thing that has ever originated from the brain of man."
"[Dean] lay waste to everything in its path... [It is ] a systematic work of destruction and demoralization... In the end it became nothing but an act of sacrilege."
-
Ah - another idiotic post claiming science is wrong...we get these a lot.
-
[ Invalid Attachment ]
-
You have literally made these exact same threads before. I would advise you to stop making duplicate posts and post in the threads that you have already made about these topics. Otherwise, we may need to take disciplinary action against you.
-
It is shown by Magister colin leslie dean "THE REFUTATION EVOLUTIONARY THEORY: NATURAL SELECTION SHOWN TO BE WRONG "
Darwins book is called On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection
but it is shown natural selection[NS] does not create new species
1)the cambrian explosion as darwin saw invalidates his theory.http://www.genesispark.com/genpark/explo/explo.htm“No real progress has been made by evolutionists since Darwin’s day and "The Cambrian evolutionary explosion is still shrouded in mystery." (Eldredge, N., The Monkey Business, 1982, p. 46.)”-at the present time nothing has changed
2)NS is invalidated by the fact of speciation as NS only deals with traits already present and cant deal with the generation of new species genetics might be able to account for the generation of new species [ see below where it is shown genetics cannot account for the generation of new species] but NS cant as the generation of new species it not part of its remit
3) NS deals with the transmission of favorable traits and the eradication of unfavorable traits so the fact that unfavorable traits ie the gene for breast cancer are and can be transmitted and become common invalidates NS out right Some argue that harmful genes can be transmitted and become common when accompanied by good genes but this makes natural selection wrong ie 4”natural selection, a process that causes helpful traits (those that increase the chance of survival and reproduction) to become more common in a population and causes harmful traits to become more rare”(Ref: Futuyma, Douglas Evolution 2005” seeing bad genes can become common this thus makes natural selection wrong which says bad genes should be come rare or less common
4) genetics cannot account for the generation of new species-ie the cambrian explosion as it is claimed the generation of new genes is a random process due to radiation, viruses, chemicals etc and genetic cannot account for these process happening as they are out side the scope of genetics physics chaos theory etc may give some explanation but genetics cant
-
As usually happens with people saying "Evolution is wrong!", you have not understood evolution.
A statement like this
"genetics cannot account for the generation of new species"
is easily refuted.
We have dog breeds that can't inter-mate.
Please feel free to make up your own punchlines about a chihuahua trying to mate with a great dane.
-
Papa said that: "To refuse the evolution process is to refuse of God's major force. "
-
Random changes in genes, also makes no sense, in terms of the formation of new species. There are more things that can go wrong than can go right, if we use a random approach to changing the genes. The majority of cellular systems, in place, that already work, if subject to random change, will get worse and not better. The entire approach defies common sense.
In terms of bacteria and virus, a random assumption could work, in terms of selection, since these tiny entities can form billions of new units; offspring, in a very small time frame. So even if 99.999% of the offspring become defective, due to random approach, the tiny fraction that that randomly improves, still has lot of units. This approach has a chance for improving the species. But once you get into multicellular species, that breed much slower in time, with far fewer units, this theory breaks down.
As an analogous experiment of the latter, have small children point, replace and swap the parts on a new automobile and motor and drive train. Small children do not know how everything works in a car, so their play and imaginations will create random changes. This approach will not improve the car or lead to anything new that will be selected. Detroit does not use this approach since it is nonsense.
The best way to improve the car and come up with new models; news species of cars, is via necessity. We target where change is needed. If it is not broke don't fix it. If emissions are not good enough, we target change there, that leads to this improvement. Detroit does not throw dice or darts at a wall to pick a new random component, and then throw darts at another wall, as to how to proceed. That would be dumb and superstitious. You can't depend on winning the lottery, although it is fun to imagine and pretend.
The random or statistical approach for biology was disproven in the late 1950's, when it was demonstrated that proteins fold with exact folds. This was not expected, since statistical models had assumed that thermal vibrations, alone, would randomize protein folding. This observation implied a probability of 1.0, which had nothing to do with statistics.
Since the late 1950's, when it was proven that protein have exact folds, it has yet to be explained, after 60 years, with a statistical explanation. Yet statistical assumptions persist. Who is in charge and could you explain why the horse and buggy is still around when the horseless carriage should have been developed 60 years ago? This is an example of unnatural selection, based on human politics.
-
Random changes in genes, also makes no sense, in terms of the formation of new species. There are more things that can go wrong than can go right, if we use a random approach to changing the genes. The majority of cellular systems, in place, that already work, if subject to random change, will get worse and not better. The entire approach defies common sense.
It would only have to follow "common sense" if something with common sense designed it.
That's how we know there is no designer.
Detroit does not use this approach since it is nonsense.
Car design is a classic example of evolution.
https://blog.world-mysteries.com/science/127-years-of-modern-automobile-evolution/
We target where
Yes, we do, because we caan think.
But evolution can't so it doesn't.
It's absurd to compare the intentional action of people with the evolution of nature.
If you don't understand that then...
As usually happens with people saying "Evolution is wrong!", you have not understood evolution.
-
Random changes in genes, also makes no sense, in terms of the formation of new species. There are more things that can go wrong than can go right, if we use a random approach to changing the genes. The majority of cellular systems, in place, that already work, if subject to random change, will get worse and not better. The entire approach defies common sense.
It would only have to follow "common sense" if something with common sense designed it.
That's how we know there is no designer.
Detroit does not use this approach since it is nonsense.
Car design is a classic example of evolution.
https://blog.world-mysteries.com/science/127-years-of-modern-automobile-evolution/
We target where
Yes, we do, because we caan think.
But evolution can't so it doesn't.
It's absurd to compare the intentional action of people with the evolution of nature.
If you don't understand that then...
As usually happens with people saying "Evolution is wrong!", you have not understood evolution.
I am not denying evolution. I am questioning the random assumption of genetic change, that is assumed to drive evolutionary change and the creation of new species. I have no problem with Darwin's theory from 1859, since natural selection is quite rational. The strong and the healthy surviving is logical and based on common sense. That is not rocket science. This theory would apply to humans and animals after Adam if you chose to start there.
Rather, I am questioning the statistical assumptions of genetic change, that were added in the 1950's when DNA was revealed. This statistical approach to life was disproven in the late 1950's, when it was observed that protein fold with exact folds. This repeatable observation of each folding of protein has yet to explain with a statistical explanation, 60 years later. Talk about a long term coverup and deception.
Random changes in the generic material will create more problems than solutions. More things can go wrong, than right, if we use a random model. I used the example of small children mutating a new model car by randomly rearranging, taking and giving parts. It is doubtful that approach will ever create the car of the year or every car manufacturer would have day care centers in the development areas. It is more likely that car will not work, when they are done. Why does this nonsense persist in science? When I mention it, the first reaction is to call me a Creationists as a way to sweep this under the rug. This is naked science and the emperor of random has no clothes to defend this position.
Have you ever heard of Schrödinger's cat? It is a thought experiment, sometimes described as a paradox, devised by Austrian physicist Erwin Schrödinger in 1935, though the idea originated from Albert Einstein. It illustrates what he saw as the problem of the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics applied to everyday objects.
In this thought experiment a cat is locked in a sealed container with a vial of poison that can open at any time. According to the thought experiment the cat can be either alive or dead at any point in time. We cannot see in the container nor know the state of the poison vial, so either option has to be assumed possible. This is statistics in a nut shell. We place something in a blackbox, that we do not understand. Since the black box makes it hard to see, anything is possible, so we give it odds. This is what was done to the genetic material and evolution. They stuck it in the black box with Schrödinger's cat.
Say we change the thought experiment and give the container a window. Now since we can see in the container all bets are off. The imagination can no longer no pretend and add foolish theory as to what can be. Not everyone can win the lottery, if we can see. A window was added in the late 1950's. It had been assumed that protein folding was randomized due to the theory of the black box. Once the window was added the theory should have changed, but it did not. The change would have altered the status quo, so politics saved the day. I am here in behalf of science to set the record straight.
-
This statistical approach to life was disproven in the late 1950's, when it was observed that protein fold with exact folds.
You are equivocating two different things. Protein folding is not the same thing as genetic mutation. Protein folding not being random therefore doesn't mean that genetic mutations cannot be random. Genetic mutations are not entirely random anyway, as different parts of the genome have different mutation rates.
-
This statistical approach to life was disproven in the late 1950's, when it was observed that protein fold with exact folds. This repeatable observation of each folding of protein has yet to explain with a statistical explanation, 60 years later. Talk about a long term coverup and deception.
Which is more plausible; A 60 year cover -up, or you have misunderstood?
-
I used the example of small children mutating a new model car by randomly rearranging, taking and giving parts.
This is a simplification of evolution. If evolution was only capable of rearranging existing parts (say, swapping the trachea and the esophagus) or duplicating or deleting certain parts, then mutation would be, as you say, exceedingly unlikely to create improvements.
Thankfully, evolution is not limited to such large-scale changes.
In order to be more accurately analogous to mutation, you should also make allowances for very minor changes, such as changing the wheel diameter by a couple of centimeters, altering the composition of structural alloys by increasing or decreasing nickel content by 3%, changing the wall thickness of pipes by a millimeter, etc. This method would be much more likely to create slight improvements in performance that would allow for selection.
-
I used the example of small children mutating a new model car by randomly rearranging, taking and giving parts.
This is a simplification of evolution. If evolution was only capable of rearranging existing parts (say, swapping the trachea and the esophagus) or duplicating or deleting certain parts, then mutation would be, as you say, exceedingly unlikely to create improvements.
Thankfully, evolution is not limited to such large-scale changes.
In order to be more accurately analogous to mutation, you should also make allowances for very minor changes, such as changing the wheel diameter by a couple of centimeters, altering the composition of structural alloys by increasing or decreasing nickel content by 3%, changing the wall thickness of pipes by a millimeter, etc. This method would be much more likely to create slight improvements in performance that would allow for selection.
It's also essentially why we no longer drive model T Fords.
-
I used the example of small children mutating a new model car by randomly rearranging, taking and giving parts.
This is a simplification of evolution. If evolution was only capable of rearranging existing parts (say, swapping the trachea and the esophagus) or duplicating or deleting certain parts, then mutation would be, as you say, exceedingly unlikely to create improvements.
Thankfully, evolution is not limited to such large-scale changes.
In order to be more accurately analogous to mutation, you should also make allowances for very minor changes, such as changing the wheel diameter by a couple of centimeters, altering the composition of structural alloys by increasing or decreasing nickel content by 3%, changing the wall thickness of pipes by a millimeter, etc. This method would be much more likely to create slight improvements in performance that would allow for selection.
If you use your minor change, such as making alloys, a random approach would also try all the available atoms on the periodic table, hoping to win the jackpot. This will make most of the metals less functional. The cat can be alive or dead in the black box of statistics. One will not know until they try or open the box.
Random would use the most common atoms, such as oxygen. which will enhance rust and corrosion. Improvements in metals is based on developing theory, for what does work, and then applying this for future changes. This is a logical approach. I am agree that small changes over long times will create larger changes, but a random approach has to no clue and like the lottery, this approach there generate plenty of hope, but most of the trials will lose their money.
I can see a random approach working for bacteria and virus since they make so many units in a short time that even a couple of lottery winners, is sufficient to make lots of new units. Larger animals, like humans, would not benefit by this approach, since random will destroy faster than it can restock.
In terms of the Corona Virus,say we assume a random approach to mutations. Wouldn't all those defects; people who play the lottery but lose, make it easier for animals to resist the virus as it evolves? Say the virus made mostly weaker versions of itself during random mutations. These should be easier, in terms of an immune response, since they are less devastating.This will allow the body more time to create an immune reaction. This, in turn, would allow some animals to build up anti-bodies, close to what will be needed, in terms of the smaller proportion of the improved virus.
Random mutations in virus should make both, worse and better versions of itself, since all six sides of the dice are equally likely. If not the dice are loaded by some logic. The result is most if not all virus will run their course, since defects will always win in the end. There are more defective sides to the dice.
-
Let me approach evolution and creation from a different angle. The classification of life, into species, is a human construct. Species do not come with a microscopic name tag, that human see under a microscope and simply list. Species is a cataloging system from the human imagination. The origin of species is when human started to catalog them, not when they appeared on earth. DNA shows that insects share many genes with humans. Who decides where the line is?
Megalosaurus is believed to be the first dinosaur ever described scientifically. British fossil hunter William Buckland found some fossils in 1819, and he eventually described them and named them in 1824.
What this fun fact tells us is lions, tigers and bears were added to the manmade species catalog before the dinosaurs. Technically, dinosaurs can after the lions, in terms of the subjective line in the DNA sand. This subjective cataloging is not about a true of nature but convenience of humans. Creationism has to do with the modern human mind and not place in subjective biology catalog. This modern human mind is what started to make catalogs of things, such as life, stars, minerals. etc. This began when civilization formed and then when writing was invented. That was the origin of the subjective cataloging called species. Species not a natural thing invented by nature.
In the species catalog, lions and tigers are considered two species even though they can mate and have offspring. The mating line in the sand is not alway enforced. The catalog is subjective, so anything goes, if it serves the whims or politics of the caretakers. Remember, Pluto used to be planet and then one day on a whim, it changed pages in the catalog.
In terms of cataloging, the first catalogs of the universe were limited to what we could see with the naked eye. This was the original universe; heavens and earth.The rest of the modern universe, like the dinosaurs came later in the catalog. Creationism is consistent with the cataloging of nature in the the order of human perception. This tells me Creationism is about the evolution of the modern human mind, which likes to catalog and keep records. Tha mind can become full of itself and treats manmade cataloging as though this is natural truth.
-
The origin of species is when human started to catalog them, not when they appeared on earth.
Whether people were here or not, cats couldn't mate with dogs.
People are actually a species.
So what you are saying is that people couldn't exist until people had existed long enough to define the idea of a species.
That seems unlikely.
What's obviously true is that, like much of biology, it's a bit more complicated than it first looks.
That doesn't undermine the fundamental idea of species. Cats are not the same as dogs.
In the species catalog, lions and tigers are considered two species even thought they can mate and have offspring.
That's one of the complications I mentioned; they have to have fertile offspring to be the same species.
That hardly undermines the idea, does it?
-
This will make most of the metals less functional.
Yes, and evolution depends on a lot of things dying (whether they be bacteria, animals or cars).
So? Did you think you had a point?
-
If you use your minor change, such as making alloys, a random approach would also try all the available atoms on the periodic table, hoping to win the jackpot.
Except that, in the case of biology, far from all of the available atoms on the periodic table are being used. The stock is limited to the amino acids (since an amino acid sequence is ultimately the way that DNA is expressed).
Larger animals, like humans, would not benefit by this approach, since random will destroy faster than it can restock.
That obviously depends on the mutation rate. If it was low enough, then the population could easily recover from negative mutations. Discard the failures, keep the successes.
The basic principle behind natural selection of random mutation has been found workable in computer simulations. Here's the first video in a series about one such example:
-
If you use your minor change, such as making alloys, a random approach would also try all the available atoms on the periodic table, hoping to win the jackpot.
Except that, in the case of biology, far from all of the available atoms on the periodic table are being used. The stock is limited to the amino acids (since an amino acid sequence is ultimately the way that DNA is expressed).
Larger animals, like humans, would not benefit by this approach, since random will destroy faster than it can restock.
That obviously depends on the mutation rate. If it was low enough, then the population could easily recover from negative mutations. Discard the failures, keep the successes.
The basic principle behind natural selection of random mutation has been found workable in computer simulations. Here's the first video in a series about one such example:
One cannot depend on mathematic and computer simulation, since physics game engines use the same types of math/simulation and these allow us to have infinite lives. It is too easy to stack the deck by reverse engineering the needed self serving assumptions; ends justices the means.
The problem, as I see it, is connected to most people not knowing the difference between applied and pure science. I have done both and know there is a difference. Applied science is what industry uses. Pure science is only found in pockets in academia.
Applied science is all about getting results to create profit. Theory does not have to be pretty or pure as long as it works. Black box is often good enough. Numerical methods to solve simultaneous equations is not natural, but if it leads to practical results, it will be used in industry.
Pure science is more about defining nature as it is. It is not concerned about productivity and profit.This is more difficult to do since simulation methods can be juiced. This may be OK in industry or industry seeking funding from bureaucrats; practical results. Pure is more restrictive.
As an example of the contrast, the visible universe; planets sun and moon, was mapped out in the ancient times, using that theory, the god Helios riding his chariot, was responsible for the movement of the sun. In spite of this theory not being "PURE: science, it did not inhibit plotting the paths of the sun, planets and constellations. Those plots are based on empirical observation apart from the validity of the Helios theory. Applied science makes this possible, since the goal is practical results. It does not have to pure to work. I can be a loose theory, as long as it leads to practical results.
The black box of statistic works the same way as the Helio theory. It is not pure science, as was shown with protein folding in the late 1950's. This observation disproved the assumptions of statistics. Medicine development is very expensive because development is done in black boxes with too many duds; dead cats. If the final retail price is high enough this can still be cost effective and appear to be pure science. This is where many people get confused.
For example, DNA will not work as a template without hydrating water. You cannot substitute any other solvent. Water forms hydrogen bonds with the DNA, and induces the needed configuration of the DNA, as well as provide surface free energy and finger printing, so the DNA can work as a template..This is "pure science". This has been proven in the lab.
Applied science will nevertheless uses a Helios model of the DNA, with DNA still shown in a dehydrated state, in all textbooks, even though it has ben proven it will not function, as portrayed. This Helios model is compensated with the black box of statistics. This can fudge the water. It still allows one to still plot the stars with careful observations. Most people seem to confuse practical and pure and assume iff there are good results it has to be pure.
It is like saying Astrology charts, prove the existence of the gods of the constellations, since these charts plot the path of the constellations very well, and can make accurate predictions in terms of future location. This example is simple enough to see through, but with biology the irrational approach of statistics, weakens reason; black box, so this is harder to see. Then again the goal is making money so who cares if the template theory unrealistic, as long as there is profit.
Why is DNA not shown with its hydrating water in textbooks since DNA will not work without it? This is answer is critical to evolution and natural selection. If the answer is not reasonable, a Helios theory is suspected
-
One cannot depend on mathematic and computer simulation, since physics game engines use the same types of math/simulation and these allow us to have infinite lives. It is too easy to stack the deck by reverse engineering the needed self serving assumptions; ends justices the means.
You seriously think that the infinite lives feature in a video game is a product of simulated physics? Either way, you can't make a broad-spectrum claim that "It's a simulation, so it's flawed". You need to point out specifically what is wrong with it. In what way does it not demonstrate the principle of natural selection and random mutation?
-
Why is DNA not shown with its hydrating water in textbooks since
For simplicity.
In the same way that, for example, the reaction of zinc with hydrochloric acid isn't shown as involving H9O4+ and Zn(H2O)6 2+
It's enough of a pain in the neck doing it for that simple case.
Showing the water in the case of DNA would just clutter things up.
-
Why is DNA not shown with its hydrating water in textbooks since
For simplicity.
In the same way that, for example, the reaction of zinc with hydrochloric acid isn't shown as involving H9O4+ and Zn(H2O)6 2+
It's enough of a pain in the neck doing it for that simple case.
Showing the water in the case of DNA would just clutter things up.
To me it would be more useful to show the full reality of DNA and water to young students, upfront, and then teach them starting with the simplified approach. By showing the full story in advance, youthful expectations, are more open for furthering discovery. It not like showing the water is obscene. Showing DNA without its water is perverted in terms of reality, since nobody has ever used dehydrated DNA as a template.
The problem is the analysis, even at advanced levels, never goes beyond the original textbook over simplification. Instead the overly simplified approach is increasingly fudged with statistics, to compensate for lack of conceptual validity. What was already made obsolete by 1960, has lingered for over 60 years, due to this deceptive approach. It is time to change and let nature run its course.
I can accept Darwin's theory of natural selection, since survival of the fittest will apply, whether you believe in evolution or creation. It is a logical approach for change and persistence, since utility and durabilty do make a difference, whether humans or chosen race.
Where I depart is connected to the overly simplified version of generic theory, that has been integrated into evolution, since it does not take into account water, even though genetic templates will not work without water. How does biology get away with this and why does the rest of science accept these half baked concepts as infallible? Are they all birds of a feather, providing mutual cover? The Physicists and Chemists should speak up, at the very least. But hey provide cover, for some reason. Is everyone afraid of being black balled by peer pressure if yo point out the emperor is naked, like DNA is naked without water.
Who in their right mind can expect a theory of evoluton to work, if to leaves out a critical variable and replaces it with rolling dice; statistical oracles. That mystical spook stuff; oracle approach, has no place in science. It may be useful to big pharm, but only if they can maintain inflated medicine prices to offset the high costs of oracles.
-
One cannot depend on mathematic and computer simulation, since physics game engines use the same types of math/simulation and these allow us to have infinite lives. It is too easy to stack the deck by reverse engineering the needed self serving assumptions; ends justices the means.
You seriously think that the infinite lives feature in a video game is a product of simulated physics? Either way, you can't make a broad-spectrum claim that "It's a simulation, so it's flawed". You need to point out specifically what is wrong with it. In what way does it not demonstrate the principle of natural selection and random mutation?
The DNA will not work as a template without water. The current theory of mutations does not take into account the water, therefore it is conceptually flawed. How can you defend the results of a conceptually flawed theory? You have to rig the system, with statistical oracles, to make it appear conceptually sound to the untrained eye?
Let me give an example to show who this works. Gravity is based on mass and distance. This is two varible analogy of DNA and water. Say we developed a theory of gravity based only on mass. We leave out distance and empirically and statistically simulate distance, but we never reach a rational state. Throwing the ball of mass M, from Joe to John, becomes an empirical crap shoot instead of a reliable event based on a rational relationship. Then we will make this the center piece of another theory, such as sending a man to moon. This wishful application will require using a game engine so it appears to work like a charm for funding solicitation.
Don't let your feelings about me get in the way of common sense and reason, since I can be irritating and frustrating. A scientist will maintain cool reason and common sense, and not be controlled by emotions, sentiment and even the fear of the black ball, if the truth be known or accepted in public.
Explain to yourself, how we can leave out, one of two main variables and expect the analysis to be conceptually sound? After that explain how this half baked theory can now be extrapolated and become the center piece of another theory? There is no logic that can defend this. The resistance is purely emotional induced by the irrational nature of the oracles being used.
-
The current theory of mutations does not take into account the water,
You have to be kidding me...
What is the water supposed to do to change anything? It obviously isn't going to get rid of mutations, since all living things contain water and they still mutate.
-
To me it would be more useful to show the full reality of DNA and water to young students, upfront, and then teach them starting with the simplified approach.
To you, and to nobody else.
Not to scientists; not to teachers.
Explain to yourself, how we can leave out, one of two main variables
It isn't variable.
You have, at length, laboured the point that there is always water, and that's true. Life simply doesn't exist without it.
So, it's not a variable, it's a constant.
A scientist will maintain cool reason and common sense, and not be controlled by emotions, sentiment and even the fear of the black ball, if the truth be known or accepted in public.
A true scientist will ask for evidence.
And that's what I'm doing.
What evidence is there for this weird claim that you have to include lots of water in the drawing of DNA?
-
To me it would be more useful to show the full reality of DNA and water to young students, upfront, and then teach them starting with the simplified approach.
To you, and to nobody else.
Not to scientists; not to teachers.
Explain to yourself, how we can leave out, one of two main variables
It isn't variable.
You have, at length, laboured the point that there is always water, and that's true. Life simply doesn't exist without it.
So, it's not a variable, it's a constant.
A scientist will maintain cool reason and common sense, and not be controlled by emotions, sentiment and even the fear of the black ball, if the truth be known or accepted in public.
A true scientist will ask for evidence.
And that's what I'm doing.
What evidence is there for this weird claim that you have to include lots of water in the drawing of DNA?
If applied science is good enough, and an approximation is close enough, one does not have to include the water. However, if you wish to extrapolate to other areas of science, like evolution, then you need a sound pure science foundation, and not an approximation method.
-
if you wish to extrapolate to other areas of science, like evolution, then you need a sound pure science foundation, and not an approximation method.
In what way would water be important to evolution of life on Earth?
As I have pointed out, water is always there.
I'm still waiting for evidence for your claim.
-
Natural selection process is a routin for other organisms except humanity. Humanity has a success against nature about this subject. We human protect every weak peoples due to our emotional/humanly alliance of values (of course there are some exceptions).
However, this success has caused new/extraordinary -good and bad- evolutions for humanity. Because the candidates of natural selection wants to generate and keep some humanly organisations for their survival. They work to be competent for sportive positions and they focus to fortune, chair, force etc. Some of them gets bad roles like animals or they may become gang.
-
except humanity
Despite our technology, humanity is far from immune to natural selection. There are still many lethal diseases that we can't cure.
-
By the way, am I the only one who finds it particularly hard to take someone seriously when they refer to themselves as "Magister"?
-
....it (is) particularly hard to take someone seriously when they refer to themselves as "Magister"?
The word ‘****’ comes to mind
Oh dear, it doesn’t like T W A T
I wonder why not?
-
Natural selection process is a routin for other organisms except humanity. Humanity has a success against nature about this subject. We human protect every weak peoples due to our emotional/humanly alliance of values (of course there are some exceptions).
However, this success has caused new/extraordinary -good and bad- evolutions for humanity. Because the candidates of natural selection wants to generate and keep some humanly organisations for their survival. They work to be competent for sportive positions and they focus to fortune, chair, force etc. Some of them gets bad roles like animals or they may become gang.
Humans practice artificial selection. if you wish to extrapolate to other areas of science, like evolution, then you need a sound pure science foundation, and not an approximation method.
In what way would water be important to evolution of life on Earth?
As I have pointed out, water is always there.
I'm still waiting for evidence for your claim.
Water is responsible for selection at the nano-scale. Natural selection is more about bulk selection; global organics plus water equals a full critter. The role of water has been in affect since the beginning of abiogenesis, and still continues today. If a mutation is to be accepted, it comes down to the water, since water deals with the details of the nanoscale. Decisions for selection will be based on equilibrium in water
For example, protein folding is induced, by the water. Water would prefer lower its potential by hydrogen bonding with other water. Water-water hydrogen bonding, in liquid water, is energetically favorable, due to the large number and high strength of aqueous hydrogen bonding. This energetically favorable induction, will attempt to lower any surface tension with dissolved organics, thereby inducing protein folding in repeatable ways not governed by statistics. Water does not play dice with the universe. It likes sure things. Human like playing god and use dice to cover their mistakes
Depending on the amino acid sequence, this will dictate how the protein will be folded and therefore the final configuration and final purpose for the folded protein. Not all folded protein will become enzymes. Some are more suitable for scaffolding. Water will decide based on maximizing itself. Potentially new proteins, which result from changes on the DNA, which have no equilibrium spot, will be recycled. If they do find an equilibrium spot they will be accommodated.
Equilibrium in water is not just based on single protein. Proteins will also converge with other protein, as well as with RNA and DNA. These merged relationships are all based on that which lowers the surface tension in water. Packing proteins for DNA have long organic side groups with terminal charges. These are high potential in water and use DNA to lower potential.
Junk genes on the DNA make no sense in terms of coding genes. However, they play a role in terms of inducing configurational potential along the DNA. The analogy is every amino acid in an enzyme is not directly involved in catalytic action. However, all amino acids will have some support role in the overall structure.
The water induces a global enzyme configuration with the goal of lowering water potential. This can induce tension on certain amino acids within the collective. In the case of the DNA, the junk genes are more exposed to the water, than the amino acids inside a protein. The overall DNA-protein shape although minimizing water potential, can nevertheless induce local potential along DNA which can impact the local water.
Most starter codons on the DNA use adenine sequences; AAAAA. This is not coincidence since adenine has the most endothermic heat of formation of the bases. It has the most reduction potential and will show up as a hot spot in the water; visible finger print for the enzyme, so it can combine and lower the water potential.
Natural selection, as spoke of by Darwin, deals with fully integrated things like humans or bacteria. If a mutation occurs, science jumps right to the full human and skip all the steps in the middle. Dice throwinl allows you to gloss over the details. Water is not as caviler. But rather it deals with these details of the nanoscale, adjusting equilibrium, throughout the life form. If non equilibrium is created it will not be selected.
-
If a mutation is to be accepted, it comes down to the water,
No.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single-nucleotide_polymorphism
-
Colin who? Never heard of him. Sounds like a wind up to me. May actually be a fake, made up person.
-
Now here is a Dean I can recognise.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Dean_(artist) (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Dean_(artist))
-
Poopypower, please spare us having to read all those paragraphs of drivel. Unless you have been head down in your kennel lately, you may have noticed the emergency situation we are in. Stop being a selfish *****.
-
In terms of bacteria and virus, a random assumption could work, in terms of selection, since these tiny entities can form billions of new units; offspring, in a very small time frame. So even if 99.999% of the offspring become defective, due to random approach, the tiny fraction that that randomly improves, still has lot of units. This approach has a chance for improving the species. But once you get into multicellular species, that breed much slower in time, with far fewer units, this theory breaks down.
It looks like you forgot to take diploidy and polyploidy into account. They provide information backup/redundancy which makes multicellular organisms more resistant to harmful mutations. Beneficial mutations can spread quickly in a population of organisms within a few generations due to sexual selection.
-
In terms of bacteria and virus, a random assumption could work, in terms of selection, since these tiny entities can form billions of new units; offspring, in a very small time frame. So even if 99.999% of the offspring become defective, due to random approach, the tiny fraction that that randomly improves, still has lot of units. This approach has a chance for improving the species. But once you get into multicellular species, that breed much slower in time, with far fewer units, this theory breaks down.
It looks like you forgot to take diploidy and polyploidy into account. They provide information backup/redundancy which makes multicellular organisms more resistant to harmful mutations. Beneficial mutations can spread quickly in a population of organisms within a few generations due to sexual selection.
Wouldn't diploidy and polyploidy redundancy also be conservative toward beneficial changes? The bigger picture make take some time to develop? Some change may not appear to later in life, such as medical conditions or overcoming allergies. Fail safe may not want to wait.
When DNA is duplicated there will be errors in base pairing because of the speed of copying and the amount of units copied. There are proofreading enzymes that reduce the number of errors. Why did proofreading enzymes evolve if mutations are good? The proofreading enzymes are counter productive to both good and bad genetic mutations. Errors are not good, if done randomly, or else there would be no need for proofreader enzymes. If you are a poor typer like me, random errors in typing will seldom lead to something of enhanced clarity.
The next question becomes, why do some typos get past the proofreader enzymes, so as to allow mutations? This is puzzling since typos are easy to see. Improper base pairing is at higher hydrogen bonding potential. They should all stand out like a sore thumb. As a proofreader works it ways along the DNA, it will feel these hot spots. So why let some hotspots pass so we can get a mutation?
If you use spell check as you type on your computer, it sometimes correct you, without asking if the correction is proper. I do not type very well so you will often find odd or added words in most of my writings, due to automatic spell check. This may be what proofreader enzymes do, but in the context of some type of programing; configurational potentials in the water and on the DNA that is being proofed.
One way to explain configurational potential is with a loose analogy. Say you are editing a novel based on historical fiction that is set 100 years ago in the deep south. If you are proofing the manuscript, this historical context will have an impact on how you edit and even how you may correct the spelling of certain words. You will alter even correctly spelled modern idioms, so you can maintain historical context. A good mutation needs to build upon something that is already in place; contextual.
-
Why did proofreading enzymes evolve if mutations are good?
Mutations are not, as a whole, good. Nor are they always bad. In theory at least, error correction just reduces the mutation rate to some optimal compromise between good organism function and allowing for the odd mutation here and there so that beneficial mutations will pop up every now and then.
If you are a poor typer like me, random errors in typing will seldom lead to something of enhanced clarity.
That is where natural selection comes it. It edits out the mutations that are harmful to survival. Well, usually. It's also possible that a negative mutation and a positive mutation are paired and thus inherited together as a single unit. If the positive effects outweigh the negative, then selection will work to keep that gene pair and thus the negative mutation.
The next question becomes, why do some typos get past the proofreader enzymes, so as to allow mutations?
Because, (1) it's an imperfect process, and (2) there are long-term benefits from allowing a handful of mutations past (evolution).
-
evolution of species ends in meaninglessness-not valid
Do you look exactly like both of your parents? Obviously not - you have evolved. Are you meaningless?
-
Wouldn't diploidy and polyploidy redundancy also be conservative toward beneficial changes? The bigger picture make take some time to develop?
Not always. Dominant alleles show up phenotypically. Don't forget to take natural and sexual selection into account. They work based on phenotypical characteristics. They amplify the effect of beneficial mutations. Specimens with slightly better phenotypes may outcompete their peers in survival and reproduction rate and eventually dominate the population.
-
Wouldn't diploidy and polyploidy redundancy also be conservative toward beneficial changes? The bigger picture make take some time to develop?
Not always. Dominant alleles show up phenotypically. Don't forget to take natural and sexual selection into account. They work based on phenotypical characteristics. They amplify the effect of beneficial mutations. Specimens with slightly better phenotypes may outcompete their peers in survival and reproduction rate and eventually dominate the population.
The peacock mating ritual is all about shallow surface criteria. If a male mutation was positive in terms of his digestion; individual selective advantage, but it did not improve his surface "bling", this mutation will not be chosen by the female. In fact, a negative mutation, that is hidden, and does not impact the male bling will be chosen. Don't birds show changes in species, base mostly on surface bling, more often than the do based on a better motor and drive train? The latter are below mating radar. The ugly duckling will not be chosen, even if they have beautiful internal advances hidden below the ugly.
In human terms, the quiet nerd babe, may pick a bad boy to balance her off. He abuses and then leaves her and she gets to raise the children, alone. In a more primitive situation this will not help with selection of her offspring, since she will struggle to feed them. There has to be a failsafe to compensate and also allow for shallow consciousness criteria.
Humanistic arguments for selection do not properly deal with the fail safe events at the nanoscale. Most changes are very minor, or else we would see evolution all the time, as drastic changes. One year we would see bumble bees and the next year they would be twice the size with extra wings. This is not common. Instead, the changes in bumble bees are so subtle, that Creationists cannot see anything drastic enough to change their minds in terms of evolution. You would need an expert to point out the tiny extra. The net affect is this tiny extra will be enough to dominate any type of selection ritual. While primitive fear of novelty, ugly duckling, will avoid it of they sense something different.
This means humanistic criteria for selection, will not see the majority of changes. Who will not notice the very subtle benefit of one amino acid changing in the middle of an enzyme allowing 5% improvement in a reaction, that is not rate limiting? This can be an important improvement, but it may be lost, since it does not stand out, like being twice the size of everyone, else during mating olympics. The later would require a huge number of coordinating genes change all at once. What about the proofreader enzymes? Will they even allow this, since they do not predict the future?
The blending of male and female chromosomes, after fertilization, is based on configurational potential within the water. Water is the continuous phase that defines the 3-D shapes of organics things in the cell. Improvements, based on male and female genes blending, cannot be supported without the cooperation of water, since this will be an equilibrium affect. It could occur with the assistance of a predefined protein grid in the mother cell, that impacts the equilibrium of the water, in which the DNA shape appears,
The cell works hard dealing with environmental stresses. This unique situation in space and tine results in the accumulation of protein to deal with the problems. This will be help define the protein grid of the mother cell. This will impact the water potential of the mother cell, which will be used to merge the DNA into an equilibrium shape. The new combined DNA is balanced to past needs and may show improvements, if it can be balanced perfectly.
-
The peacock mating ritual is all about shallow surface criteria. If a male mutation was positive in terms of his digestion; individual selective advantage, but it did not improve his surface "bling", this mutation will not be chosen by the female. In fact, a negative mutation, that is hidden, and does not impact the male bling will be chosen. Don't birds show changes in species, base mostly on surface bling, more often than the do based on a better motor and drive train? The latter are below mating radar. The ugly duckling will not be chosen, even if they have beautiful internal advances hidden below the ugly.
There are females of some bird and fish species who choose their mate based on the nest they build.
The first requirement to be a mating candidate is that they have survived into adulthood. Only then the additional advantages can take into account.
-
The science of natural selection, if you look closely, is based on fully integrated lifeforms, In other words, if we are talking about natural selection of birds, we are talking about a fully integrated life form; bird, singing and building nests. We are not talking about changes in small, often unseen parts of the whole, even though a mutation in a gene, can only alter one protein at a time.
This theoretical bias; connected to consciousness, could explain why evolution is not obvious to so many people. Many people expect "poof!", a new species, they can consciously see, from head to toe, that is obvious to consciousness. They do not expect a slightly different toe nail material. That type of change does not stand out, even though the concept of a mutation implies little things that may have a survival advantage. Why would the female bird notice a new toe nail if song and dance is on the menu?
In other words, say a gene in a human, mutates to create a useful mutation in the spleen, that improves a single enzymatic reaction by 10%. Unless it is flashy or stands out, or causes harm, it will not be noticed. If the child is always sick we may trace this to a genetic defect. But if there is a very marginal health improvement, that is within a statistical average, we will never investigate. It will stay below the radar of social and conscious standards and not automatically be selected. It may be lost, if it is not flashing with an open for evolution sign.
Yet, small changes do occur in animals, and overall heath and vigor are the rule in terms of animal species. For the small changes to perpetuate, leading to larger and larger system wide changes, whiten the awareness of consciousness, a mechanism, different from consciousness based selection, would be needed. An nanoscale and/or unconscious mechanism would allow subtle changes to persist and build, even if initially ignored by conscious choices, connected to instinct or social protocol.
In natural selection, if we have a group of male deer, batting for mating rights, selection is a series of conscious choices, from the will to win, to the choice to mate. But not all mutation based changes will be conscious. Flashy is often needed because consciousness needs help. It may not see a diamond in the rough, unless it is sanctioned by instinct or learned by herd values, which in the case of humans, can be less than optimized.
Evolution would need a nanoscale referee, to take advantage of little things, below the threshold of consciousness. Once there is a larger system wide change, then it dawns on consciousness.
The brain is wired into most of the cells of the body. Neurons and nerve tissues are smart tissue and the brain can form memories. If we add ti up, it would make sense that parts of the brain, below consciousness, is aware of change much earlier than consciousness. If consciousness screws up there is a still a movement in the right direction. This mechanism would interface the nanoscale via the water, The water induces an equilibrium for any size change.
-
It will stay below the radar of social and conscious standards and not automatically be selected.
If it improves the chances of survival, then that in itself is a selection pressure. Sexual selection need not apply.
-
We are not talking about changes in small, often unseen parts of the whole, even though a mutation in a gene, can only alter one protein at a time.
Small mutations can sometimes significantly change survival rates of organisms. They may enable new food sources which previously inedible (see LTE experiment on E. coli and lactose tolerance on human). They may provide immunity to diseases, or adaptability to new environment, such as colder climate, lower air pressure, etc.
-
We are not talking about changes in small, often unseen parts of the whole, even though a mutation in a gene, can only alter one protein at a time.
Small mutations can sometimes significantly change survival rates of organisms. They may enable new food sources which previously inedible (see LTE experiment on E. coli and lactose tolerance on human). They may provide immunity to diseases, or adaptability to new environment, such as colder climate, lower air pressure, etc.
Lactose intolerance is an example of what can go wrong with mutations. In this case, an available supply of food has to be avoided. However, what can go wrong, if we throw dice to get mutations, is not as common as you may expect. Liife improves over time. Evolution needs loaded dice for steady progress.
As far running experiments to investigate a change in a gene, the practical minded scientist will try all types of food sources, which or may not be available in a natural environment. The final report looks better if something happens. This could impact future funding. Even if the food used is too coincidental to be natural, a positive result can still tell us things about the gene.
In a natural environment, change, and choice to use the change, often comes back to consciousness. The Koala Bear may never know if he now could eat meat; hypothetical genetic improvement, since its instinct only likes eucalyptus leaves. We need a mechanism to get the Koala to think outside box, or the hypothetical meat eating change will be lost or ignored by all. Necessity may be one motivation, when it comes to having to try the new food. But the rest of the time, "Don't try to fix it unless it is broken".
Maybe an analogy to consciousness based pitfalls with respect to mutations and evolution, is this new theory section of the forums. If we assume new theories are like genetic changes in the conservative knowledge base ; social knowledge DNA, mutations in thought cannot all be bad, yet they appear to need quarantine away from what already is. One hand evolution is optimistic theory for change, but in practice anything alien is suspect, first.
There is a natural defensiveness against novelty and change. At the best, there is a heathy give and take, as the curious animals. circle each other. and the new food source. But more often than not, the cynical animals in the herd, will stomp the new plant, and try to make it taboo for others to eat. How does positive change get through to consciousness, with consciousness sometimes being the worse obstacle to evolutionary offerings?
Evolution assumes intelligent animals and life, willing to think outside the box, take chances, and even run against the herd. Useful change in evolution is not a dime dozen, or itowuld be very obvious to anyone. So when it happens, how is life made ready to accept it, when resistance to change is also at work? In the new theory forums, the genetic change analogy, has to coaxed or even force fed, but the animal will still spit out. The do not just eat and self experiment.
It makes sense that unconscious processes, such as implied by the concept of survival of the species, has to override the defensiveness of individual survival. This would need a feedforward mechanism from the change itself. If person feels something is true, they will persist and make an offering of change; supply side evolution at the nanoscale.
-
Lactose intolerance is an example of what can go wrong with mutations.
Lactose intolerance is a benefit in almost all mammals.
Do you know why?
-
We need a mechanism to get the Koala to think outside box, or the hypothetical meat eating change will be lost or ignored by all.
Random mutation, food contamination by psychedelic mushroom, weed, alcohol.