0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
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.
Why is DNA not shown with its hydrating water in textbooks since
Quote from: puppypower on 21/03/2020 13:31:38Why 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.
Quote from: puppypower on 21/03/2020 13:31:38One 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 current theory of mutations does not take into account the water,
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.
Explain to yourself, how we can leave out, one of two main variables
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.
Quote from: puppypower on 22/03/2020 13:21:35To 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.Quote from: puppypower on 22/03/2020 13:46:41Explain to yourself, how we can leave out, one of two main variablesIt 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.Quote from: puppypower on 22/03/2020 13:46:41A 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 you wish to extrapolate to other areas of science, like evolution, then you need a sound pure science foundation, and not an approximation method.
except humanity
....it (is) particularly hard to take someone seriously when they refer to themselves as "Magister"?
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.
Quote from: puppypower on 23/03/2020 10:24:20 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.
If a mutation is to be accepted, it comes down to the water,
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.
Quote from: puppypower on 18/03/2020 11:11:08In 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.
Why did proofreading enzymes evolve if mutations are good?
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?