Naked Science Forum
Life Sciences => Plant Sciences, Zoology & Evolution => Topic started by: mikezobe on 11/12/2016 19:56:43
-
Random acts, even if they might result in any benefits, will always result in far more chaos. For example, even if you believed that if you threw a pile of bricks off a roof billions of times they would eventually fall into a perfectly constructed house with walls, closets and an attached garage, a vast majority of the time, though, they would unquestionably fall into meaningless configurations.
The same is true with genetics. Randomly rearranging genetic material generally result in grossly deformed and diseased organisms. For every fossil of a viable-looking organisms we should have found billions of fossils of diseased and deformed organisms. They're not there. The vast majority of fossils show well-formed, functional-looking creatures. The fossil record proves beyond any question that evolution never happened.
Then, to say that evolution was not random, as some have suggested, yet still call it evolution, is as ludicrous as calling a bird a giraffe -- if it flies it's not a giraffe.
The bottom line is the fossil records shows that new species make their first appearance as functional creatures, not as a result of survival of the fittest. Where are the myriads of "unfit" that should have existed? Such a sudden appearance of new, viable life forms, which is confirmed over and over by the fossil record, rather than support evolution, thoroughly disprove it.
-
You would be better placed to answer your own question if you had take the trouble to find out what evolution really is, rather than judging it on the basis of a parody.
However, to cut to the chase, Yes, evolution is science.
Criticising it without understanding it is intellectual dishonesty.
-
Your response is the exact same response you get from every evolutionist: "you don't understand evolution" and "go look it up" or "go study it." But none of you, with all the knowledge you claim to have about evolution, are ever able to actually respond to the disproofs being presented. Maybe it's you who should go back to the drawing board and reconsider what you believe you know.
-
Perhaps part of the misunderstanding here is that genetic mutation does not lead to a completely random mishmash of genetic information. It is not at all like throwing bricks off a building. For the most part mutations are very minor, leading to some small degree of diversity (for instance slightly differently shaped teeth). This mutation may be helpful or harmful to the organism's viability, but the effect is likely to be small. In most cases, substantial effects are realized only over many generations.
By looking at the fossil record it is apparent that the life on Earth has been different at different times. Creatures that had never previously existed dominate the landscape for some period of time, and then no longer exist (not all species have become extinct yet, but eventually they all will...) If we trust the information of the fossil record, then clearly there is some process by which new species arise.
Unfortunately the fossil record is not very helpful when trying to understand processes. We only get limited information on only a small number of organisms. But more recent scientific advances allow us to look at the historical record contained within DNA. By comparing shared genetic material it is possible to determine how closely related different species are, and at what point distant cousins diverged.
We can also see evolution today. Not with large organisms like elephants, which evolve slowly because each generation takes a long time (20+ years), but with very small organisms like bacteria and insects. For instance, many strains of bacteria today are evolving resistance to antibiotic drugs--chemicals that they would never need to have worried about until the last century. And yet, over the last decade or two, there are suddenly many strains of bacteria resistant to those chemicals. There is a wonderful time-lapse video that was recently published, which shows the evolution of bacterial colonies over a matter of weeks:
-
Your response is the exact same response you get from every evolutionist: "you don't understand evolution" and "go look it up" or "go study it." But none of you, with all the knowledge you claim to have about evolution, are ever able to actually respond to the disproofs being presented. Maybe it's you who should go back to the drawing board and reconsider what you believe you know.
There's a very simple reason why you always get the same response. It's because it is the correct response.
Now, since your original post isn't about evolution it's about some strange made up idea you have, how can I show if it is right, wrong or indifferent?
Essentially I can't disprove your nonsense, and there's no reason why I should try.
Why would I bother?
So, once again, go away and find out what evolution is before (intellectually dishonestly) attacking it.
Here's a starting point for you; you don't look exactly like your next door neighbour. The difference between you and him is genetics- a set of many mutations over generations.
There are differences and there are similarities- the same with the fossils.
It's very rare for a mutation to have a major effect and, if it does the individual generally dies. One individual in a population isn't likely to make it into the fossil record.
So, once you get some understanding of how evolution works, it's obvious that your "argument" isn't right or wrong, it's irrelevant.
Go and study.
-
Look in the mirror. Do you look exactly like both of your parents? If so, you have very strange parents. If not, you have evolved from them. That's all it means.
There are indeed some living things that seem to be unevolved exact replicas of their parents. Potatoes, leyland cypress trees, dolly the sheep (and a few others) and most bananas, are clones, but most living things from flu virus to humans are genetically distinct from previous generations.
Sadly, some people seem unable to comprehend the notion that a combination of evolution and ecology can lead, over hundreds or millions of years to the surviving descendants being sufficiently different that we label them as different species.
-
Random acts, even if they might result in any benefits, will always result in far more chaos. For example, even if you believed that if you threw a pile of bricks off a roof billions of times they would eventually fall into a perfectly constructed house with walls, closets and an attached garage, a vast majority of the time, though, they would unquestionably fall into meaningless configurations.
Genes, chromosomes etc. are not bricks. They don't just take on any random configuration and can only combine in certain ways. They also are more analogous to the blueprints of the house rather than the building materials. Mutations are small alterations to those blueprints. Of course, you might instead be referring instead to the original formation of life, abiogenesis instead here. But even abiogenesis is not just a random throwing together of chemicals, as those chemical themselves have rules that govern how they can join up. Besides, abiogenesis and evolution are two completely different things and are not related to each other, even though some people try to lump them together into a single argument. (now that's intellectual dishonesty)
The same is true with genetics. Randomly rearranging genetic material generally result in grossly deformed and diseased organisms. For every fossil of a viable-looking organisms we should have found billions of fossils of diseased and deformed organisms. They're not there. The vast majority of fossils show well-formed, functional-looking creatures. The fossil record proves beyond any question that evolution never happened.
Mutations are not the random remixing of genetic material. they are small changes to one part of the blueprint. Some mutations are benign (the Siamese breed of cat is a result of a mutation that altered its pigmentation.), Some will be harmful, and some will turn out to be beneficial. (if not immediately then at some later point. If the mutation is harmful or produces a malformed individual, that individual will either not survive or won't reproduce, and the mutation never gets into the gene pool. (If it hadn't been for the fact that people found the unique pigmentation of the Siamese cat desirable, they would have bred it out instead of for it and you wouldn't see that breed of cat today) Mutations effect individuals, while evolution effects populations. Only those mutations that do not hinder the individuals reproduction will be passed on to later generations and spread out into the population as a whole.
The mutation rate also is fairly low in any given population. (if it goes too high, you risk not producing enough viable offspring to maintain the population.) As a result, the number of undesirable mutations resulting is malformed individuals is going to be vert low compared to the population at large (And the majority of these won't survive infancy). The fossil record is sparse when compared to the number of creatures that have lived in the past. The conditions which produces a fossil happens rarely and the vat majority of the time a deceased animal leaves no lasting record. Pure common sense tells us that if if the fossil record is only represents a tiny fraction of past animal life and that malformed individuals would only be expected to be a small fraction of that, that you would not expect to find "billions" of fossils of malformed individuals. To suggest otherwise is again to be intellectually dishonest.
Then, to say that evolution was not random, as some have suggested, yet still call it evolution, is as ludicrous as calling a bird a giraffe -- if it flies it's not a giraffe.
Evolution is the combination of small random mutations to the individual coupled with natural selection on the population level. Those mutations that do not hinder the individual's reproduction, are passed on, those that do, are not. That's evolution; the slow alteration of a population over many generations.
The bottom line is the fossil records shows that new species make their first appearance as functional creatures, not as a result of survival of the fittest. Where are the myriads of "unfit" that should have existed? Such a sudden appearance of new, viable life forms, which is confirmed over and over by the fossil record, rather than support evolution, thoroughly disprove it.
"Unfit" is a relative term. A creature that is unfit under one circumstance, is the fittest under another. Let's take the giraffe for example. You start with an animal that grazes on low shrubs. In a population you are going to have a certain genetic variation in terms of neck length. This will vary over a certain range, with necks too long or too short selected against. But now the climate begins to slowly change and the low shrubbery is going away in favor of trees. Those animals with longer necks find themselves having a slight advantage over those with shorter necks. The shorter necked individuals can't compete as well, produce fewer and fewer offspring and this trait is selected against. A new "norm" has been established for neck length. This also means that mutations that produce even a longer neck will be selected for, when earlier, it would have been selected against (the too long neck being more of a hindrance for a low level browser.) So a really long neck is "unfit" under certain conditions, but more fit under others. "unfit" doesn't equate to non-viable, but just not a good fit for the circumstances. "Survival of the fittest", just means that those individuals that have a genetic trait that gives them a competitive edge, is going to be more successful, and be more likely to produce offspring and pass that trait onto later generations.
All your arguments themselves have been a type of intellectual dishonesty known as the "strawman fallacy". You have erected a "strawman" version of evolution and knocked it down rather than actually arguing against the theory itself. This is why people keep telling you that you need to learn about evolution and what it actually says. Otherwise you are arguing against some imaginary version of it that is of your own making. (And ending up looking foolish in the process.)
-
Random acts, even if they might result in any benefits, will always result in far more chaos. For example, even if you believed that if you threw a pile of bricks off a roof billions of times they would eventually fall into a perfectly constructed house with walls, closets and an attached garage, a vast majority of the time, though, they would unquestionably fall into meaningless configurations.
The same is true with genetics. Randomly rearranging genetic material generally result in grossly deformed and diseased organisms. For every fossil of a viable-looking organisms we should have found billions of fossils of diseased and deformed organisms. They're not there. The vast majority of fossils show well-formed, functional-looking creatures. The fossil record proves beyond any question that evolution never happened.
Then, to say that evolution was not random, as some have suggested, yet still call it evolution, is as ludicrous as calling a bird a giraffe -- if it flies it's not a giraffe.
The bottom line is the fossil records shows that new species make their first appearance as functional creatures, not as a result of survival of the fittest. Where are the myriads of "unfit" that should have existed? Such a sudden appearance of new, viable life forms, which is confirmed over and over by the fossil record, rather than support evolution, thoroughly disprove it.
As has alredy been pointed out to you you are attacking something that is not the theory of evolution.
That is dishonest.
To use your starting point of deformaties resulting in bad things almost always; yes spot on.
The reason the fossil record is full of well made plants and animals rather than the mistakes of evolution is that the mistakes did not get to breed whilst the very lucky ones that had a deformaty which improved them out bred all the others. There DNA spread and multiplied.
-
You people are seriously failing to understand the original post.
There should have been billions and billions of deformed organisms before you even get to reproduction. Every new life form should have gone through billions of trials and errors before one stable life form capable of reproduction came along. So to say that the ones that were not capable of reproduction never passed on their genes is totally meaningless. The massive deformities should have happened way before any reproduction was even possible. Where are they? Nature got every species right the first time? Not a chance!
Re: how genetics work. You people are so entrenched with how genes work today you fail to understand we're talking about a time when genes themselves were evolving. We all know how genes work today. But that's immaterial. Genes today are stable and have specific functions. But before genetic stability kicked in every mutation had to be completely random, with not even a genetic repair mechanism in place to correct mistakes. How did any organism ever come to a functional state? It could not!
Furthermore, how did the first four-legged animal, for example, come into being? Genetics alone cannot determine that a one-legged cow, for example, cannot survive. Creatures of many configurations would first have to be spawned (from whatever species they allegedly evolved from) before nature could weed out the unfit. There should have been billions of these challenged creatures before the first viable four legged animal (as an example, but applying to all "firsts") became stable enough to survive and pass down its genes. Where are all these mistakes? They don't exist! Evolution obviously never happened!
The issue here is not how evolution works. The issue is how does nature work? You can make up all the rules you want about the mechanisms of evolution, but if it's not verified by evidence it's like talking about Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck -- it's all fiction. Having fantasies is great, but don't call it science. So stop blabbering about how evolution works and start showing the evidence. The evidence says it doesn't work.
Evolutionists are, ironically, the strongest believers in Creation. With all the "great" evolution-scientists, the best they can come up with is some process that magically produces life? Isn't that religion? All they've done is eliminate God from the picture and labelled it science.
-
"There should have been billions and billions of deformed organisms before you even get to reproduction."
There were;
They were not even bacteria,
How did you imagine that they would fossilise?
Also, don't you understand that the tiny fraction that did learn to reproduce will have copied themselves so many times that they will have outnumbered the failures?
" Every new life form should have gone through billions of trials and errors before one stable life form capable of reproduction came along. "
And they did;
those trials and errors were also life and, as has been pointed out to you, looked very much like the successes.
"Genetics alone cannot determine that a one-legged cow, for example, cannot survive. "
No version of evolution says that it could.
You really need to learn how evolution works.
Criticising it without understanding it is intellectually dishonest
"The issue here is not how evolution works."
Yes it is, because what you are writing about isn't evolution; you are writing about a pastiche of evolution and you are doing so because you are prepared to lie to try to make a point.
", but if it's not verified by evidence "
It is verified by evidence: stop lying about it
" The evidence says it doesn't work. "
You are entitled to your own opinion,but not to your own facts.
In reality the evidence shows that it does work.
"Isn't that religion?"
The traditional reply is "will convert for evidence"
-
The bottom line is the fossil records shows that new species make their first appearance as functional creatures, not as a result of survival of the fittest.
If a particular creature survived in sufficient numbers for sufficient time to beat incredible odds and make it as a recognizable fossil into the geological record, then it is an amazingly fit species.
Evolution is not about the frequent appearance of non-functional forms (although this happens too), but about the change from one functional form into a more-functional form in the context of a continuously-changing environment and ecosystem.
many strains of bacteria today are evolving resistance to antibiotic drugs--chemicals that they would never need to have worried about until the last century.
The majority of our antibiotics are chemicals derived from nature, that have been used in battles between microbes since time immemorial. Antibiotic resistance genes have existed in nature almost as long as these antibiotic genes have existed in nature.
What we see is that antibiotic genes can transfer from bacteria in the environment into bacteria that normally live on humans, via horizontal gene transfer. (But the appearance of antibiotic resistance in the tuberculosis bacterium is apparently a bit of a mystery, since it appears isolated from the outside world for much of its life-cycle...)
Apparently, bacteria cultured permafrost soil samples, and dated as thousands of years old have shown the presence of antibiotic resistance genes. This predates human mass manufacture of antibiotics.
-
You people are seriously failing to understand the original post.
There should have been billions and billions of deformed organisms before you even get to reproduction. Every new life form should have gone through billions of trials and errors before one stable life form capable of reproduction came along. So to say that the ones that were not capable of reproduction never passed on their genes is totally meaningless. The massive deformities should have happened way before any reproduction was even possible. Where are they? Nature got every species right the first time? Not a chance!
Re: how genetics work. You people are so entrenched with how genes work today you fail to understand we're talking about a time when genes themselves were evolving. We all know how genes work today. But that's immaterial. Genes today are stable and have specific functions. But before genetic stability kicked in every mutation had to be completely random, with not even a genetic repair mechanism in place to correct mistakes. How did any organism ever come to a functional state? It could not!
Furthermore, how did the first four-legged animal, for example, come into being? Genetics alone cannot determine that a one-legged cow, for example, cannot survive. Creatures of many configurations would first have to be spawned (from whatever species they allegedly evolved from) before nature could weed out the unfit. There should have been billions of these challenged creatures before the first viable four legged animal (as an example, but applying to all "firsts") became stable enough to survive and pass down its genes. Where are all these mistakes? They don't exist! Evolution obviously never happened!
The issue here is not how evolution works. The issue is how does nature work? You can make up all the rules you want about the mechanisms of evolution, but if it's not verified by evidence it's like talking about Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck -- it's all fiction. Having fantasies is great, but don't call it science. So stop blabbering about how evolution works and start showing the evidence. The evidence says it doesn't work.
Evolutionists are, ironically, the strongest believers in Creation. With all the "great" evolution-scientists, the best they can come up with is some process that magically produces life? Isn't that religion? All they've done is eliminate God from the picture and labelled it science.
Please watch this video. It is one of the best I have seen.
https://www.ted.com/talks/martin_hanczyc_the_line_between_life_and_not_life
The point of it is that very simple carbon chemistry looks like life very quickly.
All the did not work chemicals in the early oceans did not reproduce. The few that did spread all over the world and eventually after many many failures the better ones replaced them.
If you look at a population that is evolving, that would be any at all, then almost all of them are not deformed.
-
Evolution is incomplete, which is why the erroneous random assumptions are still around. When you need something to happen, the current model depends on magic; random poof!
In the current theory, evolution begins with random changes on the DNA. Natural selection then picks among this and other alternatives, based on potentials in the environment. The theory is a blend of random up front, and then a more logical selection process at the other end. If it is a cold environment, one can infer the best selections, since these will be connected to building and conserving body heat. The upfront random does not allow us to know what or when this is going to happen. We only know after the fact; after the magic poof.
If you asked what is the future evolution of humans, we don;t know the poof in advance to be able to decide if this poof will be better optimized and therefore be the direction of evolution. We need the poof, then we can infer.
There is a way to fix this. The way you fix is by extrapolating the theory of evolution to the nanoscale. Natural selection at the nanoscale occurs within an environment based on water. Water is the nanoscale environment that decides natural selection at the chemical level. This is why if you remove the water fro any level of life, nothing works, and if you add a new solvent, still nothing works. The water environment, like the Arctic cold, defines the parameters from which natural selection will optimize the animal (chemicals). If we change the environment, such as placing the polar bear at the equator, he will not be selected, since so many of his body systems are not optimized to the heat. If we change solvents the chemicals of life are not optimize to this environment.
Changes on the DNA, needed for macro scale evolution, are part of the natural chemical selection process within the water environment. Water is very unique and has many properties that can set the chemical environment needed to select the chemicals of life.
When the DNA is duplicated, errors will appear. There are proofreader enzymes that go along the DNA and do a spell check. Improper base pairing can be seen by the proofreaders, because these will be at higher energy than proper base pairing. After the proofreaders do their job, errors that remain are mutations. The question is, is it possible to fool the proofreaders, by altering the potential of an error, so it is overlooked? For example, if we were proofreading a story, the words herd or heard, both sound the same, but each creates a different meaning. If the story is about a cowboy who is running cattle to market, a fast read may make either word seem, possible. The energy difference; contextual arousal, is small. This can be done by making the local hydrogen bonded water pick up the energy slack; selection.
-
Look at populations of organisms that exist today. The vast majority of them are not physically deformed because (1) most mutations are either neutral or have a tiny effect on an organism, (2) organisms have repair mechanisms that limit just how many mutations they receive, (3) also consider that many mutations do not cause the kind of changes that would be preserved by fossils (i.e. many are metabolic or soft tissue changes), (4) those organisms that had debilitating skeletal mutations that could have been preserved by the fossil record were far more likely to be killed and consumed by predators, and (5) those organisms with such mutations would have been far less likely to spread their mutations by reproducing, thus greatly limiting their numbers relative to undeformed organisms.Therefore, it makes no sense to assume that most fossils should be deformed if evolution is true. You'd expect the opposite to be true for the same reasons that living populations are mostly undeformed.
-
Time is the evolution of space, to say otherwise would only be a misunderstanding of time
-
How could this forum have evolved by "Natural Selection"?
-
How could this forum have evolved by "Natural Selection"?
Who ever said that it did?
-
Look at populations of organisms that exist today. The vast majority of them are not physically deformed because (1) most mutations are either neutral or have a tiny effect on an organism, (2) organisms have repair mechanisms that limit just how many mutations they receive, (3) also consider that many mutations do not cause the kind of changes that would be preserved by fossils (i.e. many are metabolic or soft tissue changes), (4) those organisms that had debilitating skeletal mutations that could have been preserved by the fossil record were far more likely to be killed and consumed by predators, and (5) those organisms with such mutations would have been far less likely to spread their mutations by reproducing, thus greatly limiting their numbers relative to undeformed organisms.Therefore, it makes no sense to assume that most fossils should be deformed if evolution is true. You'd expect the opposite to be true for the same reasons that living populations are mostly undeformed.
The theory of natural selection makes logical sense and can be observed in nature. Even if you are a religious person and assume life began via a Creationist's mechanism. After the first life appears, natural selection, thereafter, is consistent with the divine plan. The strongest lion controls the land and rules the pride. While the fastest and evasive prey, lives to breed another day, etc., Even with humans, strong empires dominate the weaker ones and persist; selection. After Genesis,forward, natural selection is consistent and not contradictory to religion.
The main conceptual difference between the two, is connected to the mechanism for change. Life is an integrated entity, where all the parts work like a team. This is why it takes so long to get new medications through the screening process. There are always side effects, because the body is integrated and life does not exist as a collection of isolated packets for each new medication. Rather the medication can have an unintended global impact.
The theory of random change on the DNA, does not make sense, since a random change mechanism, over time, will lead to more problems and side affects than to global advantages. If we randomly made medicines, not only will the ordinal intent rarely work, but the side affects would be all over the board. We need to use logic to target the medicine, which even after that can still cause side affects.
Very few changes will advance one isolated pocket, while ignoring the integration of pieces, to create no side affects. There are more ways to undermine an integration that there is to advance it, using a random change mechanism. We can come up with a medicine to improve the kidney function of someone with a genetic defect. This medicine may work perfectly on them, but it may create side affects and others problems in the next generation, due to merged genes from two parents which forms a new integration. Then we need a new medicine. Random is money pit, while nature is very frugal.
This is where Creation and Evolution start to separate. Creationism assumes a more ordered mechanism for change. They call it this mechanism God's will. One may not agree with this premise, but it is not based on a random approach, but rather depends on logical extrapolation from foundation premises. Even of you assume God does it, he does it at the chemical level.
An interesting way to look at the random assumption, is to consider two basic working examples of this mechanism in action, that are often used in education; cards and dice. Both cards and dice and not natural, but are manmade games. The dynamics behind these games, follow random principles. Bu these games are not found in nature but were placed there by man. What appears to have happened is applied science; the mathematical dynamics behind the manmade games of dice and cards, have been defined as natural and not manmade. This assumption, became transposed onto evolution, even though such a mechanism will cause more problems due to side affects; house of death wins over time.
Creationist assumes a more logical approach, albeit, its premises may not agree with science discovery. However, the logical approach is more consistent with the needs of a mechanism of change, where life wins and death finishes second; load the dice and card counting. Life, in general, tends to persist, even under extreme conditions of change, albeit, not all life will change for the better. But the latter does not make it, due to external variables which do not allow the DNA to logically change fast enough to neutralize the new integration. Simple life can keep the pace.
A logical mechanism involves a partnership between organics and water, with water the integrating variable of life and organics the differentiation variable. The current approach does not have water playing the role of the integrating variable, but it only uses the organics as a differentiation variable. Ransom is used in place of water's integration, with the mechanics of water hidden in a black box.
-
The theory of natural selection makes logical sense and can be observed in nature. Even if you are a religious person and assume life began via a Creationist's mechanism. After the first life appears, natural selection, thereafter, is consistent with the divine plan. The strongest lion controls the land and rules the pride. While the fastest and evasive prey, lives to breed another day, etc., Even with humans, strong empires dominate the weaker ones and persist; selection. After Genesis,forward, natural selection is consistent and not contradictory to religion.
The main conceptual difference between the two, is connected to the mechanism for change. Life is an integrated entity, where all the parts work like a team. This is why it takes so long to get new medications through the screening process. There are always side effects, because the body is integrated and life does not exist as a collection of isolated packets for each new medication. Rather the medication can have an unintended global impact.
The theory of random change on the DNA, does not make sense, since a random change mechanism, over time, will lead to more problems and side affects than to global advantages. If we randomly made medicines, not only will the ordinal intent rarely work, but the side affects would be all over the board. We need to use logic to target the medicine, which even after that can still cause side affects.
Very few changes will advance one isolated pocket, while ignoring the integration of pieces, to create no side affects. There are more ways to undermine an integration that there is to advance it, using a random change mechanism. We can come up with a medicine to improve the kidney function of someone with a genetic defect. This medicine may work perfectly on them, but it may create side affects and others problems in the next generation, due to merged genes from two parents which forms a new integration. Then we need a new medicine. Random is money pit, while nature is very frugal.
This is where Creation and Evolution start to separate. Creationism assumes a more ordered mechanism for change. They call it this mechanism God's will. One may not agree with this premise, but it is not based on a random approach, but rather depends on logical extrapolation from foundation premises. Even of you assume God does it, he does it at the chemical level.
An interesting way to look at the random assumption, is to consider two basic working examples of this mechanism in action, that are often used in education; cards and dice. Both cards and dice and not natural, but are manmade games. The dynamics behind these games, follow random principles. Bu these games are not found in nature but were placed there by man. What appears to have happened is applied science; the mathematical dynamics behind the manmade games of dice and cards, have been defined as natural and not manmade. This assumption, became transposed onto evolution, even though such a mechanism will cause more problems due to side affects; house of death wins over time.
Creationist assumes a more logical approach, albeit, its premises may not agree with science discovery. However, the logical approach is more consistent with the needs of a mechanism of change, where life wins and death finishes second; load the dice and card counting. Life, in general, tends to persist, even under extreme conditions of change, albeit, not all life will change for the better. But the latter does not make it, due to external variables which do not allow the DNA to logically change fast enough to neutralize the new integration. Simple life can keep the pace.
A logical mechanism involves a partnership between organics and water, with water the integrating variable of life and organics the differentiation variable. The current approach does not have water playing the role of the integrating variable, but it only uses the organics as a differentiation variable. Ransom is used in place of water's integration, with the mechanics of water hidden in a black box.
Mutations aren't completely random: some parts of DNA are more likely to mutate than others while some types of mutations are more likely to occur than others. Natural selection cuts out much of the remaining randomness (except for genetic drift). You most certainly could design medicines using evolutionary principles if you wanted to (it certainly has worked for other fields of research, such as antennae and aircraft wing design), but it would take much longer and be much less efficient than designing them through intelligent study.
-
Keep in mind that viability of organisms starts very early. The hardiest of the Sperm make it to the egg. Non viable blastocysts, embryos, and fetuses are aborted. Infant mortality rate is high in all species. Some aquatic species lay thousands of eggs, hoping one, or a pair make it through the life cycle to start the process again.
Natural selection isn't entirely random either. In humans, choosing a "mate" can be complex. But, in the animal world, some birds have complex mating rituals... which may help with selection of positive traits for the species. In
other species, the strongest may mate more frequently than the weakest.
Even with plants, many rely on animals and insects for reproduction and spreading, and those that are more appealing to their "vector" reproduce better.
And evolution isn't something that just happened with fossils.
Virtually every food species that humans use have undergone selective breeding. Ok, so one has a farmer choosing to amplify certain traits. But, many of those traits randomly occur, and someone selects something they like. Larger, sweeter, tarter, disease resistant, etc. There are huge debates about accelerating the natural evolutionary process by gene splicing in our plants.
Dogs are distinctly different from wolves. For example, dogs tolerate human foods better than wolves. It isn't that someone sat down and said.. let's add some carbohydrate genes into our breeding program. Rather, likely dogs were fed table scraps since they were first domesticated, and those that thrived on the table scraps were healthier, hardier, and endured.
This is good reading about the peppered moth in London, and changes based on industrial evolution coal burning.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peppered_moth_evolution
-
The theory of natural selection makes logical sense and can be observed in nature. Even if you are a religious person and assume life began via a Creationist's mechanism. After the first life appears, natural selection, thereafter, is consistent with the divine plan. The strongest lion controls the land and rules the pride. While the fastest and evasive prey, lives to breed another day, etc., Even with humans, strong empires dominate the weaker ones and persist; selection. After Genesis,forward, natural selection is consistent and not contradictory to religion.
The main conceptual difference between the two, is connected to the mechanism for change. Life is an integrated entity, where all the parts work like a team. This is why it takes so long to get new medications through the screening process. There are always side effects, because the body is integrated and life does not exist as a collection of isolated packets for each new medication. Rather the medication can have an unintended global impact.
The theory of random change on the DNA, does not make sense, since a random change mechanism, over time, will lead to more problems and side affects than to global advantages. If we randomly made medicines, not only will the ordinal intent rarely work, but the side affects would be all over the board. We need to use logic to target the medicine, which even after that can still cause side affects.
Very few changes will advance one isolated pocket, while ignoring the integration of pieces, to create no side affects. There are more ways to undermine an integration that there is to advance it, using a random change mechanism. We can come up with a medicine to improve the kidney function of someone with a genetic defect. This medicine may work perfectly on them, but it may create side affects and others problems in the next generation, due to merged genes from two parents which forms a new integration. Then we need a new medicine. Random is money pit, while nature is very frugal.
This is where Creation and Evolution start to separate. Creationism assumes a more ordered mechanism for change. They call it this mechanism God's will. One may not agree with this premise, but it is not based on a random approach, but rather depends on logical extrapolation from foundation premises. Even of you assume God does it, he does it at the chemical level.
An interesting way to look at the random assumption, is to consider two basic working examples of this mechanism in action, that are often used in education; cards and dice. Both cards and dice and not natural, but are manmade games. The dynamics behind these games, follow random principles. Bu these games are not found in nature but were placed there by man. What appears to have happened is applied science; the mathematical dynamics behind the manmade games of dice and cards, have been defined as natural and not manmade. This assumption, became transposed onto evolution, even though such a mechanism will cause more problems due to side affects; house of death wins over time.
Creationist assumes a more logical approach, albeit, its premises may not agree with science discovery. However, the logical approach is more consistent with the needs of a mechanism of change, where life wins and death finishes second; load the dice and card counting. Life, in general, tends to persist, even under extreme conditions of change, albeit, not all life will change for the better. But the latter does not make it, due to external variables which do not allow the DNA to logically change fast enough to neutralize the new integration. Simple life can keep the pace.
A logical mechanism involves a partnership between organics and water, with water the integrating variable of life and organics the differentiation variable. The current approach does not have water playing the role of the integrating variable, but it only uses the organics as a differentiation variable. Ransom is used in place of water's integration, with the mechanics of water hidden in a black box.
Mutations aren't completely random: some parts of DNA are more likely to mutate than others while some types of mutations are more likely to occur than others. Natural selection cuts out much of the remaining randomness (except for genetic drift). You most certainly could design medicines using evolutionary principles if you wanted to (it certainly has worked for other fields of research, such as antennae and aircraft wing design), but it would take much longer and be much less efficient than designing them through intelligent study.
The observation that parts of the DNA are conservative and others aspects change more often, shows there is a logic to the DNA. In terms of statistical assumptions, the DNA acts like loaded dice.
Picture a six sided dice, where I add a weight to one of the eight apex corners. The odds are no longer 1 in 6 for any given side. Certain sides will come up more frequency, and other sides will come up less frequency if at all, depending on the weight of the load. If I change the load configuration and loaded one of the sides of the dice, instead of a corner, the results will change again, for the same load. The DNA acts more like loaded dice and is under a modified version of statistics, influenced by logical loads on the dice.
Logical loading of dice is one of the purposes of water. The logical loading affect is based on the principles behind the water and oil affect. If you agitate water and oil it will form an emulsion. If we stop the agitator, instead of maintaining the randomness of a nearly uniform emulsion, the entropy will reverse, ultimately forming two phases. The oil-water emulation dice begin with infinite sides, but become loaded by the potential between water and oil, so in the end, only two sides will ever appear at steady state.
The potential between water and oil, extrapolates to the organics of life. It results in the organics phase separating into organelles. If we used another solvent, such as ammonia, the logical load is not as strong, allowing more randomness to persist. Ammonia is a good emulsifier for organics. Alternate solvents of life might be better modeled by statistics, but water based life counts cards and loads dice.
The assumption that life is possible in other solvents, unconsciously assumes water based life also works via random assumptions. This is not the case. In the science casino, where statistics rule, water is not allowed to play to its best ability, because it cheats; loads dice.
-
How could this forum have evolved by "Natural Selection"?
Eppur si muove
Nutters come and go like fragile genes but the underlying robust DNA of science continues and gradually acquires useful branches like Pete and Evan.
-
The observation that parts of the DNA are conservative and others aspects change more often, shows there is a logic to the DNA. In terms of statistical assumptions, the DNA acts like loaded dice.
Right, but that makes sense in terms of evolution; parts of the DNA which can't afford to mutate very often will evolve more precise proofreading/repair mechanisms in order to prevent strongly deleterious mutations from occurring in those regions. Parts of the DNA which aren't as critical to development can afford to mutate more often and do so because the innovation created by some of those mutations allows for an enhanced ability to adapt to the environment (particularly when that environment has a habit of rapidly changing, such as when viruses have to adapt to the immune systems of host organisms or to medicines that they are treated with).
-
The observation that parts of the DNA are conservative and others aspects change more often, shows there is a logic to the DNA. In terms of statistical assumptions, the DNA acts like loaded dice.
Right, but that makes sense in terms of evolution; parts of the DNA which can't afford to mutate very often will evolve more precise proofreading/repair mechanisms in order to prevent strongly deleterious mutations from occurring in those regions. Parts of the DNA which aren't as critical to development can afford to mutate more often and do so because the innovation created by some of those mutations allows for an enhanced ability to adapt to the environment (particularly when that environment has a habit of rapidly changing, such as when viruses have to adapt to the immune systems of host organisms or to medicines that they are treated with).
This analysis you represented is analogous to loading the genetic dice, so only certain sides are ever come into play, while other sides remain out of play.
The question becomes how does the cell know how to load the genetic dice in ways that allow for adaptation and selective advantage? This is where the modern theory of evolution breaks down, in terms of being science, and becoming philosophy. In other words, we observe how parts of the DNA are very conservative and not subject to the same odds, but how is this possible and what the mechanism is, is not part of the analysis.
The lack of a logical answer, makes the system default back to a black box approach, which is grounded on random assumptions, which are not consistent with the loaded genetic dice observation. We know that and then fall back on the premises of natural selection, which are logical, but do not answer how this is possible at the genetic level. If we know "how", this would change who we look at evolution, since deeper logic would make the black box obsolete and the logical explanation would not default to 19th century science, before random was fashionable.
I believe in the concept of evolution, but the mechanism that is offered is not fully scientific, but more philosophical, putting it closer to a form of Creationism that uses a god of chaos, who somehow still comes out smelling good.
There is a way to explain loading the genetic dice, which involves water taking a leadership role. If we agitated water and oil, we could form an emulation. An emulsion, like a gas, can be modeled with statistics. If stop the agitation and allow the system to settle, the dice will become loaded until only two layers appear. All the rest of the randomness of the emulsion is no longer in play. We went from cards to a coin, all because of water.
The reason for this is connected to the water. The self hydrogen bonding of water is so stabilizing, that the water will segregate itself causing the oil to do likewise. Water can form up to four hydrogen bonds with other water. The oil is not afraid of the water; hydrophobic, since water can form van der Waals bonds with oil, if it has to. However, to do this the water will remain energized, compared to being fully hydrogen bonding with only water; surface tension. Water will lower energy by lowering the surface area with the oil.
The DNA is a large molecule that is dissolved in water. Unlike oil, DNA has many polar atoms and groups that are very friendly to water. In fact, the DNA is the most hydrated material in the cell. The DNA offers water a means to lower potential, much better than with oil, and almost as good as pure water. However, because the DNA still contains organics, there is a slight oil-water affect, that makes the DNA-water, define a slightly higher potential than pure water. The net result is two affects, one which makes the DNA want to bead up, and the other which makes the DNA-water phase spread out into the water.
In terms of heats of formation, adenine is the most endothermic of the four bases. If you burn adenine, pound for pound it gives off the most heat of combustion, compared to all the other bases. This is because adenine is the most reduced and therefore has the highest oil affect. The starter positions on coding genes tend to have the most adenine and therefore the most oil affect. The relative oil nature of the starter regions is conducive to beading with enzymes.
Most of the DNA is composed of junk genes, which is DNA, not in the form of coding genes. The value of the junk genes is these have less adenine oil affect compared to the starter zones on the coding genes. The junk genes exist at lower potential, closer to the water than do coding genes. This combined affect allows the DNA to establish internal and external potentials within itself and via the water, with the entire system seeking lowest potential.
The wild card is called cooperative hydrogen bonding. This is where hydrogen bonding can form something similar to a resonance structure, where elections become delocalized. This can extend over considerable distances. Picture this, we have the DNA-water surrounded by water, with the DNA having adenine hot spots on coding genes and less potential on the noncoding junk genes. The water on and adjacent tot the DNA is organized by binding to the DNA double helix, to form cooperative hydrogen bonding. The extended stability in the water is helping to move the DNA-water into shapes that can optimize the cooperative; lowest energy. The result is conservative and active genes.
Some coding genes can't handle the higher energy level load of adding improper base pairing, under the pressure of the cooperative. Other areas with lower potential, in spite of the cooperative, can handle this easier. The proofreaders are sensitive to the final potential. Change on the conserved genes stand out and will be fixed.
-
Some great, global-warming-denier level reasoning here!
The theory of natural selection makes logical sense and can be observed in nature. Even if you are a religious person and assume life began via a Creationist's mechanism. After the first life appears, natural selection, thereafter, is consistent with the divine plan. The strongest lion controls the land and rules the pride. While the fastest and evasive prey, lives to breed another day, etc., Even with humans, strong empires dominate the weaker ones and persist; selection. After Genesis,forward, natural selection is consistent and not contradictory to religion.
That's not natural selection. Natural selection is that if different organisms have different traits that could make a difference to their survival and their ability to reproduce, then the details of the environment will determine the population profile of these organisms based on survival and reproduction. This does not favor the "strong" and it does not favor that certain beings "dominate" other beings. It is merely that the profile of a given population will change over time to reflect how the environment works to preferentially kill organisms with certain traits or prevent these organisms from reproducing.
The theory of random change on the DNA, does not make sense, since a random change mechanism, over time, will lead to more problems and side affects than to global advantages.
That's an interesting claim offered without any evidence (like the claims offered by most global warming deniers).
Even if that claim is true, so what? We can see a) that organisms do differ in their traits and b) that these traits are passed down through inheritance. This is enough to drive evolution by natural selection, There is also a crazy amount of evidence of mutations to DNA, e.g., many forms of cancer. So, yes, we could even accept the dubious claim that most DNA mutations would be detrimental and still find no problem to the overall theory of natural selection with the input of new traits from DNA mutation.
In reality, we find a whole host of systems in organisms that prevent mutations from being entirely debilitating and that render many mutations neutral.
If we randomly made medicines, not only will the ordinal intent rarely work, but the side affects would be all over the board. We need to use logic to target the medicine, which even after that can still cause side affects.
This is a false analogy, since pharmaceuticals are usually designed with a set of purposes, whereas mutations need not have any purpose. Mutations can sit in a population as neutral or close to neutral. Of course, there are many cases in the development of pharmaceuticals where a product developed for one purpose is actually good for another, just as a random mutation can turn out to produce a trait that increases an organism's ability to survive in one particular environment.
Very few changes will advance one isolated pocket, while ignoring the integration of pieces, to create no side affects.
Another claim offered without evidence. A careful look at the nature of DNA and at the nature of mutations doesn't make this claim look likely.
This is where Creation and Evolution start to separate. Creationism assumes a more ordered mechanism for change. They call it this mechanism God's will. One may not agree with this premise, but it is not based on a random approach, but rather depends on logical extrapolation from foundation premises. Even of you assume God does it, he does it at the chemical level.
I'll agree that this is a big assumption! But why do Creationists assume that some deity does all this rather than an alien? This doesn't seem rational. ;)
An interesting way to look at the random assumption, is to consider two basic working examples of this mechanism in action, that are often used in education; cards and dice. Both cards and dice and not natural, but are manmade games. The dynamics behind these games, follow random principles. Bu these games are not found in nature but were placed there by man. What appears to have happened is applied science; the mathematical dynamics behind the manmade games of dice and cards, have been defined as natural and not manmade. This assumption, became transposed onto evolution, even though such a mechanism will cause more problems due to side affects; house of death wins over time.
It looks like the person who wrote that tried to make some sort of argument, but failed. Is that supposed to be an example of randomly putting ideas together and hoping they produce something viable?
A logical mechanism involves a partnership between organics and water, with water the integrating variable of life and organics the differentiation variable. The current approach does not have water playing the role of the integrating variable, but it only uses the organics as a differentiation variable. Ransom is used in place of water's integration, with the mechanics of water hidden in a black box.
What is it with cranks who thing that there is some magic property of water? I wish that they would ignore medicine entirely, stick to homeopathy, and die from something easily treated.
-
The replication of DNA does indeed depend on the hydrogen bonds between paired bases, and it is particularly susceptible to interference from free radicals in the cytoplasm (mostly water). The longterm result would, interestingly, be the twisting and kinking of the daughter DNA through spurious crosslinking. Fortunately there is enough "junk" DNA to prevent this very frequent occurrence from having many serious consequences - most such mutations are harmless or nonviable.
-
Some great, global-warming-denier level reasoning here!
The theory of natural selection makes logical sense and can be observed in nature. Even if you are a religious person and assume life began via a Creationist's mechanism. After the first life appears, natural selection, thereafter, is consistent with the divine plan. The strongest lion controls the land and rules the pride. While the fastest and evasive prey, lives to breed another day, etc., Even with humans, strong empires dominate the weaker ones and persist; selection. After Genesis,forward, natural selection is consistent and not contradictory to religion.
That's not natural selection. Natural selection is that if different organisms have different traits that could make a difference to their survival and their ability to reproduce, then the details of the environment will determine the population profile of these organisms based on survival and reproduction. This does not favor the "strong" and it does not favor that certain beings "dominate" other beings. It is merely that the profile of a given population will change over time to reflect how the environment works to preferentially kill organisms with certain traits or prevent these organisms from reproducing.
The theory of random change on the DNA, does not make sense, since a random change mechanism, over time, will lead to more problems and side affects than to global advantages.
That's an interesting claim offered without any evidence (like the claims offered by most global warming deniers).
Even if that claim is true, so what? We can see a) that organisms do differ in their traits and b) that these traits are passed down through inheritance. This is enough to drive evolution by natural selection, There is also a crazy amount of evidence of mutations to DNA, e.g., many forms of cancer. So, yes, we could even accept the dubious claim that most DNA mutations would be detrimental and still find no problem to the overall theory of natural selection with the input of new traits from DNA mutation.
In reality, we find a whole host of systems in organisms that prevent mutations from being entirely debilitating and that render many mutations neutral.
If we randomly made medicines, not only will the ordinal intent rarely work, but the side affects would be all over the board. We need to use logic to target the medicine, which even after that can still cause side affects.
This is a false analogy, since pharmaceuticals are usually designed with a set of purposes, whereas mutations need not have any purpose. Mutations can sit in a population as neutral or close to neutral. Of course, there are many cases in the development of pharmaceuticals where a product developed for one purpose is actually good for another, just as a random mutation can turn out to produce a trait that increases an organism's ability to survive in one particular environment.
Very few changes will advance one isolated pocket, while ignoring the integration of pieces, to create no side affects.
Another claim offered without evidence. A careful look at the nature of DNA and at the nature of mutations doesn't make this claim look likely.
This is where Creation and Evolution start to separate. Creationism assumes a more ordered mechanism for change. They call it this mechanism God's will. One may not agree with this premise, but it is not based on a random approach, but rather depends on logical extrapolation from foundation premises. Even of you assume God does it, he does it at the chemical level.
I'll agree that this is a big assumption! But why do Creationists assume that some deity does all this rather than an alien? This doesn't seem rational. ;)
An interesting way to look at the random assumption, is to consider two basic working examples of this mechanism in action, that are often used in education; cards and dice. Both cards and dice and not natural, but are manmade games. The dynamics behind these games, follow random principles. Bu these games are not found in nature but were placed there by man. What appears to have happened is applied science; the mathematical dynamics behind the manmade games of dice and cards, have been defined as natural and not manmade. This assumption, became transposed onto evolution, even though such a mechanism will cause more problems due to side affects; house of death wins over time.
It looks like the person who wrote that tried to make some sort of argument, but failed. Is that supposed to be an example of randomly putting ideas together and hoping they produce something viable?
A logical mechanism involves a partnership between organics and water, with water the integrating variable of life and organics the differentiation variable. The current approach does not have water playing the role of the integrating variable, but it only uses the organics as a differentiation variable. Ransom is used in place of water's integration, with the mechanics of water hidden in a black box.
What is it with cranks who thing that there is some magic property of water? I wish that they would ignore medicine entirely, stick to homeopathy, and die from something easily treated.
Physical Chemistry proves that water is the integrator of life. For example with the DNA:
Nucleic acid hydration is crucially important for their conformation and utility, as noted by Watson and Crick. The strength of these aqueous interactions is far greater than those for proteins due to their highly ionic character. The DNA double helix can take up a number of conformations (for example, right handed A-DNA pitch 28.2 Å 11 bp, B-DNA pitch 34 Å 10 bp, C-DNA pitch 31Å 9.33 bp, D-DNA pitch 24.2 Å 8 bp and the left handed Z-DNA pitch 43Å 12 bp) with differing hydration. The predominant natural DNA, B-DNA, has a wide and deep major groove and a narrow and deep minor groove and requires the greatest hydration.
The conformation of the DNA reflects the overall structure of the DNA as reflected by the winding characteristics of the double helix. There are five quantum conformations of DNA, that we are aware of. I call these quanta because they are very distinct state and we live in a quantum universe. This is by design in the sense of how DNA and water add in terms of free energy. You will not get the same free energy addition with other solvents and the DNA. The amount of hydration or the amount of water chemically bonded to the DNA, impacts the entire DNA to form an integrated affect. You can tweak the water with dissolve things; ions to enzymes, to alter the activity of the local water, within the bandwidth of each quantum state; integrated activity on the DNA.
The reason is. the water not only hydrogen bonds to the DNA, to form a double helix of water within the major and minor grooves, but water also binds to other water, with up to four hydrogen bonds, with the total water structuring acting as a scaffolding to mold and hold the DNA in a quantum state. It is not coincidence that the predominant natural B-DNA has the most hydration. That was never a random occurrence, but was a goal from the beginning based on free energy considerations. Evolution moves in the direction of free energy in water, since that decides the integration.
I am not a big fan of statistics since this can be used to mislead. The random assumptions are based on blind man's prophesy. This is not new, but was around before the age of reason. The alchemists used this approach due to lack of analytical equipment. Their beaker was black box. The main difference is the modern version has math support.
In both cases, if you don't understand the logic, one way to proceed is to place the DNA in a black box and assume random; anything can happen. You monitor inputs and outputs to narrow this down. This does not means natural is based on random, it only means this is the procedure needed to use the oracle. Oracles, are devices were something outside you thinks for you. This is the basis for many religions; blind man prophecies, Since you don't think on your own, but rely on the oracle, there is an emotional attachment instead of a rational attachment. This is why some discussions in science does get so emotional. Emotional science will usually have statistical connection, which appeal to fear. It is how the brain works.
Don't get me wrong, statistical oracles can be useful for assemble line science and technology, where your follow a procedure but don't have to understand what is going on, beyond the reading of the oracle. Some things are complicated and there is not enough time and money to worry about all this details.
I remember doing a project as a young engineer. The project involved treating mercury contaminate water, down to below the best existing technology; down to parts per trillion. This had to be invented and done under emergency conditions, where the news media was involved and the EPA was at the door in negotiations. I invented what I needed, in a few weeks and was ready to go.
The bureaucrats, who are more tuned to the winds of politics of the day, were not wanting to be the one who gets the blame if things went wrong. They hired me a statistician to shadow me. I told them, save the money and that this was rational chemistry and it would work easily. But to them, they felt better placing this in a black box. The statistician was there to cover them, if things went bad. You can average numbers and use statistical arguments, and lawyer talk to work the political system. In the end, my shadow was not needed and it all worked out as reason dictated. They could have saved the money and not wasted time appeasing fear. But bureaucrats feels safer with the escape routes offered by the oracle.
Rational science since does not have as much political fudge factoring, as statistical science. If we found one exception to Einsteins theory of relativity, it would need to be revised. One little data out of place can doom a rational theory. But if this same phenomena was placed in the black box and massaged with statistics, half your data can be bad, and it still can be called a valid theory. This is why it is preferred by politics. Science needs a new age of reason, to supersede modern alchemy. This will include water the integrator and the organics the differentiator, so the standard of proof is once again higher than the political and free market minded oracle.
Statistical models of evolution are dishonest, because they set the bar too low relative to the standard placed on rational science. Bad data is accepted as part of the theory. This is justified by the illusion that the universe is random, even though we live in a quantum universe where only certain states are allowed. Most of the random is not even possible in a quantum universe.
With a rational approach one data point out of place is enough to force you back to the drawing board. How about we allow all existing rational theories 100 bad data points before it has to change? Would that be rational and lead to better theory? Why is the statistical oracle given a lower standard?
-
Physical Chemistry proves that water is the integrator of life.
More vague claims that do not support the crank idea that there is something magical about water missing from science.
I am not a big fan of statistics since this can be used to mislead.
So, rather than learn how to use them correctly, you are going to ignore the science and peddle magic water and god in place of the actual science. And you side with the people calling evolution dishonest.
The random assumptions are based on blind man's prophesy. This is not new, but was around before the age of reason. The alchemists used this approach due to lack of analytical equipment. Their beaker was black box. The main difference is the modern version has math support.
a) Alchemists were very much not believers in randomness. b) OF COURSE THE MATH SUPPORT MAKES A DIFFERENCE.
In both cases, if you don't understand the logic, one way to proceed is to place the DNA in a black box and assume random;
Nobody just assumes random and nobody just puts DNA in a black box. Well, you do, since you just think that water is magic.
Don't get me wrong, statistical oracles can be useful for assemble line science and technology, where your follow a procedure but don't have to understand what is going on, beyond the reading of the oracle. Some things are complicated and there is not enough time and money to worry about all this details.
The one not understanding things is clearly you, since you refuse to learn the relevant math and science.
The bureaucrats, who are more tuned to the winds of politics of the day, were not wanting to be the one who gets the blame if things went wrong. They hired me a statistician to shadow me. I told them, save the money and that this was rational chemistry and it would work easily. But to them, they felt better placing this in a black box. The statistician was there to cover them, if things went bad. You can average numbers and use statistical arguments, and lawyer talk to work the political system. In the end, my shadow was not needed and it all worked out as reason dictated. They could have saved the money and not wasted time appeasing fear. But bureaucrats feels safer with the escape routes offered by the oracle.
So your complaint is that people responsible for protecting people's health and lives refused to merely take your word that your procedure worked and actually analyzed your work. That reflects really poorly on your character.
Rational science since does not have as much political fudge factoring, as statistical science. If we found one exception to Einsteins theory of relativity, it would need to be revised.
That's not how science works. There have been lots of "exceptions" found, but so far most of them have been dismissed because of potential error in making observations. Because all observations are subject to the possibility of error and statistical reasoning is required to understand and deal with this.
-
many strains of bacteria today are evolving resistance to antibiotic drugs--chemicals that they would never need to have worried about until the last century.
The majority of our antibiotics are chemicals derived from nature, that have been used in battles between microbes since time immemorial. Antibiotic resistance genes have existed in nature almost as long as these antibiotic genes have existed in nature.
What we see is that antibiotic genes can transfer from bacteria in the environment into bacteria that normally live on humans, via horizontal gene transfer. (But the appearance of antibiotic resistance in the tuberculosis bacterium is apparently a bit of a mystery, since it appears isolated from the outside world for much of its life-cycle...)
Apparently, bacteria cultured permafrost soil samples, and dated as thousands of years old have shown the presence of antibiotic resistance genes. This predates human mass manufacture of antibiotics.
Yes, most of our pharmacopeia is derived from the products of eons of chemical warfare between battling microorganisms, so the mechanisms of action of most any drug are probably similar to those of compounds already weaponized and defended against by evolution. But semisynthetic compounds, like azithromycin (derived from the natural antibiotic erythromycin A), are novel compounds that bacteria would not have come across until a few decades ago. That they have evolved some resistance so quickly (luckily not complete yet), is truly impressive!
We are beginning to develop completely synthetic antibiotics ( http://cen.acs.org/articles/94/i21/Fully-synthetic-method-create-thousands.html ), and even still the arms race continues.
-
many strains of bacteria today are evolving resistance to antibiotic drugs--chemicals that they would never need to have worried about until the last century.
The majority of our antibiotics are chemicals derived from nature, that have been used in battles between microbes since time immemorial. Antibiotic resistance genes have existed in nature almost as long as these antibiotic genes have existed in nature.
What we see is that antibiotic genes can transfer from bacteria in the environment into bacteria that normally live on humans, via horizontal gene transfer. (But the appearance of antibiotic resistance in the tuberculosis bacterium is apparently a bit of a mystery, since it appears isolated from the outside world for much of its life-cycle...)
Apparently, bacteria cultured permafrost soil samples, and dated as thousands of years old have shown the presence of antibiotic resistance genes. This predates human mass manufacture of antibiotics.
Yes, most of our pharmacopeia is derived from the products of eons of chemical warfare between battling microorganisms, so the mechanisms of action of most any drug are probably similar to those of compounds already weaponized and defended against by evolution. But semisynthetic compounds, like azithromycin (derived from the natural antibiotic erythromycin A), are novel compounds that bacteria would not have come across until a few decades ago. That they have evolved some resistance so quickly (luckily not complete yet), is truly impressive!
We are beginning to develop completely synthetic antibiotics ( http://cen.acs.org/articles/94/i21/Fully-synthetic-method-create-thousands.html (http://cen.acs.org/articles/94/i21/Fully-synthetic-method-create-thousands.html) ), and even still the arms race continues.
This is a rational approach, since we are narrowing things down based on what already works.
The problem I have with the statistical approach is this approach to science often becomes science with emotions, such as fear or desire. Gambling, which is based on odds and statistics can be very addictive. Although this involved math, underlying gambling is an emotional desire to win a jackpot. Even though the house will always win in the long term, this type of math and science analysis can be driven by emotions.
You will not find anything similar, in terms of addiction, with rational studies, since this is an orderly and boring process. Although when it is done, and if it works, there will create enthusiasm.
Let me give an example of the difference. There are about 36 million smokers in the USA and about 480000 die of smoking related disease each year. This means that about 35.5 million smokers don't die. If we put aside the fear of death and the unknown, the overwhelming data favors the correlation that smoking does not necessarily lead to dying of disease. If we add fear, we will ignore the preponderance of the data and highlight the much smaller data set, and says smoking causes death by disease and therefore fear. Emotion can be the difference between a rational analysis of the data and a statistical analysis. One in a million will be called risk=fear in some statistical studies. Reason would look at the 999,999.
Say a child is in their yard throwing a ball straight up, as best they can. Every now and then the wind or their arm is off and the ball drifts laterally and goes into the neighbor price winning flower garden. If this was a rational scientific study to test throwing a ball upward, the correlation will be in favor of the preponderance of the data. If we add fear, the neighbor will not look at the positive correlation, but will assume the ball will hits his flowers each time based on one data point.
The same is true of proving modern evolution with statistics. You can look far at millions of boring routine examples of life going on, and only see a tiny fraction of a percent of possible examples of evolutionary change. Yet, based on the sentimental attachment to the theory, this becomes proof as though minimalist data means more than preponderance. This is allowed by statistics, since statistical studies hides unknown, in the black box, causing the induction of emotion; feat or intrigue. The emotion then tricks the brain to integrate less data, to infer more. The fear of the prize winning gardener will make him draw the wrong conclusion in terms of the ball in the air study, which other neighbors will also accept out of emotional compassion. It is a magic trick.
The rebuttal to this analysis will involve emotions. Emotions are needed to narrow the data field so it appears integrated. If you hate someone, you cannot see the good things. This data will be thrown out. The emotion of hate will narrow your mind to just data that justifies that feeling. If this emotionally narrowed data set was the entire set, the hate would be a good correlation. In rational studies, lack of emotion opens the data set and the correlation can change. Evolution is insecure, with Creationism, because both use emotions, wth religion not in denial about it.
My approach was to remove the emotion by looking in the black box; water. You can't deny this data unless you use emotions. This is why I said, random is not new but was the ancient form of science, allowing correlations that made no rational sense based on the preponderance of the evidence; whims of the gods.
-
The problem I have with the statistical approach is this approach to science often becomes science with emotions, such as fear or desire. Gambling, which is based on odds and statistics can be very addictive. Although this involved math, underlying gambling is an emotional desire to win a jackpot. Even though the house will always win in the long term, this type of math and science analysis can be driven by emotions.
You might like to stick your head in the sand and believe your comforting myths, but nothing in the world is certain. There are choices of belief that have to be made for every scientific claim. You want to ignore the probabilities involved in favor of your own myths. This is not something that is going to be helpful to humanity as a whole.
Let me give an example of the difference. There are about 36 million smokers in the USA and about 480000 die of smoking related disease each year. This means that about 35.5 million smokers don't die. If we put aside the fear of death and the unknown, the overwhelming data favors the correlation that smoking does not necessarily lead to dying of disease. If we add fear, we will ignore the preponderance of the data and highlight the much smaller data set, and says smoking causes death by disease and therefore fear. Emotion can be the difference between a rational analysis of the data and a statistical analysis. One in a million will be called risk=fear in some statistical studies. Reason would look at the 999,999.
There is a far higher correlation between those people claiming that there is no link between smoking and cancer and those people denying global warming. Seriously, this is something well established; the same PR firms that hired "scientists" to deny that smoking causes serious health problems hired the same people to deny global warming. (Of course, these people were no more qualified on one topic than the other.)
Do people have to judge risks on their own? Yes. But puppypower wants you to ignore the statistics and assume that you will be safe!
Say a child is in their yard throwing a ball straight up, as best they can. Every now and then the wind or their arm is off and the ball drifts laterally and goes into the neighbor price winning flower garden. If this was a rational scientific study to test throwing a ball upward, the correlation will be in favor of the preponderance of the data. If we add fear, the neighbor will not look at the positive correlation, but will assume the ball will hits his flowers each time based on one data point.
That's not how statistics work. But note: "prize winning". puppypower is arguing that we shouldn't be concerned about really bad outcomes. This kind of reasoning suggests that nobody should wear seat belts or motorcycle helmets or ever buy insurance or any kind. In short, puppypower's reasoning is insane.
The same is true of proving modern evolution with statistics. You can look far at millions of boring routine examples of life going on, and only see a tiny fraction of a percent of possible examples of evolutionary change.
Actually, you find examples of evolutionary change in almost every single example!
Yet, based on the sentimental attachment to the theory, this becomes proof as though minimalist data means more than preponderance. This is allowed by statistics, since statistical studies hides unknown, in the black box, causing the induction of emotion; feat or intrigue. The emotion then tricks the brain to integrate less data, to infer more. The fear of the prize winning gardener will make him draw the wrong conclusion in terms of the ball in the air study, which other neighbors will also accept out of emotional compassion. It is a magic trick.
Again with this "black box". puppypower essential says that since s/he doesn't understand statistics, it must not make sense.
The rebuttal to this analysis will involve emotions. Emotions are needed to narrow the data field so it appears integrated.
The "rebuttal" is that nothing puppypower writes about statistics or evolution is grounded in the facts of how either is researched, developed, or used.
-
Let me give an example of the difference. There are about 36 million smokers in the USA and about 480000 die of smoking related disease each year. This means that about 35.5 million smokers don't die. If we put aside the fear of death and the unknown, the overwhelming data favors the correlation that smoking does not necessarily lead to dying of disease. If we add fear, we will ignore the preponderance of the data and highlight the much smaller data set, and says smoking causes death by disease and therefore fear.
A poor example of whatever it is you are talking about. If the normal life expectancy is 80, then you would expect 1 in 80 smokers, i.e. 1.25%, to die every year from "all causes". But your figures show that 1.3% die each year from one cause alone, so there is a strong correlation between that cause of death and the group characteristic - smoking.
-
Let me give an example of the difference. There are about 36 million smokers in the USA and about 480000 die of smoking related disease each year. This means that about 35.5 million smokers don't die. If we put aside the fear of death and the unknown, the overwhelming data favors the correlation that smoking does not necessarily lead to dying of disease. If we add fear, we will ignore the preponderance of the data and highlight the much smaller data set, and says smoking causes death by disease and therefore fear.
A poor example of whatever it is you are talking about. If the normal life expectancy is 80, then you would expect 1 in 80 smokers, i.e. 1.25%, to die every year from "all causes". But your figures show that 1.3% die each year from one cause alone, so there is a strong correlation between that cause of death and the group characteristic - smoking.
If you compare Newton's correlation for gravity to the health correlation for cigarettes smoking, the cigarette correlation involves the emotion of fear of death. Attached to the science is a feeling of urgency. Manmade global warming also makes use of fear of doom and gloom and death. Newton's Gravity does not involve the same level of emotion, but is about a physical observation that is what it is. These are two different types of correlations, one has emotions and the other does not. Science is not supposed induce emotion, but only generate matter of fact. You would have to over act to get Newtonian gravity to become emotional. The emotions flow quickly and easily with cigarette correlations.
Many people go to a gambling casino, with feelings of lucking expectation, so even slight winning trends at the slots, will cause some people to invest a lot of money in that lucky feeling correlation. When you add emotion to science and math, the brain will narrow the data field to only data that appears to parallel and reinforces the emotion. This is how addiction works. There is risk for everything, but we don't fear everything. If there is a study that targets fear and adds an official statistical risk factor, then we have emotional science to justify that fear. A phobia finds a few support data, and then ignores the preponderance of data, just like most risk factors. This affect is natural and is based on who the brain works.
The trick behind emotional science has to do with the way the brain creates memory. When memory is written to the cerebral matter, an emotional tag is added by the core regions of the brain. This useful to the animal brain since if the animal see the same or similar data situation again, the same emotion will trigger, allowing a reflex action, without the need for thought. For example, if the animal had been hunting for food and found a new source that was good, this memory will be tagged with a good feeling. If in the future, they see it again, the visual will trigger the memory and the good feeling, so they will eat. There is no need to analyze all over again.
Memories with similar emotional tags tends to cluster. A good example of this is the feeling of hunger. If you are hungry, just before lunch, the main data that will appear in your mind and your awareness will be connected to food and food preparation. One will not start thinking of solving cross word puzzles or making the bed, since this data does not have the emotional tag of hunger. It is not part of that hunger cluster. This tagging and clustering of memory with similar emotional valence is who the brain can be induced to data stack via emotions. Marketing may use have a sexy girl or guy sell a car to a target market, with the hope the memory of the car is stored with the desire memory cluster, so when you are in the mood, the car will also appear on your mind.
If we do a risk analysis with statistics and are able to correlate fear, the emotion of fear will trigger memories; data, that all have a connection to the fear tag. They do not have to be related but all types of doom and gloom can happen also. Many people will not be able to see the bright side of the data; the preponderance of the low risk data, since this data does not have a fear tag. The result is data stacking that appears to reinforce the correlation of fear. This is why it is hard to pursued someone who holds an emotional correlation.
The emotional tell for evolution, besides statistics, is evolution is one of the few foundation theories in all of science that generates so much emotion, all the way to inducing the need for politics and censorship. Nobody is emotionally arguing the same way about the DNA double helix or the periodic table. If I claimed the DNA was in the shape of a figure eight, you would laugh and not circle the wagons. These are matter of fact and don't need emotional help. Even religion does not get emotional about the periodic table. There is only a small set that causes emotion to them. Evolution, as is, is an emotional science correlation that triggers emotion, to narrow the data to similar tagging, so it appears certain over the entire range of observation, even when it does not.
For example, If we took a walk in the woods and I asked you to show me examples of evolution around me, in real time, it is very rare to find anything conclusive. There will be some data. Yet even one example, for some people, is enough to reinforce that this applies to all, even though all, minus one, is not showing anything. Emotions will allow that, since the emotions will narrow data field perception and ignore what is not tagged the same way. If you are not on the same emotional page, your data set will not be the same.
Underlying statistics is the assumption of randomness. The question is what is the logic behind the source of randomness? Is random, randomly created or does random have a logic? The ancient people, who used an emotional science approach, explained random and odds via the whims of the gods. Being the whims of the gods, anything could happen. A minor risk could become a mountain of fear, if the gods so felt inclined. Yet science has shown we live in a quantum universe which means not all things are randomly possible. There are only certain allowable states. But you can't tell that to someone who correlates to fear, since places where fear is quantum absent, will not appear in their data perception.
The way know evolution, as is, uses emotional science, is it does not take into account water to the level of its contribution. The contribution of water is well documented by objective science. Water is in contact with all the materials in the cell and is part of the structures of the active molecules, helping to define shapes, activity, signally and identity. Organics in a vacuum is not a reality assumption, but it can work with emotions science induced by statistics since this can poise the mind to narrow the data set. Water is not part of that limited data set and can't even get through because there is emotional data blocking, so the feeling of evolution can stay the same.
If you analyze life with respect to water, there you can see evolution in all things. This does not always translate all the way to the entire life form in real time, but parts of the whole are in flux, which over time, scales to larger scale macro changes.
-
If you compare Newton's correlation for gravity to the health correlation for cigarettes smoking, the cigarette correlation involves the emotion of fear of death. Attached to the science is a feeling of urgency.
Sure,, because smoking literally kills people. For whatever reason, you reject the actual practice of science and you seem not only to not care about the well-being of your fellow humans, you actually argue against their well-being.
Manmade global warming also makes use of fear of doom and gloom and death.
Yes, because it also literally kills people. It already has.
Newton's Gravity does not involve the same level of emotion, but is about a physical observation that is what it is. These are two different types of correlations, one has emotions and the other does not. Science is not supposed induce emotion, but only generate matter of fact. You would have to over act to get Newtonian gravity to become emotional. The emotions flow quickly and easily with cigarette correlations.
Science is very emotional because humans are emotional. It is foolish to pretend that somehow scientists avoid all emotion; no history of science supports the claim that scientists do their work without emotion.
Newtonian physics is used in many emotional contexts. I know someone who worked in analyzing the physics of airplane crashes. In many of those crashes, there were a lot of deaths; this investigator used Newtonian mechanics (among other scientific theories).
There is risk for everything, but we don't fear everything. If there is a study that targets fear and adds an official statistical risk factor, then we have emotional science to justify that fear. A phobia finds a few support data, and then ignores the preponderance of data, just like most risk factors. This affect is natural and is based on who the brain works.
I suspect that you have as little evidence for your claim on how the brain works as you have for every other assertion you have ever written. Regardless, it is only you here who is throwing out all statistical reasoning.
The emotional tell for evolution, besides statistics, is evolution is one of the few foundation theories in all of science that generates so much emotion,
Yes, it does generate a lot of emotion from people who think that it conflicts with their religious belief. If we want to follow your reasoning, we should reject as false any statement that might contradict the claims of any given religion. That seems like epistemological suicide.
all the way to inducing the need for politics and censorship.
Yes, it is true that religious people across the world censor evolution. Is it your position that everything that is censored is false?
Nobody is emotionally arguing the same way about the DNA double helix or the periodic table. If I claimed the DNA was in the shape of a figure eight, you would laugh and not circle the wagons.
People would laugh at you, that I guarantee.
For example, If we took a walk in the woods and I asked you to show me examples of evolution around me, in real time, it is very rare to find anything conclusive.
There will be some data. Yet even one example, for some people, is enough to reinforce that this applies to all, even though all, minus one, is not showing anything. Emotions will allow that, since the emotions will narrow data field perception and ignore what is not tagged the same way. If you are not on the same emotional page, your data set will not be the same.
So, because you might be able to find some people who reason poorly, you are going to reject evolution and all statistical reasoning. I'm laughing at you right now.
Underlying statistics is the assumption of randomness.
Nope. Some statistical reasoning is based entirely on the lack of ability of people to come to a specific conclusion. Why do you insist on trying to lecture people n statistics when you clearly don't know much about statistics?
-
This analysis you represented is analogous to loading the genetic dice, so only certain sides are ever come into play, while other sides remain out of play.
The question becomes how does the cell know how to load the genetic dice in ways that allow for adaptation and selective advantage? This is where the modern theory of evolution breaks down, in terms of being science, and becoming philosophy. In other words, we observe how parts of the DNA are very conservative and not subject to the same odds, but how is this possible and what the mechanism is, is not part of the analysis.
The cell "knows" which genes to allow to mutate more often based on the natural selection that its ancestors underwent: if it was advantageous for a given gene to mutate more often, then those members of the population with higher mutation rates in that gene would have had a fitness advantage over those that had lower mutation rates. Alternatively, if it was disadvantageous for a given gene to mutate very often, then those organisms which had more strict proofreading mechanisms for that gene would have been more fit and would have reproduced more successfully than their competitors.
-
If you compare Newton's correlation for gravity to the health correlation for cigarettes smoking, the cigarette correlation involves the emotion of fear of death.
Puppycack. The correlation is based on diagnosed morbidity and postmortem statistics. Smokers obviously have no fear of dying from smoking-related diseases, or at least are less afraid of lung cancer, cardiovascular disease etc than of dementia, bowel cancer, and all the other things that kill nonsmokers. The correlation was immediately obvious to me from your figures, and I have no fear of death at all.
I'm sure that if you put your data in front of anyone with an elementary grasp of statistics, but changed the titles of the numbers, he would spot that A is significantly greater than B where A is the fraction of beer drinkers who like pork scratchings and B are teetotallers. Is swinophobia involved in that calculation? I think not.
The statistics of smoking, gambling, and downhill skiing are well established and very boring. The average smoker dies prematurely, the average gambler loses his money, and the average skier will go faster and faster until he breaks something. So what? People smoke, gamble, and hurtle themselves down mountains because they like doing it.
-
If you compare Newton's correlation for gravity to the health correlation for cigarettes smoking, the cigarette correlation involves the emotion of fear of death.
Puppycack. The correlation is based on diagnosed morbidity and postmortem statistics. Smokers obviously have no fear of dying from smoking-related diseases, or at least are less afraid of lung cancer, cardiovascular disease etc than of dementia, bowel cancer, and all the other things that kill nonsmokers. The correlation was immediately obvious to me from your figures, and I have no fear of death at all.
I'm sure that if you put your data in front of anyone with an elementary grasp of statistics, but changed the titles of the numbers, he would spot that A is significantly greater than B where A is the fraction of beer drinkers who like pork scratchings and B are teetotallers. Is swinophobia involved in that calculation? I think not.
The statistics of smoking, gambling, and downhill skiing are well established and very boring. The average smoker dies prematurely, the average gambler loses his money, and the average skier will go faster and faster until he breaks something. So what? People smoke, gamble, and hurtle themselves down mountains because they like doing it.
What you are saying sounds reasonable and compassionate. However, there are also examples of people who smoke and suffer no ill affects. I am not saying everyone should smoke based on these exceptions, but these people are not under the statistical correlation, yet they are required to be afraid of the boogey man. My very mention of these exceptions, will always be misunderstood, because it will interpreted that I am suggesting nobody should be afraid; reverse statistical one size fits all. I am not being statistical but rational. What I am saying is a statistical correlation has an impact, due to fear, that often exceeds it rational credibility. The experts may know the difference, but the end users may not always know this overlap is due to the fear. Evolution needs mass support, and the masses can be fooled based on an emotional correlation.
As an analogy, Relativity only applies to gravity and velocity. It is very targeted. If either of those two states are in affect we can expect relativity to some degree. If we tagged on fear, due the bending of time and space; black box, even situations which have no basis in reality for relativity, can be made the the territory of the bogey man.
This emotional affect of statistics is due to the black box approach. This adds unknowns to the analysis, which impact the brain in an opened ended way. If you do not know something, you will fear it, ignore it, try to explain and/or try to extrapolate it. This adds the fuzzy dice of subjectivity to the good dice of data. The math can differentiate, but the conclusion for the consumer will have the fuzzy dice. Some cigarette smokers, smoke for 40 years and have good health. But even they will be nagged at as though the fuzzy dice of fear are real dice. Fuzzy dice benefits evolution since it can make an overlap that is not there.
A good rational theory for cigarette smoking, to use an example, could differentiate Joe from John, who can smoke and who can't smoke and/or for how long or not at all. This is not based on one size fits all using fear and compassion via projection. Once you add statistics, you add subjectivity, since you can't pin point one from the other but apply the same odds to all; bogey man does not discriminate. This is useful but not real in a rational world. Evolution needs this prosthesis to work, based on its current assumptions, which do not include all the features of water that are becoming more and more differentiated by science. This is currently part of the black box needed to make one size fit all using emotion.
Part 2
If you look at fossil data, what has been collective represents limited random sample of data, relative to all the possible fossils that could have been if all had been preserved. The result of this partial data set can be misleading, since a randomized sample of hard data, can appear to lead to a random based conclusion even of the ideal sample was not ransom but has an order.
For example, say I made an intricate mandala design with popcorn. A mandala is a circle with concentric rings, each with difference designs. After I am done, I will allow the birds and critters to eat the popcorn, with some remainder blown by the wind and rain, so the ants also eat. After one year, I come back with other people and ask them if the remaining popcorn has any original design to it.
The answer can be all over the place, since there some will see order in their imaginations, like cloud figure, but have no real proof. Even if the popcorn had original order, the data that is left does no show this, but looks to be random. This is based on the only hard data we have. One cannot go beyond the data and be called justified. The final random looking design, will justify using statistics, to explain how the popcorn began and ended this way. Reasoning that this was a mandala will not be allowed, since the sparse data does not show this. Evolution sort of got steered by protocols of data, to make a poor assumption,that leads to one size fits all, which can be seen with emotions.
-
What you are saying sounds reasonable and compassionate. However, there are also examples of people who smoke and suffer no ill affects.
There are a lot of really stupid things written in this forum. But even for a global warming denier, that was particularly stupid.
We get it, you don't understand statistics and it makes you anxious and you would rather everyone forgets about them so that you feel better about yourself. This is not going to happen. You are projecting your fears on other people.
As an analogy, Relativity only applies to gravity and velocity. It is very targeted. If either of those two states are in affect we can expect relativity to some degree. If we tagged on fear, due the bending of time and space; black box, even situations which have no basis in reality for relativity, can be made the the territory of the bogey man.
You are legitimately bonkers here. There is one huge area of relativity theory that causes a lot of fear: nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons rely on the idea that mass can be converted to energy that relativity theory established. By your "being rational", we should reject relativity theory.
If you look at fossil data, what has been collective represents limited random sample of data, relative to all the possible fossils that could have been if all had been preserved. The result of this partial data set can be misleading, since a randomized sample of hard data, can appear to lead to a random based conclusion even of the ideal sample was not ransom but has an order.
Yes, that is possible. However, it would be very less likely that the fossil record that we have would match so nicely the genetic record that we can create of descent.
But why appeal to statistics now? Oh, yeah, because you are afraid of evolution!
For example, say I made an intricate mandala design with popcorn. A mandala is a circle with concentric rings, each with difference designs. After I am done, I will allow the birds and critters to eat the popcorn, with some remainder blown by the wind and rain, so the ants also eat. After one year, I come back with other people and ask them if the remaining popcorn has any original design to it.
The answer can be all over the place, since there some will see order in their imaginations, like cloud figure, but have no real proof. Even if the popcorn had original order, the data that is left does no show this, but looks to be random.
The problem with this is that the action of evolution is not random. That's because of the whole natural selection part. What variety that natural selection has to work on within a population is somewhat random, but the action of selection is not random.
You are so afraid of evolution that yo won't actually learn about it.
This is based on the only hard data we have. One cannot go beyond the data and be called justified.
If not, then we can never do any science. Ever.
Fortunately, respectable human beings can actually do science.
-
However, there are also examples of people who smoke and suffer no ill affects. I am not saying everyone should smoke based on these exceptions, but these people are not under the statistical correlation, yet they are required to be afraid of the boogey man.
No. Medical statistics do not make people afraid of death - that is the job of religion. But they do give you an increasingly sound basis for making rational decisions.
The ultimate measure of civilisation is the extent to which we can choose how and when we die. If progressive claudication, gangrene, amputation, longterm respiratory and cardiac insufficiency and lung cancer are your preferences, then smoking is a good lifestyle choice, even though it may limit your social and professional life.
If there weren't exceptions, we wouldn't need statistics. A bullet through the brain works so well that the statistics for failed suicide by that means are negligible. But in cases of chronic toxicity as induced by tobacco, we can only talk about probabilities of premature death within a given population: quite a few smokers die from other causes before their chosen exit.
At present we have absolutely no idea what differentiates Joe from John. All we can say is that there are very few surviving Joes, and since there is no evidence of any positive benefit accruing to either, it's a waste of time and effort doing any research into smoking or its associated diseases. The best slogan I recall was "You smoke, I drink. If you exhale in my office, I'll urinate in yours."
-
Natural selection has an intuitive logic, since it was developed during the latter part of the age of reason, before the return to middle age randomness. Natural selection is based on what is optimized to the local and global environmental potentials. If it is a cold place, selection will involve what is optimized to the potentials created by the cold. I have no problem with this, since it is rational and reasonable. Darwin does not fully addresses the hows of internal change, since this was before we knew about the DNA. Darwin theory is about after any changes appears; natural selection.
The aspect of evolution, that is not rational, is how changes used by selection, occur on the genetics. Random changes on the DNA does not make any sense since there are more things that can go wrong than can go right. All you need to do is look at genetic related diseases and conditions. These appear due to random changes on the DNA; missing genes, mutations due to oxidants and pollutants, etc.. How often have you even heard of any of these random genetic mutations in humans, making the patient even better than the original? All the marketing is for proactive defense against such changes; sunscreen, because random change rarely leads to good. The left hand of statistics does not know what the right hand is doing. For a random change model to work, you need at least half good and half bad.There are more ways to make things worse than better, with random changes. The DNA has conservative areas which hardly change, since random change can cause more harm than good in foundation systems.
Like in medicine, even if we try to target a given sick area of the body for optimization, analogous to a targeted change on the DNA for the better, medicines still have side affects, since the body is globally integrated. You can put a new and more powerful engine in your car, but that can lead to other problems like the transmission breaks faster. For a random model to work, you need to throw many dice, and all these dice have to come up together like a team. It is not as simple as change in one gene. Like natural selection, the front needs logic and not cards or dice since side affects implies compounding odds against.
I am not against evolution. For some reason, evolution is treated like a political party platform, where anyone not with the entire program means you are not a dues paying member. This makes you a denier or a Creationists. It is one blind way or the highway. My disagreement is not with natural selection, but with the existing mechanism that provide the selections. I believe in internal logic, so more choices have the capacity to go right.
To me it comes down to natural selection at the nanoscale. Darwin applied his selection schema to the macro scale of animal and plants. Science has shown that selection can also occur at the cellular level. I take this one step further, and apply natural selection all the way to the nanoscale. Water is the global environment for all the chemical of life; nanoscale environment. Water defines the potential for chemical selection, just like a cold climate defines potentials for fur selection.
It is not coincidence that the DNA is the most hydrated molecule in the cell. More water attaches itself chemically to the DNA than any other molecule in the cell. The DNA is highly optimized to the needs of the water; it exists at lowest potential with water. They almost merge as one thing. It is like the polar bear in the Arctic; king of the glaciers. Changes that occur on the polar bear need to stay within parameters.
Before we can go there, I needed to deal with the data bias created by random theory, since it its on blinders. I have tried to show how statistical modeling can lead to an emotional theory. I think I have demonstrated this with the smoking example. I demonstrated what would happen of we interpret smoker data based on the preponderance of the data; most people don't develop disease. I was not denying that smoking can be very harmful to many people. Instead I was showing how the preponderance of the data; all smokers, does not draw the same conclusion. However, in all the objections to my approach, the scary disease data points were given more subjective weight. The preponderance of the data, which have more units, is given less subjective weight. It is like we plot most of the data with a number 2 pencil, but the scary data uses skull and cross bones icons, which catch the eye and look more significant based on fear.
Natural selection works and should be applied at the nanoscale. All we need to know are the parameters set by the water environment to define which chemical changes will be selected. It works like Darwin picking animals. For example, studies at the nanoscale have shown 100 million volt/cm electric fields in the water attached to the DNA. This is a very hostile environment where only certain things will be selected. Random will get zapped and make pollution.
-
Natural selection is based on what is optimized to the local and global environmental potentials. If it is a cold place, selection will involve what is optimized to the potentials created by the cold. I have no problem with this, since it is rational and reasonable. Darwin does not fully addresses the hows of internal change, since this was before we knew about the DNA. Darwin theory is about after any changes appears; natural selection.
It is also about that a certain amount of variety exists and that this variety is heritable. Evidence for evolution would be that one could find a substance in organisms that relates to change and that is heritable. DNA is such a substance.
The aspect of evolution, that is not rational, is how changes used by selection, occur on the genetics. Random changes on the DNA does not make any sense since there are more things that can go wrong than can go right.
How can it not make sense if you just said it.
People seem to have a lot of myths about evolution and one of these myths is that organisms just get better. That doesn't happen. Evolution is about dying. Lots and lots of organisms die and some of them don't. So the fact that random mutations often lead to death is not a problem, unless one wants to hold onto a myth.
I am not against evolution.
No, you clearly are. This hatred, along with hatred of your fellow humans, is associated with a number of myths that you have latched on to. I hope that it at least makes you feel better about yourself.
For some reason, evolution is treated like a political party platform, where anyone not with the entire program means you are not a dues paying member.
Could it be the hordes of religious people who attempt to ban discussion of evolution that caused this? Could it be the actual politicians that try to ban the teaching of evolution that make it a political matter?
People like you, who don't bother to learn the relevant science and have a distinct anti-science agenda face resistance from those who don't share your peculiar motives. And then you try to weasel out of your intellectual failures by appealing to "political". Science has always been political. It has always had an impact on lives and livelihoods and there have always been political pressure from people like you to suppress it.
his makes you a denier or a Creationists.
But you are a denier. You denied global warming, despite the science. You denied statistics. You clearly don't like accuracy!
To me it comes down to natural selection at the nanoscale. Darwin applied his selection schema to the macro scale of animal and plants. Science has shown that selection can also occur at the cellular level. I take this one step further, and apply natural selection all the way to the nanoscale. Water is the global environment for all the chemical of life; nanoscale environment. Water defines the potential for chemical selection, just like a cold climate defines potentials for fur selection.
To you, it comes down to the fantasy that you have about the world. Other people don't share this fantasy.
-
How often have you even heard of any of these random genetic mutations in humans, making the patient even better than the original?
Speaking for myself, it seems that white skin, the ability to digest dairy products, and resilience to ethanol toxicity, are genetic mutations that have allowed people like me to survive and dominate our Neanderthal ancestors in an urban environment in northern Europe. Elsewhere in the world it seems the sickle cell gene provides some resilience to malaria but is AFAIK unknown among those with the "urban European" gene set. I'm sure there are other local adaptations too. Natural selection has simply ensured that those without the required variant don't survive in such large numbers.
-
How often have you even heard of any of these random genetic mutations in humans, making the patient even better than the original?
Speaking for myself, it seems that white skin, the ability to digest dairy products, and resilience to ethanol toxicity, are genetic mutations that have allowed people like me to survive and dominate our Neanderthal ancestors in an urban environment in northern Europe. Elsewhere in the world it seems the sickle cell gene provides some resilience to malaria but is AFAIK unknown among those with the "urban European" gene set. I'm sure there are other local adaptations too. Natural selection has simply ensured that those without the required variant don't survive in such large numbers.
These are a few good examples of positive genetic change. However, if you check the medical literature for genetic disorders more can go wrong than right, if the mechanism was random.
https://www.genome.gov/10001204/specific-genetic-disorders/
If you notice we are using an emotional judgement of good and evil genes based on what is assumed to be random changes. Emotion is part of this science and math approach. It helps us to fixate on one aspect of the data and not the preponderance of the data. Like I said before, random is not new, only the math is new. This is an ancient way of dealing with reality; whims of the gods.
I asked before, what is the physical basis for a random universe? Is there a logic behind random or did randomness create randomness? The ancient theory was that random was caused by the whims of the gods. It had a logical source; gods, which was itself often illogical. If you were an ancient person and assume this, there could be no rational explanations that always work, since any one of the gods could change things up on a whim. It kept people in the dark, because they needed to add a random variable; the god or goddess in charge of that aspect of reality.
This still appears to be still an artifact of the modern random POV. As pointed out by PhysBang and many others who hear my approach to evolution, my thinking about evolution, in a purely rational way, without random, is discouraged and judged by emotions. Everyone is supposed stay in the dark, since the whims of the god of chaos, will make any line of reasoning, unreliable. I suppose, in a historical sense, statistics honors our ancient past and help maintains a continuity, so we don't become too detached from our personality roots. I can respect that.
Natural Selection in Water
Darwin's theory of natural selection is based on the context of the environmental potentials. The environmental potentials can be caused by the physical and/or the living environments. The potentials can be caused by the desert, or the whimsy of mating choices. There is no law of science that says you can't extrapolate this logical schema, downward, all the way to the nanoscale. Currently it stops at about the cellular level.
In the case of life, the continuous phase, which does not change over time, is connected to the water. The organics evolve and change but the water stays the same. The water sets fixed environmental potentials, for the organics, while the organics, like life itself, can change and thereby alter the water environment and potential, thereby changing the parameters for selection in water. It builds upon itself via the changing potentials of the continuous water phase/environment, without water molecules ever really changing. This bridge of change between the water and the organics is the hydrogen bonding environment. This can change without H2O changing.
If we took a polar bear and brought it to the equator, the polar bear is not suited to this new hot environment. It will not be selected among all the animals, since the environmental potentials are not in harmony with the parameters of the polar bear. The polar bear evolved under different potentials. The same is true at the nanoscale. If we started with a cell and removed the water and then place the organics in a new solvent environment; ammonia or alcohol, there is no longer the conditions associated with life. In the case of the polar bear, overheating will extrapolate until all systems shut down. In the case of a new solvent environment, the solvent environment defines new potentials, altering the way the organics add up. They no longer add up to being alive, right down to all the proteins.
If you assume life can form in other solvents, for the sake of argument, one would expect a different chemical selection process for evolution in each solvent. Each solvent would have its own natural selection process, until the materials chosen coordinate with the potentials within that solvent. This goes right down to each selected molecule. All you need to do is replace water with another solvent to see how much stops working, since the new solvent does not select the same things.
Life in water is not random, but based on an aqueous selection process. Water would pick the same things again and again, since these molecules coordinate with the potentials in water's nanoscale environment.
-
These are a few good examples of positive genetic change. However, if you check the medical literature for genetic disorders more can go wrong than right, if the mechanism was random.
OMG! You might have it! Some changes are good, some are bad, some are neutral. Now add natural selection and multiply that by 4 billion years.
[quoteIf you notice we are using an emotional judgement of good and evil genes based on what is assumed to be random changes. Emotion is part of this science and math approach. It helps us to fixate on one aspect of the data and not the preponderance of the data. Like I said before, random is not new, only the math is new. This is an ancient way of dealing with reality; whims of the gods.
No, you are using emotion. In natural selection, it is whether or not an organism survives its environment and reproduces that particular hereditary trait. "Good" or "bad" don't matter.
I asked before, what is the physical basis for a random universe? Is there a logic behind random or did randomness create randomness? The ancient theory was that random was caused by the whims of the gods. It had a logical source; gods, which was itself often illogical. If you were an ancient person and assume this, there could be no rational explanations that always work, since any one of the gods could change things up on a whim. It kept people in the dark, because they needed to add a random variable; the god or goddess in charge of that aspect of reality.
In contemporary probability theory, there are two sources of a "random" result.
The first source is that there are so many different determined inputs to a process that it is impossible, given either the theory applied or the physical demands of human mental processing, to predict the outcome. Given that no scientist claims to have a perfect theory, there will always be some probability that any given scientific claim is incorrect in some way. This is often called subjective probability.
Of course, we can identify that many of the inputs to an event, while relevant to the event, are not relevant to our understanding of that event within a given science. So in a biological context, it is not relevant that an organism was killed by a falling rock, even though it was relevant to the causal story of why that organism died. So some of the probability that we have to use from this source is often considered objective probability, as it arises from features of the world that are not covered by the field of study. So how many organisms in a population will be effected by an epidemic can be considered to be influenced by a number of factors that are non-biological and not part of even the perfect story of the biological elements of the epidemic and the organisms involved, and the problem is in the world the biology takes place and in our use of a non-perfect science.
The second source is that there are events in the world that have alternatives that are genuinely acausal. In quantum events, there may be outcomes for an interaction that cannot be determined in advance. It is not certain that this is the case, since our theory about quantum events is not complete.
This still appears to be still an artifact of the modern random POV. As pointed out by PhysBang and many others who hear my approach to evolution, my thinking about evolution, in a purely rational way, without random, is discouraged and judged by emotions. Everyone is supposed stay in the dark, since the whims of the god of chaos, will make any line of reasoning, unreliable. I suppose, in a historical sense, statistics honors our ancient past and help maintains a continuity, so we don't become too detached from our personality roots. I can respect that.
I can't respect your views. You characterize the search for real answers as, "Everyone is supposed stay in the dark". You reject actual science because you don't understand statistics and you have a pet hypothesis.
If we return to Isaac Newton, Newton quite clearly stated that we should accept a theory that evidence showed to be true or very nearly true regardless of whether or not we had some hypothesis contrary to the theory, unless that hypothesis had as good or better evidence. Newton did not have perfect evidence for his theory, he had evidence that was filled with errors and was only so accurate. He had to do his own statistical analysis to support his theory. (He did a far from perfect job; it was those scientists working in the next 200 years who really delivered on Newtonian Universal Gravity.)
Darwin's theory of natural selection is based on the context of the environmental potentials. The environmental potentials can be caused by the physical and/or the living environments. The potentials can be caused by the desert, or the whimsy of mating choices. There is no law of science that says you can't extrapolate this logical schema, downward, all the way to the nanoscale. Currently it stops at about the cellular level.
Actually, there kind of is such a law. Organisms live, die, and reproduce. That is the level of selection. As one can see from sickle cell anemia, a mutation can decrease the efficiency of a biological function and still benefit the ability of an organism to live and reproduce.
-
I asked before, what is the physical basis for a random universe?
I can't speak for the whole universe in this thread, but in the context of mutations in living creatures, life on Earth uses:
- Carbon for storing genetic information in DNA, and many other functions in the cell. About 1 in a trillion carbon atoms is Carbon-14 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isotopes_of_carbon), which after an average of 5740 years, randomly decay into Nitrogen 14 by emitting a high-energy electron (0.16 MeV) in a random direction. This Carbon-14 atom could be at any random position in the DNA of the cell, in any random cell in the body (including germ-line cells). The resulting Nitrogen atom cannot support the structure of DNA, and the electron may collide with additional parts of the DNA which are tightly coiled in its path.
- Potassium maintains the ionic balance in the cell and is responsible for the operation of nerves and muscles, and maintenance of blood pressure. About 0.012% of potassium is Potassium-40 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isotopes_of_potassium), which after an average of 1.2 billion years, randomly decays into Argon 40 or Calcium 40 by emission of an electron or positron in random directions. If it is a positron, it will strike another atom and annihilate an electron, emitting gamma rays which also head off in random directions, potentially causing mutations. Potassium-40 exists at random positions in every cell in the body. It is estimated that over 4,000 K40 atoms decay every second in an adult body.
- Cosmic rays (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_ray#Role_in_ambient_radiation) arrive at random times, from random directions, and strike random atoms in the atmosphere, causing a shower of energetic particles (including muons) that can strike random bits of DNA in random cells in the body.
- It is estimated that every day, the typical cell must repair around 10,000 to 1,000,000 events causing damage to random parts of the DNA. The body has mechanisms to repair DNA damage (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA_repair#DNA_damage). But it is a battle of repairing the DNA fast enough before the next bit of DNA is damaged; it is much easier to repair a single-strand break than a dual-strand break, so speed and efficiency is of the essence. So these repair mechanisms favor speed over accuracy, and sometimes, randomly, the DNA break is repaired with something that is different from what was there before.
Life in water is not random
- DNA floating in water contains C14 at random locations
- DNA floats in water which contains K40 ions at random locations
- DNA is repaired by enzymes and RNAs which float randomly in the water; to some extent, the nature of repairs is determined by which one bumps into the damaged DNA first.
-
These are a few good examples of positive genetic change. However, if you check the medical literature for genetic disorders more can go wrong than right, if the mechanism was random.
OMG! You might have it! Some changes are good, some are bad, some are neutral. Now add natural selection and multiply that by 4 billion years.
[quoteIf you notice we are using an emotional judgement of good and evil genes based on what is assumed to be random changes. Emotion is part of this science and math approach. It helps us to fixate on one aspect of the data and not the preponderance of the data. Like I said before, random is not new, only the math is new. This is an ancient way of dealing with reality; whims of the gods.
No, you are using emotion. In natural selection, it is whether or not an organism survives its environment and reproduces that particular hereditary trait. "Good" or "bad" don't matter.
I asked before, what is the physical basis for a random universe? Is there a logic behind random or did randomness create randomness? The ancient theory was that random was caused by the whims of the gods. It had a logical source; gods, which was itself often illogical. If you were an ancient person and assume this, there could be no rational explanations that always work, since any one of the gods could change things up on a whim. It kept people in the dark, because they needed to add a random variable; the god or goddess in charge of that aspect of reality.
In contemporary probability theory, there are two sources of a "random" result.
The first source is that there are so many different determined inputs to a process that it is impossible, given either the theory applied or the physical demands of human mental processing, to predict the outcome. Given that no scientist claims to have a perfect theory, there will always be some probability that any given scientific claim is incorrect in some way. This is often called subjective probability.
Of course, we can identify that many of the inputs to an event, while relevant to the event, are not relevant to our understanding of that event within a given science. So in a biological context, it is not relevant that an organism was killed by a falling rock, even though it was relevant to the causal story of why that organism died. So some of the probability that we have to use from this source is often considered objective probability, as it arises from features of the world that are not covered by the field of study. So how many organisms in a population will be effected by an epidemic can be considered to be influenced by a number of factors that are non-biological and not part of even the perfect story of the biological elements of the epidemic and the organisms involved, and the problem is in the world the biology takes place and in our use of a non-perfect science.
The second source is that there are events in the world that have alternatives that are genuinely acausal. In quantum events, there may be outcomes for an interaction that cannot be determined in advance. It is not certain that this is the case, since our theory about quantum events is not complete.
This still appears to be still an artifact of the modern random POV. As pointed out by PhysBang and many others who hear my approach to evolution, my thinking about evolution, in a purely rational way, without random, is discouraged and judged by emotions. Everyone is supposed stay in the dark, since the whims of the god of chaos, will make any line of reasoning, unreliable. I suppose, in a historical sense, statistics honors our ancient past and help maintains a continuity, so we don't become too detached from our personality roots. I can respect that.
I can't respect your views. You characterize the search for real answers as, "Everyone is supposed stay in the dark". You reject actual science because you don't understand statistics and you have a pet hypothesis.
If we return to Isaac Newton, Newton quite clearly stated that we should accept a theory that evidence showed to be true or very nearly true regardless of whether or not we had some hypothesis contrary to the theory, unless that hypothesis had as good or better evidence. Newton did not have perfect evidence for his theory, he had evidence that was filled with errors and was only so accurate. He had to do his own statistical analysis to support his theory. (He did a far from perfect job; it was those scientists working in the next 200 years who really delivered on Newtonian Universal Gravity.)
Darwin's theory of natural selection is based on the context of the environmental potentials. The environmental potentials can be caused by the physical and/or the living environments. The potentials can be caused by the desert, or the whimsy of mating choices. There is no law of science that says you can't extrapolate this logical schema, downward, all the way to the nanoscale. Currently it stops at about the cellular level.
Actually, there kind of is such a law. Organisms live, die, and reproduce. That is the level of selection. As one can see from sickle cell anemia, a mutation can decrease the efficiency of a biological function and still benefit the ability of an organism to live and reproduce.
I agree with the premises of natural selection. Selection is not dependent on the mechanism behind the changes. Selection comes in after the fact of change, and is more based on environmental potentials, which can be outside and/or inside. Where I differ is I have concluded that the source of change t is not random, but is influenced by the water, which has its own selection process.
The modern theory of evolution is closely tied to its own theory of change, even though selection process is not change dependent. Just because I don't accept the current theory of change, does not mean I also don't agree with selection. Selection will still occur whether we have a logical or random basis for change. Whether A random change adds a new feature or whether I surgically add the same improvement with logical precision, does not change the selection process. One can half agree with the modern theory of evolution and change.
An analogy is first week freshman year, we may pick sides for a softball game. We don't know each other very well, nor do we know who has what skills and from where and whom. We nevertheless select sides, with the hope of getting the best teams based on a more general selection criteria, like who appears to be good at sports. Beyond that, is not part of the selection process.
In terms of your explanation for subjective odds; two different people with differing levels of understanding of a phenomena, will see two different levels of probabilities. In a previous post, I gave a practical example of this from my own life. I invented a process, based on chemistry, which I had to run. I was shadowed by a statistician who was a bright math major, but not a chemist. He saw more probability and random than I did, so he needed a larger black box. Nothing personal, just different areas of study and expertise.
Management was in the middle, motivated by bureaucratic fear of compliance and the impact on career. They had background in chemistry, but since the invention was new, they were partially in the dark; middle sized black box, and felt better with statistical wiggle room. They knew that the subjectivity of statistics could be used, strategically, to smooth over compliance edges, if something went wrong. I the crap hit the fan and they got smears they planned statistical soap and water. You can use lawyer talk to beef up the black box to compliance officers.
This may be a solution for some, but it is problem for science, since that seems contrary to rational science. The expert may understand how to use the statistical tool, but as their results are presented and read by others, the level of audience expertise drops, in terms of the statistical tool and/or the understanding of the phenomena. The odds can change for the layman, making mountains out of mole hills. This makes it easy to induce the politics of evolution, among the ill informed, whom will see more than is there, due to the subjectivity of their larger black box. Evolution is taught to elementary school students whose black box is big enough to fit all their toys. Magic can be part of their mechanism for change since they are too young to grasp the rational science.
I asked before, what is the physical basis for a random universe?
I can't speak for the whole universe in this thread, but in the context of mutations in living creatures, life on Earth uses:
- Carbon for storing genetic information in DNA, and many other functions in the cell. About 1 in a trillion carbon atoms is Carbon-14 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isotopes_of_carbon), which after an average of 5740 years, randomly decay into Nitrogen 14 by emitting a high-energy electron (0.16 MeV) in a random direction. This Carbon-14 atom could be at any random position in the DNA of the cell, in any random cell in the body (including germ-line cells). The resulting Nitrogen atom cannot support the structure of DNA, and the electron may collide with additional parts of the DNA which are tightly coiled in its path.
- Potassium maintains the ionic balance in the cell and is responsible for the operation of nerves and muscles, and maintenance of blood pressure. About 0.012% of potassium is Potassium-40 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isotopes_of_potassium), which after an average of 1.2 billion years, randomly decays into Argon 40 or Calcium 40 by emission of an electron or positron in random directions. If it is a positron, it will strike another atom and annihilate an electron, emitting gamma rays which also head off in random directions, potentially causing mutations. Potassium-40 exists at random positions in every cell in the body. It is estimated that over 4,000 K40 atoms decay every second in an adult body.
- Cosmic rays (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_ray#Role_in_ambient_radiation) arrive at random times, from random directions, and strike random atoms in the atmosphere, causing a shower of energetic particles (including muons) that can strike random bits of DNA in random cells in the body.
- It is estimated that every day, the typical cell must repair around 10,000 to 1,000,000 events causing damage to random parts of the DNA. The body has mechanisms to repair DNA damage (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA_repair#DNA_damage). But it is a battle of repairing the DNA fast enough before the next bit of DNA is damaged; it is much easier to repair a single-strand break than a dual-strand break, so speed and efficiency is of the essence. So these repair mechanisms favor speed over accuracy, and sometimes, randomly, the DNA break is repaired with something that is different from what was there before.
Life in water is not random
- DNA floating in water contains C14 at random locations
- DNA floats in water which contains K40 ions at random locations
- DNA is repaired by enzymes and RNAs which float randomly in the water; to some extent, the nature of repairs is determined by which one bumps into the damaged DNA first.
Radioactive decay operates under the principle of half life. The half life is the amount of time for half of the original atoms, of a given kind, to undergo decay. The value of half life is not random, but is a fixed number based on any given radioactive isotope. If the cell has a given concentration of Carbon -14, you know the rate of decay and needed repair. Once you change an atom or ion, the chemical binding is different and there is a ripple affect that is felt in the water. Water is also a good radioactive shield.
Water and life is not my pet theory, but rather it is an area of frontier science, where I can use less subjective odds. The status quo, which many wish to perpetuate, is based on a foundation that has a higher subjective odds, due to lack of understanding of the impact of water. Each POV will loop upon its own premises, to create a self fulfilling statistical prophesies. Much of which is placed in the current blackbox, has a rational explanation based on water. My black box is much smaller, improving the odds for a logical explanation for life.
If we start with a yeast cell and remove all the water, nothing works. We still have all the organics, as portrayed in text books, which are chemically the same, yet nothing is working in terms of any aspect of life, right down to enzymes or chemicals and ions on enzymes. The odds are 100% that nothing associated with life will appear if we remove the water from the yeast cells. This is a rational observation lead to a sound foundation premise with probability equal to 1.0.
If we add any other solvent, to the dehydrated yeasts, very little if anything will function. Even if a couple of things seem to work, but differently, there is still no life. Organics plus any solvent besides water, does not allow life to appear. We have another observation and conclusion that is outside the realm of odds. If we added water to another batch of dehydrated yeast, from the same lot, thousands of different proteins all become viable and the integrated criteria of life reappears.
It is almost like magic that so many things all become viable, and then they all become integrated, allowing life to return. I wonder what did that? The water did that. Run this experiment a thousand times to prove to yourself. It shows that water has its finger in every pie, as well as places all the pies on the same rack. This is not based on probability, but cause and affect.
The organics of life are critical. They offer a chemical capacitance based on covalent and ionic bindings. Water is more fluid and transient and cannot maintain large scale internal structuring, as long as covalently bonded organics. But without water these materials have no life. Water is connected to the secondary bonding of the organics, with themselves, with each other, and with water. The water turns random molecular shapes and grouping into specific shape or configurations, needed to make the entire cell active.
In textbooks if you look at a picture of the DNA double helix, it rarely shows the double helix of water that is critical to the functioning of the DNA. This water is bonded to the bases and lies within the major and minor groves of the double helix. Dehydrated DNA is not bioactive. The hydration of the DNA is what defines its active shape. This necessary water is placed in the black box, of the status quo, to create enhanced subjective probability. Textbook reflect this, by making it absent from sight; black box only.
My black box does not contain the double helix of water on the DNA. I know DNA needs water to function and no other solvent will do. This is as sure as the sun will rise. Water does no shave to be in the black box, allows one to shrink the black box.This improves the subjective odds, all the way to the foothills of reason.
The status quo is not about intellectual dishonesty, as much as the reaction is an artifact of the subjectivity of statistics. The less you know the more you can think you know. The black box helps by limiting what you think you need to know. This can be addictive since it feeds on emotions. If you open the black box, now you can know too much, which can make some realize, how little they know.
-
I agree with the premises of natural selection. Selection is not dependent on the mechanism behind the changes. Selection comes in after the fact of change, and is more based on environmental potentials, which can be outside and/or inside. Where I differ is I have concluded that the source of change t is not random, but is influenced by the water, which has its own selection process.
OK, but your idea has absolutely no evidence associated with it. And contemporary evolutionary theory has scads of evidence, many of which is closely tied to random changes to DNA. One can make assumptions about how many changes will randomly show up in a section of DNA and use this as a clock to time genetic change. One can then compare this to the fossil record. There are some really good matches! That's evidence.
The modern theory of evolution is closely tied to its own theory of change, even though selection process is not change dependent. Just because I don't accept the current theory of change, does not mean I also don't agree with selection.
Just because you cherry-pick some scientific results doesn't mean that you are being scientific. You are simply choosing results to believe in while ignoring the evidence and methods of gathering evidence.
I invented a process, based on chemistry, which I had to run. I was shadowed by a statistician who was a bright math major, but not a chemist. He saw more probability and random than I did, so he needed a larger black box. Nothing personal, just different areas of study and expertise.
This story does not make you look good. You came up with something that you could not adequately prove was safe to use and rather than establish its safety, you merely took the position that it was safe and harbored a grudge against the people you could not convince.
Water and life is not my pet theory,
No, it really is. You ascribe a magic property to water that it actually selects DNA mutations. You have no mechanism. You have no evidence.
but rather it is an area of frontier science, where I can use less subjective odds.
The irony is that you are being entirely subjective; without evidence, your idea is not capable of being applied or even meaningfully assessed as science. Where there are tons of details in the actual biological science of evolution and molecular genetics, you have no details, just a vague hope.
If we start with a yeast cell and remove all the water, nothing works. We still have all the organics, as portrayed in text books, which are chemically the same, yet nothing is working in terms of any aspect of life, right down to enzymes or chemicals and ions on enzymes. The odds are 100% that nothing associated with life will appear if we remove the water from the yeast cells. This is a rational observation lead to a sound foundation premise with probability equal to 1.0.
It is also a profoundly stupid observation. Here is its equivalent: if we heat yeast up to 10,000 degrees Celsius, nothing works, therefore we have a rational foundation with probability 1 that cold is the foundation of selection.
The status quo is not about intellectual dishonesty, as much as the reaction is an artifact of the subjectivity of statistics. The less you know the more you can think you know. The black box helps by limiting what you think you need to know. This can be addictive since it feeds on emotions. If you open the black box, now you can know too much, which can make some realize, how little they know.
That is so incredibly insulting to all the people that actually do work. Your posts are disgusting.
-
Radioactive decay operates under the principle of half life... The value of half life is not random, but is a fixed number based on any given radioactive isotope. If the cell has a given concentration of Carbon -14, you know the rate of decay and needed repair.
To support the contention that "Life in water is not random", the argument here says that the half-life of a large number of atoms is not random, and I agree with this statement.
However, which mutations occur, and when they occur (and how well they are repaired) all depend on random factors.
- A carbon atom in the DNA chain which decays after the cell has divided (say) 40 times will have a much smaller impact on a living organism than the carbon atom which decays when there is just a fertilized egg. In particular, one which decays after 40 divisions will just affect a small number of cells in the body, while a carbon atom which decays in the fertilized egg will affect all cells in the body (including any offspring).
- A carbon atom which decays and causes a mutation in the active region of a crucial enzyme will have a bigger impact than one which decays in the middle of some non-transcribed leftover of viral DNA.
The half-life is calculated from the average of many events. But the individual events from which it is calculated are still random, in both space and time (and in their effect on DNA).