[Bored chemist]

Entropy still exists at absolute zero.

Nobody said it didn't.
But you weren't talking about entropy. You were talking about energy.

If we could extract the entropic energy within a mole of water molecules, the order would break down and it would look more random to the naked eye.

And, if you remove the energy associated with entropy (the T S term,) you have reduced the temperature to zero.
And that means you have a crystalline lattice with a low entropy.

And, as I said, you have demonstrated that you don't understand entropy.

Your lack of understanding is more fundamental than you seem to think.
You say "If we could extract the entropic energy within a mole of water molecules, the order would break"
Well entropy is a measure of disorder. So if you extract entropy from something, you remove disorder.
And that means you make it more ordered.
So the order doesn't "break down"; it increases.

Why do you keep doing this?

[Bored chemist]

Natural selection is a type of container

Are you expecting to be taken seriously?

[Bored chemist]

If we had a purely random driven mutation model there would do more wrong choices than good.

It does.
They die.
The few lucky ones go onto dominate the next generation.

So you are trying to wedge entropy- which you do not understand- into a discussion about natural selection - which you also do not understand.

Why do you do this?

[Bored chemist]

Does this answer evolution-deniers?
Since the doubt in evolution is not based on logic, logic cannot be used to convince them.

For examples of this, please see the rest of the thread...

[puppypower]

If we had a purely random driven mutation model there would do more wrong choices than good.

It does.
They die.
The few lucky ones go onto dominate the next generation.

So you are trying to wedge entropy- which you do not understand- into a discussion about natural selection - which you also do not understand.

Why do you do this?

Natural selection is not a random process. Rather it is closer to a type of determinism, based on optimization of life within a given range of natural potentials. Natural selection props up the random model connected to mutation theory, allowing it to take more credit that it deserves.

The current model of evolution makes use of Darwins theory of natural selection to compensate for its random model of mutations. By itself, the random model of mutations will do more harm than good. Random can and will cause more things to go wrong than right. Natural selection is used to prop up this random theory of mutations, by ignoring all the mistakes. It fixate on the good few who are selected, so it does not appear as bad as it is. This reminds me of the person who reads about the few who win the lottery and play and wastes their money playing a game they never win. it creates a mind game that make it seem right.

Another analogy for current evolutionary theory is having a large number of teams building cars with random parts which may or may not fit together in part or whole. These technicians have no plan or clue like typically random things. Natural selection is like a foreman who has an eye for what works and picks only those. The rest are ignored and not counted. This keeps everyone employed, since the factory has an output. I prefer the analogy where the technicians know what they are doing, so we get a better output for our foreman to select; macro scale.

Since we use the determinism of natural selection, at the macro-level, why not also natural selection at the nano-scale? Water, in this case will be the natural environment that does the natural selection thing, at the nanoscale. Water has its own unique range of potentials that all the organics need to deal with. DNA needs the water to give it the correct shape. Random can be nipped earlier in the bud. Natural selection at the macro scale does not randomly pick the defects so why should selection at the nanoscale?

The nanoscale selection process is connected to entropic states; constant entropy. and the need to maintain fixed entropy. The random has to behave like the dice are loaded or else the entropic state will be violated. In this model, evolution is not picking the best of the worse, but the best of the best. The extra, can migrate and be selected elsewhere since they are not a defect, but a valid representation that is only a step behind the local leader.

[Bored chemist]

Natural selection is not a random process.

No.
But the mutation is random (or, at least nearly so, and evolution would work with random mutations.)

I prefer the analogy where the technicians know what they are doing

Neither I, nor reality, cares about your preference.

[puppypower]

Natural selection is not a random process.

No.
But the mutation is random (or, at least nearly so, and evolution would work with random mutations.)

I prefer the analogy where the technicians know what they are doing

Neither I, nor reality, cares about your preference.

I made the point that natural selection occurs at both the macroscale; Darwinian, as well as the nanoscale; puppypowerian. The proof of the latter, which has been around since the 1950's, is that you cannot substitute any other solvent, for the water, in water based life, and get anything critical to life to work properly; DNA, RNA and all proteins. This all or nothing observation, as a function of the internal solvent environment, implies a type of natural selection; rational principles, at the nanoscale.

In all cases, the solvent, as the majority phase, becomes the internal environment, for all the molecules of life. It defines the types of molecules, how they are configured and how they can develop potentials. As an analogy, we cannot place equatorial animals and plants, into the Arctic Circle and expect them to thrive; substitute alcohol for water. Macro-scale evolution; Darwin, tells us that the former were selected within much warmer environmental potentials, where everything is tuned to use more heat. The same is true of life evolving its chemical makeup, with water. Water  which has a unique 3-D matrix of hydrogen bonding; four hydrogen bonds per water molecule, a solvent matrix not generated by any alcohol or organic solvent environment.

The problem is lack of understanding of the potentials that water can generate and how this nano environment naturally narrows the range of acceptable molecules down to those needed for life. 

Maybe someone can explain how statistics can account for the observation that no other solvent can be substituted for water, in water based life? Random should allow at least some things to work, since there would no rhyme of reason otherwise in a.random universe. Rational, on the other hand, does not have to allow every dog its day, since the solvent potentials are rationally tuned in like, within macro environments.

I am not against evolution, but I am against forcing everyone to accept the blindman's approach of biology, that does not allow one to think in a rational way. Instead you need to pretend you are in the casinos of science, where the house always wins, using the convenience of odds; poof it is there without explanation other than the oracle has spoken.

If we need a mutation to go from apes to man, poof is will always appear by throwing dice; 20/20 hindsight, so it can be chosen by rational principles of natural selection. The reasonable approach  of natural selection has to clean up the mess created by the random design. One is not allowed to reason why natural selection did not selected a more rational cellular strategy  to carry on a more sane and rational evolution down to the nanoscale? Can't random, once in a while, chose the seeds of future rational choice, so natural selection can up its game? Or does natural selection forever have to mop up after the random model.


 

[Bored chemist]

. The proof of the latter, which has been around since the 1950's, is that you cannot substitute any other solvent, for the water

So, there can't be a change, so there can't be any evolution.

Maybe someone can explain how statistics can account for the observation that no other solvent can be substituted for water, in water based life?

Did you read that before you posted it?

that does not allow one to think in a rational way.

You are the one not thinking rationally- see above.

[puppypower]

There are two aspects of evolution; macro-scale and nanoscale. Darwin did not dwell on natural selection at the nanoscale, since the tools and science of his day was not yet there. Instead, he thought in terms of natural selection, based on objective criteria at the macro-scale. He never spoke of random type events. Mother Nature, to Darwin, was not playing via the whims of the gods. He noticed fitness was the goal of natural selection; determinism. The goal was already in mind before any changes.

The alchemists of the middle ages, on the other hand, were more into random events. You could turn lead into gold in the same way as having life appear from nothing; science of the day. The whims of the gods made it all possible. By the time of Darwin, the age of reason was in full throttle and this random approach was being outgrown.

Modern Biology, via Physics hijacked Darwin's original theory and added a random nanoscale approach that was never suggested by Darwin. That was a throw back to alchemy. The term selection implies without a blindfold. How do you select your favorite anything with a blindfold? Your favorite is already known in advance. My guess is this came from the turn of the 20th century atheist philosophy, that contaminated science. It was based on assuming the opposite of religion. If religion said up it had to be down.

Darwin, like religion, saw a type of determinism in natural selection; religious and science determinism, respectively. Atheism would encourage science to do the opposite of determinism, due to religion, which justified the random addendum that was never suggested by Darwin. Darwin did not assume  a spiritual explanation for his natural selection determinism. Rather he assume a future rational science explanation and not a random explanation like modern alchemy. In alchemy the separation between external and internal reality was not clear cut, so the Alchemists often projected their own internal psychology into nature, like a gambling addict fantasizing about winning the jackpot, if the whims of the gods selected him.

One simple proof, for my claim of nanoscale determinism is the observation of proof reader enzymes, which move along the DNA and correct improper base pairs that may occur. These improper base pairs is what biology needs for replication mutations. What was the selective advantage of correcting random base pairing along the DNA? Randomness will create more problems than solutions. If we correct the randomness in the bud, we will get better units. If random was so important, as claimed, shouldn't natural selection have avoided selecting the proofreader enzymes?

Evolution tries to minimize randomness and make selections at the nanoscale more deterministic. My theory of selection at the nanoscale, is based on rational potentials created by the water environment. These potentials are connected to the unique properties of a 3-D matrix of small hydrogen bonding molecules; water, that has up to four hydrogen bonds each. This internal environment is consistent with Darwin's natural selection approach than the random addendum is to Darwin. My concern has never been evolution, but the atheist mirror philosophy; contrary, being sold as the basis for evolution at any scale.

The activity of proof reader enzymes are essentially an equilibrium based affect. Improper base pairing adds potential to any base pair, since improper base pairing does not minimize hydrogen bonding energy. As these enzymes move along the DNA, the enzymes can feel an energy spike at each improper base pair and will use this to alter it own equilibrium shape. This adds up to energizing itself so it can move through the steps needed to get rid of randomness and lower potential.

These equilibria are not just based on organic-organic, but also on the water that is hydrogen bonded to the bases and the enzymes and then outward beyond them into the bulk water. This water is also part of larger scale integrations.

Water, since it is major part of all cellular equilibrium potential, can be used to trick the proof reader enzymes since they depend on a specific energy spike to initiate equilibrium corrections. As an analogy say you were an editor, proof reading a new book. Some words have the same sound but can have two different meanings; scene and seen. Both could be spelled correctly, but the correct meaning in the sentence, will requires reading the entire sentence. No final mRNA and its final output protein is composed of one base pair. Rather each base pair is part of a larger context; sentence. Not all typos are bad, since some can change the meaning of the sentence for good. These larger protein sentences will be packed by the water and their packed meaning will impact the local equilibria. These have to work within the paragraph of an organelle. There is feedback and feedforward from there.

Why does modern biology use a random approach to evolution at the nanoscale, and call that valid, when Darwin never suggested this? I am more consistent than the modem alchemists of biology. I assume determinism based on the internal water and hydrogen bonding environment of all cells.   

[Bored chemist]

There are two aspects of evolution; macro-scale and nanoscale.

In your world...
In the real world... not so much.

Why does modern biology use a random approach to evolution at the nanoscale, and call that valid, when Darwin never suggested this?

Because Darwin was long dead before the mechanisms were worked out and the approach works.

water, that has up to four hydrogen bonds each.

On average, how long do you think those bonds last?

[Bored chemist]

the Alchemists often projected their own internal psychology into nature,

And that's what you seem to be doing here.

[puppypower]

The alchemists were mostly Catholic Priests and Doctors, educated people looking for truth in the physical world, at a time before anyone knew how things worked at the atomic and chemical level. However, they were able to develop a system of mystical logic that became useful for some aspects of applied science. Many of their experimental methods, such as extractions and distillations are still used today. They demonstrated one can still do good practical/applied science even with explanations that may not be correct, such as life is based on dice.

When I was a development engineer, one of my projects was an emergency project to treat water for mercury. There had been a water main break in the subbasement of a major facility that once used mercury as an extraction solvent for separating isotopes. Before the water could be diverted, several million gallons had collected in the sub basement and was contaminated with traces of mercury. My job was to get the water out of the basement by decontaminating the water to parts per trillion, which was way beyond the best available technology of that time. I could not just buy off the shelf and run a state of the art process. I had to develop new technology. I did a science literature search, at a nearby National Laboratory, but there was nothing in international literature at that time that would work, so I needed to invent it.

At that time I was sort of an expert in collective human symbolism, and I knew about the mystical philosophy of the Alchemists. So I decided to use their mystical science logic since they were able to use this to rough in modern chemistry. Mercury or Quick Silver was a dominate symbol in Alchemy, associated with Satan. To the alchemists, like attracted like, so I decided to use the chemical attractants that were most like Satan; sulfur and iron. Sulfur was  connected to the sulfur fires of hell, while iron was a symbol connected to the god of war; war is hell.

To make a long story short I modified a simple anion exchange resin, with sodium sulfide and then modified this improvised cation exchange resin with ferric ions. The ferric reacted with the the mercury and then attached to the sulfide to form mercury sulfide attached to the resin. I was able to get down to less than parts per trillion in the lab in less than two weeks, and within a few more weeks I scaled up and treated 2 million gallons of water. I even published the details of my alchemy logic and the successful results of the remediation for my new BAT. This created mixed reviews, due to the alchemy logic, but nobody could argue with the results and the speed of the turnaround. Mercury man became my new knick name. It was both a joke and complement.

What I learned from this was a good empirical correlation, such as from alchemy, even if not technically real or true, could still be used for applied science. This is similar to the state of the art in biology, since it leaves out a main variable that is attached to all other variables. Water touches everything in all cells.  If you use casino math, to average in the water, one is still able to do applied science, like medicine, even with half baked theory. This can fool the uninformed into thinking this means the correlation is sound and complete science.

The fact of the matter is Darwin never envisioned a casino approach to evolution, even if this approach had practical value and could be used for applied science, like I did with alchemy to treat a modern problem. That detour had nothing to do with Darwin. It had more to do with a new fad in physics; uncertainty principle, which was opposite to the Determinism of Religion and was supported by Atheism. Darwin used a variable of determinism; natural selection, and assume science would find logical and rational explanations, without the need to summon the oracles of chance to fill in gaps of ignorance. It could still produce useful results, but it was less than what science can and should do.

Why didn't Darwin start with a random approach to natural selection? He would have been aware of early biology and the theory of the spontaneous generation of life, which was based on random model. The reason was, that type of model appears to say more than it says. It was half baked and Darwin anticipate rational science would rule the future.

Water is the only variable that touches everything in a cell. If it is replaced by any other solvent nothing works properly. We can take out the DNA, such as in red blood cells, the rest of the cell is still viable for several weeks. If we take out water, after seconds nothing works. Yet we are told water is not that important in terms of making things work. I can be replaced with a casino approach. This is nonsense.

[Bored chemist]

So I decided to use their mystical science

An actual chemist would probably have come to essentially the same conclusion based on science.
The difference is that a scientist wouldn't have relied on luck.
What you just did was advertise the fact that you are not rational.

[Kryptid]

Yet we are told water is not that important in terms of making things work.

I know of literally no one who has said such a thing.

[puppypower]

Yet we are told water is not that important in terms of making things work.

I know of literally no one who has said such a thing.

A better way of phrasing this would be too few people in the biological sciences, fully take into account how water has it finger in every pie within the cell. Water is the solvent of life and is composed of tiny molecules. Being everywhere is what tiny molecular based solvents do. Water, therefore, contributes in terms of all atomic and molecular form and function in cells, via solvent-solute copartner relationships.

If water was treated as it should be, mutation analysis would be required to include a water analysis for its half of the total affect. One would not be allowed to just use organics plus statistics. One can tell a tree by the fruit it bears. The magic of statistics does not make up for the lack of the logic that water can bring. A solvent has a way to integrate things; life.

One thing that appears to hook people on statistics, instead of a more detailed logic based water-organic analysis, is statistics has practical value for making fuzzy predictions. This seems to be good enough for most people in the biological sciences. What appears to solidify this blind connection to statistics, has to do with the observation that the math works, just fine, based on the assumptions used.

The problem is, math is like a faithful horse that can be led anywhere you wish it to go. Computer games, for example, use assumptions such as infinite lives. Math does not decide the assumptions, but rather the math will allow any set of assumptions, even if a premises are not in touch with physical reality. Before the assumptions of dark energy and matter, the old math model could do all the same things, but in a different way.

The math game engine can make infinite lives appear natural enough during game play. If you assume math is leading, than you will believe infinite lives is good enough. However, the bottom line is conceptual considerations are more fundamental than is the math, since, math can be made to pull any cart and if it is done well, it can loop back and tell you way you wish to hear; infinite lives are real and water is not needed in all analysis. 

I am not against evolution, but I am against assuming half baked science, with a random based math game engine, will be the final theory of evolution. Teaching this as the basis for evolution, is doing an injustice to truth and common sense. It is half baked fantasy with the science pot calling the religion kettle black.
 
If we assume water has its finger in all pies and it can be shown to regulate organic form and function, not including water to its full degree will require game engine assumptions that the math horse will have to pull.

[Bored chemist]

If water was treated as it should be, mutation analysis would be required to include a water analysis for its half of the total affect.

Do you realise that's bollocks?

I am not against evolution,

Then why not learn it?

I still think there's should be a thread set up to divert PP's off- topic ramblings and hijacks to.

[Bored chemist]

A better way of phrasing this

It can not matter how you phrase something which is wrong; it's still wrong.

[puppypower]

If water was treated as it should be, mutation analysis would be required to include a water analysis for its half of the total affect.

Do you realise that's bollocks?

I am not against evolution,

Then why not learn it?

I still think there's should be a thread set up to divert PP's off- topic ramblings and hijacks to.

The current version of evolution should be in alternate theory since it is lacking in terms of the nanoscale role of water.

Explain why water is not included in every analysis for evolution, and why anyone thinks the impact of water can be approximated by rolling dice? Defend what you consider true with logic instead of emotional appeal. I know this cannot be defended with logic.


If we place lipids in water, the water-oil affect causes these organics to get with the water program and form a bi-layered shell that can become the foundation of a cell membrane. Water has a way of removing randomness in favor of a consistent outcome. We can do this hundreds of time and the dice remain loaded. Random does not add the same way with loaded dice.

If we stretch out a protein polymer and place it in water, the water-oil affect; surface tension in water, will fold the protein in a way that is repeatable. A cell came make thousands of units of any given protein, and each will be packed the same way. The packing is based on the best way to  minimize the total surface tension of water. If the packing is flawed it is because of local differences in free energy due to other factors. This is also not random.

Water has a way to remove randomness even with complicated things like large molecules. The casino approach makes less sense when you include water; repeatable protein packing. It does make more sense if you think in terms of organics in air, with water assigned a cameo role. If we had only organics in air, like shown in textbooks, random would dominate. But once you add water, water will reduce randomness in favor of order.

In terms of the catalytic energy for enzymes, enzymes moving between two conformations; active and inactive, go from being optimized in water, to not being optimized in water. The water has a free energy change induced by the change of conformation; energized state. Water can give this energy back by resetting the enzyme.

When water packs protein, the surface become hydrophilic and therefore the surface defines the lowest potential within the water. This design allows cooperative hydrogen bonding to form on the protein surface. Cooperative hydrogen bonding is where hydrogen bonds begin to polymerize on the surface as a way to further lower free energy; form more of the covalent side of hydrogen bonding. This is very stabilizing; lowers enthalpy, and allows cooperative electrons to increase entropy; extended sharing.

However, this also creates order in the water, beyond pure water, via the lowering of the entropy of the water within the cooperative. This goes against the second law, creating an entropic potential; need to reverse the water cooperative. The entropy increase of this reversal will be endothermic, as entropy increases. This pulls the substrate up the activation energy hill to extract energy, from the slide down the energy hill. Life, via water can make use of the free energy connected to entropy.

Enzymes moving along the DNA for various functions, make use of this entropic energy. The enzymes break cooperatives, as they move along the DNA, and make use of the free energy exchange as water increases entropy. The water then resets the entropic potential by reforming  the stabilizing nature; enthalpy, of a new cooperative.

[Bored chemist]

The current version of evolution should...

You have made it clear that you don't understand the theory.

Explain why water is not included in every analysis for evolution

Because evolution is about change and the water is constant.

[Bored chemist]

If we place lipids in water, the water-oil affect causes these organics to get with the water program and form a bi-layered shell

No, they don't.
You need am ambiphilic molecule to do that. Not all lipids tick that box.
You won't make cell membranes when mixing oil + vinegar for salad dressing.