Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: alancalverd on 20/02/2022 10:49:54
-
I will take seriously any argument that debunks evolution, if and only if it is proposed by someone who looks exactly like both of his/her parents. Anyone else is an embodiment of evolution.
-
They can only possibly look like one of their parents since their parents will not look identical. That's OK, I'm sure you would accept that looking like one of the parents would be a good enough criterion.
But it would only work if it was universal.
Even if 99% of the population looked exactly like their mum or dad, the rest of the population would still drive evolution.
-
I will take seriously any argument that debunks evolution, if and only if it is proposed by someone who looks exactly like both of his/her parents. Anyone else is an embodiment of evolution.
The second law states that the entropy of the universe has to increase. Evolution is driven by the 2nd law since the constant increase in entropy will increase complexity over time. Life has to evolve since it is also under the 2nd law.
Entropy is also a state variable, meaning any given state of matter will define a fixed amount of entropy. Water at 25C and 1 atm has an entropy value of 188.8 Joules/(mole K). This is the same no matte who measures it and at what time in history. What this also means is the random models used to describe and model a moles of water at 25C and 1 atm, always adds up to a constant entropy value.
The question is how can a mole of water molecules; 6.022 x 1023 units, each modeled with random arguments all somehow add to a constant amount of complexity? It has to due with determinism of the state; constant entropy, leading the random by integrating it. That many random events would never maintain a constant. The constant needs to lead, so the entropy value does not change over time, and can remain a constant.
The random assumption of changes on the DNA; mutations, violates the second law. The cell is a state with the entropy within all its parts having to add to that constant. What appears to be random to the bias of traditions, is an aspect of an integrated state of constant entropy.
This does not disprove evolution, it only disproves the random assumptions of biology, since the sum of all this apparent randomness is integrated into a constant entropy, for any given state of matter. The dice are loaded by entropic determinism. Mutations are part of an integrated state defined by a constant.
-
The random assumption of changes on the DNA; mutations, violates the second law.
No, it doesn't.
-
That many random events would never maintain a constant.
To a very good approximation, it does.
Why do you keep posting your ignorance of entropy?
-
, it only disproves the random assumptions of biology,
No, it doesn't.
-
I will take seriously any argument that debunks evolution, if and only if it is proposed by someone who looks exactly like both of his/her parents. Anyone else is an embodiment of evolution.
Your post implies that it is nearly impossible to prove explain a viable model of evolution. Indeed, the scientific arguments on this subject are almost non-existent. We then fall into the speculative domain.
-
Scientific models aren't ever proven anyway.
-
Corrected.
-
Does this answer evolution-deniers?
Since the doubt in evolution is not based on logic, logic cannot be used to convince them.
-
Water was and is still critical to evolution. This can be inferred by the observation that enzymes, DNA and RNA will not work properly without water nor will they work if water is substituted by any other solvent. Life evolved, from scratch, in water; abiogenesis, even before the bias of replicators. Water was the original and continuing source of natural selection at the molecular scale.
Life in other solvents, such as alcohol, would never have selected DNA, since this molecule does not function properly within the nanoscale potentials set by alcohols. Even if you assume it appears randomly it cannot be selected since this would bottleneck further evolution; dead in the solvent. Much of the erroneous random approximation in current models is due to not including water based potentials when looking at life. This big hole within thinking, is approximated with organic cards and card tricks.
Entropy is a state variable, meaning any given state of matter will define a constant amount entropy. We model states using random based models like wave functions. The question becomes how can a wide range of random events, such as wave functions for a large number of interacting atoms, add up to a constant amount of entropy? It would being like saying we have 6.022 X1023 dice and will throw all these dice at the same time, a thousand cycle. What we finds is each time we do this, they will add to the same total amount of constant entropy. This defies all known properties of statistics, but this is observed. The deniers need to wake up.
One way to model this state phenomena, would be to treat the state like it is a closed container, so the free energy in the state always remains constant. This places a limit on the sum of all random events, since we lack any extra energy for things not to always add up. The smaller atomic parts can each fluctuate in value, even in a random way, but only as as long as somewhere else there is an opposite fluctuation to help balance this out. Mutations are part of this balancing act within the closed container approximation.
I am not denying evolution. I am denying the validity of the current models for evolution. These have conceptual flaws and I cannot just close my mind, memorize and repeat. I am not a good science bureaucrat, but tend to get bogged down by company politics. I like to use the power of reason and often find flaws at the conceptual level, even if this is not good politics. I can not accept the current half baked science. Any gambling addict can convince themselves that playing the odds is a way to success since people win jackpots all the time. This type of reasoning should not be called science, but an odd form of religion.
In terms of water, water forms hydrogen bonds, with hydrogen bonding unique in that has both polar and covalent bonding properties. In this respect, the hydrogen bonds of water can act like binary switches, with each of the two switch settings, defining different amounts of entropy, enthalpy and volume. Fluctuations in water's hydrogen bonding allows a way for larger states entropy to remain constant; glass of water. Water can show constant properties while still allowing dynamic internal fluctuations, like pH, which are often seen as random events. In this case these are ordered via a constraining ordering principle; constant entropic state. If we add organics; water and oil affect, which can alter the hydrogen bonding of water; surface tension, the water state parameters will lower entropy and will need to make adjustments to restore the constant; phase separation. This is highly ordered and not random.
-
It would being like saying we have 6.022 X1023 dice and will throw all these dice at the same time, a thousand cycle. What we finds is each time we do this, they will add to the same total amount of constant entropy. This defies all known properties of statistics, but this is observed. The deniers need to wake up.
If I throw a mole of dice the total score is going to be very close to NA times the average score for a single die which, I think, is 21/6 or 3.5.
How far from that value would you expect the score to be?
The property of stats that answers that is this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_large_numbers
and the answer is that it's so nearly a constant that we can't hope to measure the difference.
When someone says
Why do you keep posting your ignorance of entropy?
it isn't a rhetorical question.
Why do you keep posting stuff that shows that you do not know what you are talking about?
-
It would being like saying we have 6.022 X1023 dice and will throw all these dice at the same time, a thousand cycle. What we finds is each time we do this, they will add to the same total amount of constant entropy. This defies all known properties of statistics, but this is observed. The deniers need to wake up.
If I throw a mole of dice the total score is going to be very close to NA times the average score for a single die which, I think, is 21/6 or 3.5.
How far from that value would you expect the score to be?
The property of stats that answers that is this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_large_numbers
and the answer is that it's so nearly a constant that we can't hope to measure the difference.
When someone says
Why do you keep posting your ignorance of entropy?
it isn't a rhetorical question.
Why do you keep posting stuff that shows that you do not know what you are talking about?
The problem with your analysis of dice, is you are assuming an average over time but not the observed constant value of entropy over any smaller interval of time. I cannot go to the casino and roll two dice, to get the roll I need, all the time. The casino knows that although averages may work, less time or fewer roles, will not allow the averages to appear. The entropy remains constant for every roll of the dice,; average or not. The laws of statistics may extrapolate properly over longer internals of time. However, if there is not enough time to get to the average, random will not work. If a casino gave me all afternoon to roll the lucky seven I needed, I would have enough time to win, based on averages. But I get one roll of the dice, which they know is not enough time for averages to appear, allowing the house to win in the gap between averages.
As far as my understanding of entropy, I hear some members say I do not understand entropy, but nobody seems to follow through and explain it better. It comes down to the politics of denial, which is subjective and uninformative.
The term entropy was originally coined by engineers to describe the lost energy that was observed during the development of steam engines. If one did an energy balance, the energy did not add up properly. There was always missing energy, that was called entropy. This was/is a measurable value and not just a theoretical value derived from math. This is still measured today and was found to be a constant value for any given state of matter. You can see the values in the CRC handbook.
Water at 25C and 1 atm have a constant amount of entropy. This has to do with a constant amount of lost energy that is being made use of, that constrains the state in a certain way. It appears to be connected to the energy balance that defines the integration of the state. The randomness of the state is contained by a fixed amount of lost energy. The lost energy of entropy is type of information; instructions.
The 2nd law states that the entropy of the universe has to increase, with this entropy increase absorbing energy as a function of temperature; TS=Free energy. For the second law to be valid over time, this means the universe is bleeding free energy that cannot be easily reused. This increasing pool of lost energy is conserved and appears to play a role in defining states of matter as a type of information that constrains the random of states. This is a way to load the dice of the universe, so we have persistence of states, even though they may be defined with random events.
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. But with the entropic energy/information in place, we get the persistent foundation needed to build upward and onward. The second law adds to the pool of lost energy, allowing states to gain entropy, thereby creating more state complexity, in terms of how randomness can be constrained. Mutation are part of this ordering principle so life can evolve.
-
To answer the topic question, I'm going to say no. Children being different from their parents would be what creationists call "change within a kind" or just "micro-evolution". What they deny is "change between kinds" and "macro-evolution". I'm sure the specifics vary between different creationists, but the difference between micro-evolution and macro-evolution in their opinion seems to be whatever they think constitutes the creation of new information.
Their argument goes like:
(1) Macro-evolution requires the creation of new information.
(2) Random mutations can never create information, they can only destroy it.
(3) Therefore, macro-evolution is impossible.
This is, of course, wrong.
-
The problem with your analysis of dice, is you are assuming an average over time but not the observed constant value of entropy over any smaller interval of time.
No
The problem is that you don't understand statistical mechanics.
Imagine that there's a casino and they have already rolled a thousand dice and added the scores.
How far from 3,500 do you expect that sum to be?
If they had a million dice, how far from 3,5000,000 would you expect the outcome to be?
And if there were 10^23 dice?
Do you think you could measure something to that precision?
That's the point.
Essentially every "roll of the N dice" gets an answer very close to 3.5N and it's the same with measurements of entropy (which, incidentally, is practically never measured directly).
As far as my understanding of entropy, I hear some members say I do not understand entropy,
Believe them.
If one did an energy balance, the energy did not add up properly.
Yes it did- if you did it properly.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.
The energy associated with energy is calculated as T delta S.
If you drop the temperature near to absolute zero, you drop the energy associated with the entropy to near zero.
And what actually happens is that you get a more ordered structure- a solid, rather than a gas.
This is why we say you don't understand entropy.
It's because you keep getting things like that wrong.
-
Entropy still exists at absolute zero. The free energy term for entropy is TS, where T is temperature in degrees K, and S is entropy. The free energy will be zero at absolute zero; 0 K, since T=0. But S can be any value, since any value of S, multiplied by T=O will still have zero free energy connected to its entropy.
Matter does not disappear at absolute zero since entropic states are able to linger even at zero free energy. This energy* in entropy is connected to the universe bleeding free energy due to the second law. We cannot retrieve this lost energy* in a net way. When the universe cools to 0K, entropic information will still exist. This lingering entropy value is connected to the pool of energy that bleeds from the universe due to the second law.
When we have a state of matter, such as water at 25C, the free energy is TS. There is constant entropy S that defines the state, and a constant free energy G, since the constant state is defined at constant temperature T=25C; TS=constant.
In practical and experimental engineering terms, entropy does not increase if we have a reversible reaction or phenomena, since any change in state will return to the same original state defined by a constant amount of entropy. For an atomic state to maintain constant entropy, the electrons, for example, will need to move in reversible ways instead of irreversible ways. We will get fixed electron orbitals, which are not draw as changing due random changes over time.
The constant entropy of the orbital state requires the shapes of the orbitals need to be reversible but also remain fixed over time. The TS of water at 25C, is also constant. and therefore also has a fixed amount of free energy that has to shared by the entire state; like a closed system based in fixed informational entropy and fixed free energy. Random is contained within the order required by constant entropy and constant free energy.
Again if we chilled water to absolute zero, some entropy will remain, even though we lose all the free energy. This left over entropy, even at absolute zero, implies a type of information that is not dependent on heat or free energy. It is less about matter; enthalpy or internal energy, and more about information and command lines. The universe bleeds energy that it cannot reuse, since entropy will increase and will remain, even when there is zero free energy left in the universe; cools to absolute zero, so there is no practical energy left.
If we assumed a cyclic universe, this implies zero entropy change. How do we get the 2nd law active if a reversible universe implies fixed entropy or no entropic change? Ooops!. The universe cannot be cyclic. The second law implies the need for an irreversible universe that can increase entropy over time, such as one that will expand and then continue to expand.
-
Entropy still exists at absolute zero
How then to define the entropy when it is at zero? The entropy of a system at absolute zero is typically zero.
-
Entropy still exists at absolute zero
How then to define the entropy when it is at zero? The entropy of a system at absolute zero is typically zero.
The equation for free energy is G=H-TS, where G is the free energy, H is enthalpy or internal energy, S is entropy and T is temperature in degrees Kelvin. When T=0 K, or absolute zero, the free energy associated with entropy or S times temperature, has to be zero. However, this does not mean entropy has to be zero, since any amount of entropy times zero; S times 0, is still zero. Any amount of entropy at absolute zero will not show any free energy. The entropy is there but is not something we can extract energy from. It has zero free energy at absolute zero.
The entropy part of the equation is written -TS. This is implicit of the second law that states that entropy has to increase. Increasing entropy causes the free energy of the universe to decrease due to the minus sign. The increasing entropy of the second law permanently absorbs free energy as a function of temperature, causing universal free energy to decrease; the universe is bleeding energy into increasing entropy at finite temperatures. This bleeding will stop at absolute zero, since T=0 times entropy is zero free energy loss.
-
The entropy of a pure crystalline substance at absolute zero temperature is zero and there is no disorder at all. But it is true that there is the ground state of the atom: At absolute zero the system must be in a state with the minimum possible energy. Entropy is related to the number of accessible microstates, and there is typically one unique state (called the ground state) with minimum energy.
But we can learn that: The third law of thermodynamics states that the entropy of a system approaches a constant value as the temperature approaches zero. The entropy of a system at absolute zero is typically zero, and in all cases is determined only by the number of different ground states it has. Specifically, the entropy of a pure crystalline substance at absolute zero temperature is zero. https://courses.lumenlearning.com/introchem/chapter/the-third-law-of-thermodynamics-and-absolute-energy/
-
The entropy of a pure crystalline substance at absolute zero temperature is zero and there is no disorder at all. But it is true that there is the ground state of the atom: At absolute zero the system must be in a state with the minimum possible energy. Entropy is related to the number of accessible microstates, and there is typically one unique state (called the ground state) with minimum energy.
But we can learn that: The third law of thermodynamics states that the entropy of a system approaches a constant value as the temperature approaches zero. The entropy of a system at absolute zero is typically zero, and in all cases is determined only by the number of different ground states it has. Specifically, the entropy of a pure crystalline substance at absolute zero temperature is zero. https://courses.lumenlearning.com/introchem/chapter/the-third-law-of-thermodynamics-and-absolute-energy/
There is an explanation for this. At absolute zero, the -TS term is zero for any value of entropy. This means there is zero free energy within any value of entropy S. There is nothing for us to measure, since we depend on free energy changes, to know something is there. Since there is no free energy, in any amount of entropy, we cannot see ΔS via any type of energy change.This is called zero based on experimental limitations.
The second law states that the entropy of the universe has to increase. This means the universe is losing free energy via the constant entropy increase; -TS. For entropy to always increase, in a net way, -TS lowers, the free energy stockpile of the universe has to decrease; universe bleeds free energy. If we could get all the free energy loss back, that is generated by the second law, the second law would be proven wrong. There has to be ever increasing loss universal energy to be consistent with the second law; -TS over billions of years. Entropy only increasing in irreversible systems meaning the universe is not reversible or the second law is invalid.
Here is where that technical problem lies. We can still reverse entropy, on the local scale, such as freezing liquid water to make ice cubes. The refrigeration needed will use energy to lower local entropy, allowing us to retrieve some of the lost energy of the 2nd law. But this phase change occurs above absolute zero, where all states of matter still contain some free energy within their entropy; G=+TS. We can see that change via the heat given off in heat of fusion at 273 K.
But at absolute zero the amount of reversible free energy within entropy is zero. This is why we call it absolute zero. There will be no energy change even if entropy changed or not. The second law still requires universe entropy be a large increasing positive value, but without any free energy value or expression at absolute zero to measure. The tools are not infallible if they are the wrong tools for the job.
There is a difference between universal entropy and local entropy. Local entropy can be reversed. However, universal entropy, as defined by the second law, always has to increase. At absolute zero, we may reverse entropy of local systems down to zero based on states. At absolute zero we will no longer see any free energy change. However, the universal entropy has to be larger today than yesterday or the second law is made void. Experiments at absolute zero are about a local decrease in entropy, until we reach the state at T=0. This state stops showing free energy change via entropy change, so more entropy appears not be be there. But second law laws says universal entropy still have to increase but in this case without free energy; reorganize data.
The current models for cosmology and the creation of the universe are not early enough to make this make full sense. If we started the universe at the speed of light reference, where space and time are dissociated, this analysis makes all the sense in the world. With dissociated space and time, a state of infinite entropy occurs, which is the drive for the second law in our universe. The universe is heading back to where it began, where space and time are not connected, the same way as inertial space-time.
As far as evolution, I can accept evolution in the sense of change in all aspects of nature. These are created by the second law. With ever increasing entropy comes more and more complexity in life. While an increase in entropy implies irreversible systems, which makes sure evolution move forward and not backwards. I can also accept that states of matter show constant entropy. This is experimentally proven.
This constant entropy is like a container of entropic information about the state and free energy that requires the apparent randomness of wave functions to become ordered or else the entropy and/or free energy of the state could not remain constant; TS. This means that in states called cells, mutations do not occur in isolation, but are part of an integrated state, the sum of which has to add up to constant entropy and constant free energy. If the dice roll there one way the mutation will see dice roll the complimentary way, so TS is constant.
This its more consistent with the observation of nature. If we had a purely random driven mutation model there would do more wrong choices than good. Under random laws, the earth would be full of sick mutants, instead of strong and healthy lifeforms all integrated in 3-D eco-systems; larger entropic states of constant free energy and entropy.
Natural selection is a type of container and not a random process; state variable. The current model uses a closed container; natural selection, to get rid of the bad mutant choices. My model says that even natural selection is based on states of constant entropy, that will have an impact on other states of constant entropy, This allows better coordination and integration of mutant choices based on external and internal potentials.
-
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?
-
Natural selection is a type of container
Are you expecting to be taken seriously?
-
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?
-
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...
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
. 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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
the Alchemists often projected their own internal psychology into nature,
And that's what you seem to be doing here.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
A better way of phrasing this
It can not matter how you phrase something which is wrong; it's still wrong.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
I understand the current traditions, but I am also aware that these fall short of the full truth. it substitutes dice, for the deeper understanding that water could bring to the table. Textbooks show DNA without its water. In that state it is not bioactive. Therefore you need to throw dice to account for the mystery of naked DNA being active. This is not needed if you include water.
What you said was correct; water is a constant, while evolution is about change. Water is very stable, due to being a terminal product of combustion. The organics, on the other hand, are very pliable and polymerizable; organic chemistry, with their change always having to be in the context of a constant water solvent and bookend. This constant and unchanging selective pressure loads the dice; natural selection at the nanoscale, via a constant set of potentials, which are the same everywhere in the cell from day one to deep into the future.
If we make a change on the DNA, via a mutation, this will get extrapolated into the cell through mRNA, protein, packing the protein, to even the exact position of the protein in any synthesis sequence. To be useful, all these steps need to integrate within a matrix already set up by the water; old ways. The water provides an integrating mechanism; capacitance, to help assess changes on the DNA, since even simple changes, can enhance or disrupt a lot of integrated things. Water, as the fixed bookend, stays interconnected and is able to transmit data and energy to maintain equilibrium balance. Alternately, the potential can be the reverse of this; input food can changes the potentials upstream, with a genetic expresses and even mutation the result of an earlier integration way up stream.
Water is unique in that has two hydrogen bonding donors and two hydrogen bonding acceptors. This allows water to form 3-D polymerized structures; four bonds like carbon. Carbon can form four covalent bonds and thereby allowing an almost infinite variety of stable 3-D polymers. Water can do something similar, with its four hydrogen bonds. It can form semi-stable 3-D structures, that can come and go, even as the nearby 3-D carbon structures persist. This change in water carries free energy, that can help disrupt carbon bonds through its integration with enzymatic action.
Cooperative hydrogen bonding is when water forms a stable 3-D matrix. These cooperatives have the unique property of the first hydrogen bond being broken anywhere in the cooperative is the strongest bond. This experimental observation suggests something like resonance structures; hydrogen bonding and electron sharing. The first hydrogen bond broken, no matter where it is, is the strongest since the sharing is integrated among the cooperative.
In terms of the binary nature of the hydrogen bond; polar or covalent, the polar side is more compressed; less volume, defines higher entropy and higher enthalpy. The covalent, side of the switch is more expanded; more volume, and has lower entropy and lower enthalpy. Moving between the binary switch settings, water can move information of local organic states, with this information having muscle and energy. Water can expand or contract, exerting pressure or tension while shifting in amounts enthalpy and entropy. The enzymes can use this.
Nature also figured out a way to tap into the free energy gold mines of water cooperatives, especially near enzymes. ATP serves several purposes. It attaches a phosphate group, which is electron withdrawing. This helps alter the conformation of the enzyme, to help express its activity. The ADP that forms from ATP, needs to attach a water molecule. This water molecule is taken from the cooperative. The affect is similar to getting a run in a nylon stocking. The ATP is like a bolt cutter, pulling a water molecule from the cooperative, causing a run in the 3-D cooperative; spike of water entropy increase, as the cooperative water become more polar in terms of hydrogen bonding. The local water loses volume and gains entropy and enthalpy; vacuum that becomes endothermic. The enzymes can makes use of this free energy change. The cooperative will then reform to minimize potential.
If you look at the affect called pH, this all has to due with the binary nature of individual hydrogen bond. Hydrogen bond are part polar and part covalent in nature. They can go either way with only a small energy hill separating them. One water molecule can hydrogen bond to another water molecule. This starts as polar; simple change attraction. This polar hydrogen can transition to the covalent side of hydrogen bonding; which start to expand to allow better molecular orbital overlap. This can go all the way and covalently bond to the other oxygen of the other water. That change will require another covalently bonded hydrogen on that oxygen of water, to transition all the way to polar, so it can be released as an H+ acid. Water can break strong bonds using weaker bonds; pH.
Pure water tends to favor the polar side of the binary switch. There is some covalent hydrogen bonding but this is at a smaller precedent. These form, but will quickly reverse. When we add organics to water, surface tension is created in water. Tension implies the water expands toward the covalent side. Pure water wants to go more polar but organic shift it the other way. There is also a sweet spot on enzymes and other protein surfaces, where water takes the covalent side to the extreme as cooperatives. The organics help to create this enhancement of the water, due the surface tension potential of the water-oil affect. Life can tap into this, helping the water return to the polar side of pure water.
The is almost like perpetual motion. We make water touch organic surface so tension appears. The surface tension is like a stretched swing. We use this stretch to do work, if we can release the tension; ATP to ADP. Then we reintroduce the organic surface to help reset the spring.
Say we shook water and oil, we would create surface tension; tiny bubbles of water and oil. If we left this to its own devices, the bubbles will combine; like with like, until we get two lawyers. The original surface tension stored an energy capacitance, that was used to do work. The energy in all the little bubbles is not easy for us to reclaim, but within cells the natural tension between organic and water is useful as a source of energy and work.
-
Therefore you need to throw dice to account for the mystery of naked DNA being active.
No
What you said was correct;
Well, I guess that makes one of us.
Water is unique in that has two hydrogen bonding donors and two hydrogen bonding acceptors.
Not really; ethylene glycol has them too.
-
None of them are a different species than their parents.
-
Not a good argument since "species" is undefined. It's a label we apply wherever it is convenient. Nor is it logical even if species was defined. Speciation appears to be an occasional consequence of evolution, but causes do not depend on their effects.
-
They can only possibly look like one of their parents since their parents will not look identical. That's OK, I'm sure you would accept that looking like one of the parents would be a good enough criterion.
It is clear that asexual reproduction does produce very similar offspring, as does cloning. But I am challenging humans, not potatoes, even if they have the same IQ.
From what I remember, when a mummy and a daddy love each other very much, the daddy does something that transfers some of his genetic material to a haploid gamete inside the mummy and the resultant zygotic DNA doesn't look exactly like that of either parent, let alone both. But then I'm very old and things may be different nowadays.
-
Not a good argument since "species" is undefined.
Astonishing how far you would go to defend your beliefs.
Speciation appears to be an occasional consequence of evolution
That is not proven.
-
That is not proven.
Then where do you think it comes from?
-
Then where do you think it comes from?
From imagination.
-
Then where do you think it comes from?
From imagination.
So, you say that speciation is imagniary.
OK, so you agree with Alan's point
Not a good argument since "species" is undefined. It's a label we apply wherever it is convenient.
but you are prepared to argue with yourself about it.
-
From imagination.
So you don't think that new species arise over time? That's not what the fossil record reveals (unless you think everything is the same species as everything else).
-
Quote from: alancalverd on 03/04/2022 20:47:23
Not a good argument since "species" is undefined.
Astonishing how far you would go to defend your beliefs.
If you are old enough to remember libraries, you will recall that they were full of books. Everything on the shelves was a book, with covers and pages and printing. Now supposing you wanted a book about gardening. If they were all on one shelf, you would have to sort through hundreds of books about art, music, physics, and everything else that anyone had ever written about, in the hope that one might tell you when to plant roses.
Melvil Dewey suggested, in 1873, that you could segregate books by subject matter into 10 main classes and as many subcategories as required for convenience. And that is exactly what Linnaeus suggested 100 years earlier for living things.
Problem is to decide whether planting roses is a science (Dewey 500) technology (600) or recreation (700) - you could assign the book to any such Dewey category. But once it is so assigned and given a subcategory and number, any librarian will be able to find it for you.
Thus it is with species: they are assigned principally by common appearance or apparent physiology but the assignment is for human convenience. Is a bat a bird or a mammal? Depends whether you think its characteristic function is flying or suckling its young. But once you have assigned it to a species, everyone else knows what you are talking about.
-
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?
As far as we know, evolution depends on variation of DNA.
The importance of cytoplasmic water in the replication of DNA is well understood, and certainly in my (and I guess anyone else's) lectures on radiation biology, the impact of radiogenic free H2O+ radicals on the integrity of mitosis is considered critical to understanding mutation. And that impact is indeed approximated by rolling an awful lot of rather odd-shaped dice.