What slows the progression of the sciences to prove Evolution?

  • 37 Replies
  • 12095 Views

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

*

Offline Bishadi

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 75
    • View Profile
Who knows what the primary reason that evolution has not been perfected and taught in the schools worldwide?

Does anyone know this answer?
 

*

lyner

  • Guest
Human nature, power, bigotry, fringe religions, to name but a few.
In any case, there is no question that evolution happens; things can be seen to be changing. It's just a matter of providing a 'reason' (the intelligent design merchants)  or realising that you don't actually need a reason (people who have actually thought it through).
I can well appreciate that the more enlightened view could seem unsatisfactory to people who don't think much. They probably also believe in the Law of Averages.

*

Offline Bishadi

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 75
    • View Profile
Human nature, power, bigotry, fringe religions, to name but a few.
In any case, there is no question that evolution happens; things can be seen to be changing. It's just a matter of providing a 'reason' (the intelligent design merchants)  or realising that you don't actually need a reason (people who have actually thought it through).
I can well appreciate that the more enlightened view could seem unsatisfactory to people who don't think much. They probably also believe in the Law of Averages.

what about the math?

what about the 'laws' of physics?

does anyone know why in biological frames, when physics is applied; the math don't work?

does anyone know why?
 

*

Offline BenV

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1503
    • View Profile
Actually, the maths of evolution are pretty well understood - we can map and predict changes in allele frequency reliably.

I'm not sure what you mean about physics not applying to biological systems though.

*

lyner

  • Guest
Quote
does anyone know why in biological frames, when physics is applied; the math don't work?
 
I think that statement is not quite 'fair'. You can't just state that "the maths doesn't work". Which bit doesn't work?
Physics (and Chemistry) deals with, essentially, simple systems and determines how they are most likely to behave. These are what you refer to as the 'Laws'. The Laws allow you to predict, with reasonable certainty, how a situation will progress.

When you come to biological systems, the variety of combinations is very much greater and the possible outcomes are correspondingly. The number of possible combinations increases in a factorial manner as the factors multiply - which makes an incredible difference (and I do mean "not believable").
Hence you cannot make predictions in the same way as you can with Physics.
You CAN, of course, use Physics to rule out certain possibilities - e.g. possible maximum sizes for Insects or minimum sizes for Mammals - based on solid calculations. The statistics of genetics is fairly predictable (BenV) but there is a limit to how much you can identify which alleles are, in fact, the most advantageous. I do detect a worrying arrogance and misplaced confidence in the modern genetic technology.
Many people find it impossible to grasp the statistics of probabilities and combinations because it requires familiarity with Maths which allows one to 'believe the numbers'. Without this ability, it is much easier to think in terms of someone actually making things happen and 'designing' our world.

Personally, I attribute this to basic feelings of insecurity. It has never bothered me, though.

On the other hand, I don't feel antagonistic towards Religions; they are, in fact, incredibly effective ways of modifying and regulating behaviour. Consider how badly people behave in the absence of any Religious influence. The shocking behaviour of religious extremists is a sign of manipulation by cynical users of those same religions. Either way you get human nature involved.

*

Offline Bishadi

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 75
    • View Profile
Actually, the maths of evolution are pretty well understood - we can map and predict changes in allele frequency reliably.
  Sir....  there is not even a mathematical reprsentation of the phospholipid bilayers.

they have no idea (in physics/math) how the lipids align in the inversion form awith no peptide bonds....

i say it is resonance; 

see what a Nobel guy said

My adult scientific career began with graduate study in
chemical physics with Harden McConnell at Stanford. I had
the idea of elucidating the mechanism of ion transport across
biological membranes by nuclear resonance. I thought ion
transport must involve rotation of the transport protein in the
membrane. Struggling to prove this wrong idea, it occurred
to me to study the rotation in the membrane of a lipid
molecule, about 1,000 molecular weight, rather than a
protein fifty times larger. This led to my discoveries, by
nuclear and paramagnetic resonance methods, of
phospholipid flip-flop, an exceedingly slow process, and
lateral diffusion, exceedingly fast (Kornberg and McConnell,
1971a ; Kornberg and McConnell, 1971b)


Quote
 
I'm not sure what you mean about physics not applying to biological systems though.
  in biology everythnig is considered chemical

i.e... look up atp synthesis..... it is funny
« Last Edit: 21/07/2008 18:19:34 by Bishadi »
 

*

Offline Bishadi

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 75
    • View Profile
Quote
does anyone know why in biological frames, when physics is applied; the math don't work?
 
I think that statement is not quite 'fair'. You can't just state that "the maths doesn't work". Which bit doesn't work?
  See any metabolic process, or specifically let's play with ATPs

or how about hemoglobin and the reactive mechanism?

or even the idea that neural interactions are of electrical impulse (binary wiring)....  this was a subject, that in 1982 i wrote a paper Photon Neuron Conduction (PNC theory) .... i was a 16 year old kid and shared the exchange at synaptic junction in a physics form rather than chemistry form, which provided a method of reflecting 'exactly' how signals exchange between the cells..

what if I told you memories are held within the glial and are refracting crystaline structures; would that just ruin your day?


Quote

When you come to biological systems, the variety of combinations is very much greater and the possible outcomes are correspondingly. The number of possible combinations increases in a factorial manner as the factors multiply - which makes an incredible difference (and I do mean "not believable").
Hence you cannot make predictions in the same way as you can with Physics.
  DO you know why?

i do.......... in chemistry the only thing important is the structure; they pay no attention to the energy upon the structure; hence the reactions and catalyst are misunderstood

the reason why evolution is not written in pure form unquestionable; is that the process of how energy can be of intent, or purely said; how energy upon mass is the life upon mass, has no purpose in the understanding of chemistry.

in chemistry, like in entropy.........  it is all intended to chaos

which in reality is exactly opposite; life does have purpose; to continue!

the math to prove this is a physics constraint will not allow it while walking the planck.....

of simply before answers can be understood, many of the sciences need to step back and rehash the benchmarks..... if not take a seat and ask questions because there is a person who did just that...


« Last Edit: 21/07/2008 18:22:24 by Bishadi »
 

*

lyner

  • Guest
You are actually rejecting the Model, not the Maths.
Chemistry most certainly does deal with non-static situations but, once the number of variables gets too high, it can't cope.
Are you looking for some sort of magical reason rather than the huge number of variables involved?

Quote
what if I told you memories are held within the glial and are refracting crystaline structures; would that just ruin your day?
Why should it? Are you just showing off?
When you grow up, you may be able to solve all these problems for us. Thank you, in advance.

*

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8750
    • View Profile
"in chemistry the only thing important is the structure; they pay no attention to the energy upon the structure; hence the reactions and catalyst are misunderstood"
Please don't talk such unmitigated bollocks about my profession.
If you know so little about it that you think that statement is true then you would be better advised to keep quiet until you have learned something.
Please disregard all previous signatures.

*

Offline Bishadi

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 75
    • View Profile
"in chemistry the only thing important is the structure; they pay no attention to the energy upon the structure; hence the reactions and catalyst are misunderstood"
Please don't talk such unmitigated bollocks about my profession.
If you know so little about it that you think that statement is true then you would be better advised to keep quiet until you have learned something.

chemistry is a joke

does that bother you?

why would it?

why not embrace what is good and realize; hey, that means the kids might be able to cure cancer, diabetes, malaria, etc etc etc ...

because we can all see, you ain't doing it; nor is the billions spent every years.....

and no one is even curious to ask why?

the reason is the paradigm is incorrect...


not trying to harm anyone; just share truths that MUST be addressed... and be certain... i have no problem with looking up items that i may not understand; but truth be known

the representations of living processes by chemistry are a joke...



 

*

Offline Bishadi

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 75
    • View Profile
What slows the progression of the sciences to prove Evolution?
« Reply #10 on: 21/07/2008 19:05:24 »
You are actually rejecting the Model, not the Maths.
  they be interrelated......

i do not care if the model said we were all monkeys with strings tied to our back; if the math does not work, then it is wrong


Quote
Chemistry most certainly does deal with non-static situations but, once the number of variables gets too high, it can't cope.
Are you looking for some sort of magical reason rather than the huge number of variables involved? 
  That is good, as there are a huge number of variables unaccounted for and as for magic; there is no such thing.

Quote
what if I told you memories are held within the glial and are refracting crystaline structures; would that just ruin your day?


then you said


Why should it? Are you just showing off?
Why?  How can you say that... billions spent in the field and alzheimers still exists......

in polaritonics http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0409/0409111.pdf

they can affixed a structure, then send a signal through it and the signal takes up the properties...

this is what memories are in living structures

as well Sanchez and Grau published a paper sharing how DNA and the genetic evolution occurs and what they did was share that the energy upon the structures and then environment changes the parameters of the configurations...

Quote

When you grow up, you may be able to solve all these problems for us. Thank you, in advance.

i have know for over 25 years how the brain works and even presented it, then over these last 2 decades have covered about every phenomenon on this earth

and to this day, the goofs that keep punching at me, simply because they do not understand is why i could care less for the community and when someone finally figures out what i have been saying is in fact real; then maybe i will come out

otherwise.... i am already sick of this site
 

*

lyner

  • Guest
What slows the progression of the sciences to prove Evolution?
« Reply #11 on: 21/07/2008 22:48:45 »
Well, there is a simple solution for you.

*

Offline DoctorBeaver

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12656
  • A stitch in time would have confused Einstein.
    • View Profile
What slows the progression of the sciences to prove Evolution?
« Reply #12 on: 21/07/2008 22:52:57 »
Fledgling science site at http://www.sciencefile.org/SF/content/view/54/98/ needs members and original articles. If you can help, please join.

*

Offline Ian Scott

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 101
    • View Profile
What slows the progression of the sciences to prove Evolution?
« Reply #13 on: 22/07/2008 02:59:30 »
Bishadi's original question was


"Who knows what the primary reason that evolution has not been perfected and taught in the schools worldwide?"

Perhaps the question is complex - evolution is taught but maybe not worldwide. Can a theory be "perfected" - no, a theory can only be disproved. Finally, why assume that knowledge should be taught in a school - some may say that these institutions serve a social purpose in behavior not so much as education.

Evolution cannot be disproved - this relieves it as having any status, to be disprovable is important. An experiment is needed to disprove and no amount of agreed opinion constitutes proof. Lots of people thought dark skinned people should be slaves and we know this is wrong. But there was a time when we did not.

Maybe we can only ask questions as a process rather than to seek some magic a destination.


*

Offline Madidus_Scientia

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1451
    • View Profile
What slows the progression of the sciences to prove Evolution?
« Reply #14 on: 22/07/2008 07:37:12 »
Quote
because we can all see, you ain't doing it; nor is the billions spent every years.....

and no one is even curious to ask why?

Quote
Why?  How can you say that... billions spent in the field and alzheimers still exists......

Because new knowledge isn't something that's for sale sitting on a shelf that can be bought, someone has to come up with it first.

*

Offline Bishadi

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 75
    • View Profile
What slows the progression of the sciences to prove Evolution?
« Reply #15 on: 22/07/2008 22:31:30 »

Because new knowledge isn't something that's for sale sitting on a shelf that can be bought, someone has to come up with it first.

apparently you are not familiar with how patents and knowledge is conveyed in the scientific community.

they all want their name in print

since Einstein, there are very few contributions of such scale

in which the contributor was more intent on getting the job done than what people think about them
 

*

Offline Bishadi

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 75
    • View Profile
What slows the progression of the sciences to prove Evolution?
« Reply #16 on: 22/07/2008 22:37:08 »
Bishadi's original question was


"Who knows what the primary reason that evolution has not been perfected and taught in the schools worldwide?"

Perhaps the question is complex - evolution is taught but maybe not worldwide. Can a theory be "perfected" - no, a theory can only be disproved. Finally, why assume that knowledge should be taught in a school - some may say that these institutions serve a social purpose in behavior not so much as education.

Evolution cannot be disproved - this relieves it as having any status, to be disprovable is important. An experiment is needed to disprove and no amount of agreed opinion constitutes proof.

because the math does not work.

Quote

Maybe we can only ask questions as a process rather than to seek some magic a destination. 
  there is no magic, nor the creation as per the old stories...

the reason the kids do not go to school with the ability to learn evolution and the pure laws of mass and energy as they exist in evolution, the galaxies, atom and energy (adam and eve)....  all the way to how the brain works and why we sleep.

the knowledge of how the base elements combine in an evolutionary form for life to progress is because the physics "do not exist" within a mathematical framework......

that is why!
 

*

Offline BenV

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1503
    • View Profile
What slows the progression of the sciences to prove Evolution?
« Reply #17 on: 22/07/2008 22:51:31 »
Actually, the maths of evolution are pretty well understood - we can map and predict changes in allele frequency reliably.
  Sir....  there is not even a mathematical reprsentation of the phospholipid bilayers.

they have no idea (in physics/math) how the lipids align in the inversion form awith no peptide bonds....

But that's not relevant, is it?  As I said, the maths behind evolution are well understood.

So...

"Who knows what the primary reason that evolution has not been perfected and taught in the schools worldwide?"

Evolution has not been perfected as that's not how evolution works, it's entirely dependent on environmental conditions and genetic history - that's why evolution has not been 'perfected'.

Why is it not not taught in schools worldwide? - That decision has nothing to do with science.


Your subsequent replies suggest that this thread has nothing to do with evolution, but in fact is a discussion of the mathematics of biology.  Would you rather discuss that?

*

Offline Bishadi

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 75
    • View Profile
What slows the progression of the sciences to prove Evolution?
« Reply #18 on: 23/07/2008 01:42:19 »

But that's not relevant, is it?  As I said, the maths behind evolution are well understood.
  no it is not.....

you really are not aware are you?

evolution is something we can recognize that is similar to what Darwin suggested in Origins of species...

but the math to address how energy upon mass can do this; is not in any math as this is the dichotomy behind the whole issue
Quote

Evolution has not been perfected as that's not how evolution works, it's entirely dependent on environmental conditions and genetic history - that's why evolution has not been 'perfected'.
  which is what Schroadinger meant while talking about the cat  (the environment is relevant)

that chaotic idea of a neutral parity is really non existent; the environments entanglement is more important than observed...

because of this, the physics behind a living structure cannot be reconciled

Quote
Why is it not taught in schools worldwide? - That decision has nothing to do with science.

which is less than true; religions have no choice unless religions can isolate the children.

if the children were taught the correct math and not the mess of millinium of patch work; there be no doubts about what is true and what is believed

that is the beauty behind the truth; math removes any requisite of belief

the point is, to address life within a living structure and allow for the comprehension of em (light) as the energy upon mass, then by observing the properties of that energy in relation to the environment; then the revealing of the true nature of energy or literally life itself; perfects the final TOE

knowledge evolves

and that pinnacle is when mass knows how it exists
 

*

Offline Andrew K Fletcher

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 2331
  • KIS Keep It Simple
    • View Profile
What slows the progression of the sciences to prove Evolution?
« Reply #19 on: 23/07/2008 10:36:48 »
The answer is Gravity!
Science is continually evolving. Nothing is set in stone. Question everything and everyone. Always consider vested interests as a reason for miss-direction. But most of all explore and find answers that you are comfortable with

*

Offline BenV

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1503
    • View Profile
What slows the progression of the sciences to prove Evolution?
« Reply #20 on: 23/07/2008 11:30:42 »
I think I must have totally misunderstood this topic. Could some one explain what the real jist of this is?

If we're talking about how we don't have a mathematical model for the incredibly complex processes of biology, then I can't really comment anyway.  One point to address would be that the maths of this would be very complex (as befits a complex system), and so almost certainly would not be taught below degree level.

As to why evolution isn't taught in schools worldwide, it really does have nothing to do with science.  The research that continues to add evidence in support of evolution continues regardless of whether it's taught everywhere or nowhere - it's a political/cultural/personal decision whether or not to teach it, not a scientific one.

*

Offline Bishadi

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 75
    • View Profile
What slows the progression of the sciences to prove Evolution?
« Reply #21 on: 24/07/2008 02:01:41 »
I think I must have totally misunderstood this topic. Could some one explain what the real jist of this is?

If we're talking about how we don't have a mathematical model for the incredibly complex processes of biology, then I can't really comment anyway.  One point to address would be that the maths of this would be very complex (as befits a complex system), and so almost certainly would not be taught below degree level.
 

the same rules that apply to any single atom or 5 billion atoms, the rules are the same.

so it is not how difficult the knowledge is to absorb but how the current paradigm is a little off the mark

Quote

As to why evolution isn't taught in schools worldwide, it really does have nothing to do with science. 
  it is 100% because of the sciences

because if the math was correct in the first place than evolution would be a historical document just like the bible is

meaning to understand how to heat a cup of coffee will also be of the same foundations as keep proper time......

its time for a paradigm shift

that is what observing energy correctly does, and since it is not the math you are so concerned with, then it seems that others may have to approve what is being suggested before you will accept it

Quote

The research that continues to add evidence in support of evolution continues regardless of whether it's taught everywhere or nowhere - it's a political/cultural/personal decision whether or not to teach it, not a scientific one.

well you have my disagreement and even why if you read through the thread
« Last Edit: 24/07/2008 02:04:19 by Bishadi »
 

*

Offline BenV

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1503
    • View Profile
What slows the progression of the sciences to prove Evolution?
« Reply #22 on: 26/07/2008 21:15:45 »
it is 100% because of the sciences

because if the math was correct in the first place than evolution would be a historical document just like the bible is

meaning to understand how to heat a cup of coffee will also be of the same foundations as keep proper time......

its time for a paradigm shift

that is what observing energy correctly does, and since it is not the math you are so concerned with, then it seems that others may have to approve what is being suggested before you will accept it

Oh, now I see - you're a creationist of sorts who is spouting nonsense.  I should have realised, but I foolishly thought you wanted to ask questions about why evolution isn't taught in some schools, that being the question you asked in the first post.  I see no need to continue with this rubbish.
« Last Edit: 26/07/2008 21:17:16 by BenV »

*

Offline Bishadi

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 75
    • View Profile
What slows the progression of the sciences to prove Evolution?
« Reply #23 on: 27/07/2008 14:37:22 »
it is 100% because of the sciences

because if the math was correct in the first place than evolution would be a historical document just like the bible is

meaning to understand how to heat a cup of coffee will also be of the same foundations as keep proper time......

its time for a paradigm shift

that is what observing energy correctly does, and since it is not the math you are so concerned with, then it seems that others may have to approve what is being suggested before you will accept it

Oh, now I see - you're a creationist of sorts who is spouting nonsense. 
  the only creation ever to exist was 'created' by mankind....  i.e...  words are the creation of mankind

we live within all mass, all energy, all time; that is your trinity known as God.

Quote
I should have realised, but I foolishly thought you wanted to ask questions about why evolution isn't taught in some schools,  that being the question you asked in the first post.  I see no need to continue with this rubbish.
  the reason the bible thumpers still believe in a magical God is because the math to perfect the sciences is incomplete.

If the math was pure, the we could call it "understanding" and forget the word evolution until we blow out the religious right. (the complacent).

Of all the people on this globe; me not a complacent one......  we evolve and the very first part of allowing knowledge to evolve is to be honest with the data observed and interpreted.

If you want to know why a goof like me would be on a site like this, conveying versus just pursuing a peer reviewed publication; is because that math is not for sale or to be used before the coming war.

to put enough questions out there to the kids, they will do what needs to all by themselves....

it is why i like that one little prophecy that suggest
when the truth exists; 'the young will begin to teach the old'

the kids need us more than the community of the so called educated....

and the point of the thread was that evolution is not taught because the sciences are too busy chasing the buck to return to the key questions every person on this earth ever born has wanted to know

'what makes me alive?"

the community never finished the math!
 

*

Offline BenV

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1503
    • View Profile
What slows the progression of the sciences to prove Evolution?
« Reply #24 on: 27/07/2008 21:51:26 »
My apologies.  When you said:
Quote
because if the math was correct in the first place than evolution would be a historical document just like the bible is
I thought you were saying that the bible was a historically accurate document, hence thinking you were a creationist spouting nonsense.

The fact remains though, that the maths of several aspects of evolution are well understood.  Also, it is not the scientific community that determines what is taught in schools, and I stand by my comment that the schools which decide not to teach evolution do so for reasons other than the science itself.

Also, it is possible to understand a great deal of the sciences (especially at high school level) without even touching the maths behind it, so I hardly see the relevence.

*

Offline Andrew K Fletcher

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 2331
  • KIS Keep It Simple
    • View Profile
What slows the progression of the sciences to prove Evolution?
« Reply #25 on: 27/07/2008 22:29:29 »
The current model is flawed because there are many examples of weaker species thriving while stronger species fail to thrive and become extinct. Darwin undoubtedly had part of it correct but failed to recognise the significance of bipedalism. I believe the driving force behind evolution is gravity always will be and always has been. Did standing up alter the order of signals in our brain and increase intelligence?

Did gravity play a part in the Elephant and Bull seal Tusk? The huge wings of a bat developed because it slept suspended upside down? Compared to its tiny back legs?

The canines of a lion are they stronger because of gravity and how it drives the pattern of larger teeth from their mineral rich diet?

Is it gravity that drives the ocean currents and alters the world’s weather to bring about past extinctions?

Does gravity provide oxygen and fuel to generate fire and enable us to cook food?

Is it a coincidence that humans stand vertical and are the most intelligent species?

Does an ape have a different flow of fluids through its brain to humans and is there evidence in the skulls of primates that show different flow direction to that of our own skull?

Does the increased flow of blood in more upright species generate sufficient friction due to improved flow caused by gravity make these species warm blooded?

Do cold blooded animals evolve closer to horizontal than warm blooded animals?

Does a dormouse emerging from hibernation use posture to alter its temperature and awaken by uncurling, stretching, turning onto its side, and then sitting and eventually standing and does this correspond to the changes in body temperature as it goes through this process?

Does an increase in salt in the diet of humans alter the sex of a baby towards male and does a reptile have a temperature dependence towards producing different sexes?

And does a dinosaur have the same temperature dependence and if so does this tell us something important about their extinctions? Could the global warming of 2 degrees have caused an all male population in dinosaurs whereas the egg laying dinosaurs that used water to regulate their offspring’s sex dependence to produce an equal female to male ratio explaining why today’s dinosaurs like crocodiles, alligators, turtles, tortoise are still with us while the big dinosaurs laying their eggs away from water perished.
Science is continually evolving. Nothing is set in stone. Question everything and everyone. Always consider vested interests as a reason for miss-direction. But most of all explore and find answers that you are comfortable with

*

Offline BenV

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1503
    • View Profile
What slows the progression of the sciences to prove Evolution?
« Reply #26 on: 27/07/2008 22:37:38 »
And bacterial evolution? Viral?

You are quite right, of course, gravity will have had an impact on evolution, being an environmental condition under which evolution occurs.  However, the force of gravity is basically the same on all animals, and so other environmental conditions will trump gravity with regards natural selection.
« Last Edit: 27/07/2008 22:39:37 by BenV »

*

Offline Bishadi

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 75
    • View Profile
What slows the progression of the sciences to prove Evolution?
« Reply #27 on: 28/07/2008 16:44:54 »
Darwin undoubtedly had part of it correct but failed to recognise the significance of bipedalism. I believe the driving force behind evolution is gravity always will be and always has been. Did standing up alter the order of signals in our brain and increase intelligence?
  Darwin did not even use the word evolution in his whole book Origins of Species.

Bipedalism evolved or basically the change was found good, because to stand, freed the hands to carry. So that first freak was probably capable of carrying an offspring during a pursuit, and they survived.

Or if what you are suggesting "brain waves"  would be as if you understood the earth's magnetic field and raised a coil above the earths surface to increase flux line exposure to increase the potential.....

bet not many realize that is what Tesla's tower was.

It was not for 'transmitting' energy but as a generator of 'free energy'........ 

this is something that that can be proven as well will expose why Edison was one of the most corrupt businessmen this earth ever knew

knowledge evolves correct?



 

*

Offline Bishadi

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 75
    • View Profile
What slows the progression of the sciences to prove Evolution?
« Reply #28 on: 28/07/2008 16:56:43 »
My apologies.  When you said:
Quote
because if the math was correct in the first place than evolution would be a historical document just like the bible is
I thought you were saying that the bible was a historically accurate document, hence thinking you were a creationist spouting nonsense.
  Well with a birth of june 1966 or simply 6/66... be certain nothing of ignorance within a faith over truth will ever come from this person....

ask the serpant in the garden; he told Eve, surely they would not die and know 'good and evil'.........  because the truth does not lie; people do

Quote
The fact remains though, that the maths of several aspects of evolution are well understood.  Also, it is not the scientific community that determines what is taught in schools, and I stand by my comment that the schools which decide not to teach evolution do so for reasons other than the science itself.
  If the math of how electricity and electromagnetism or even light, was pure, then evolution could never be in doubt.

such that the true framework of math, reveals that evolution is a product of nature, rather than a belief

such is when we see some dude flying through the clouds rapturing people as well bones regrow bodies and sharon tate walks around again, then we could believe the bible as true

Quote
Also, it is possible to understand a great deal of the sciences (especially at high school level) without even touching the maths behind it, so I hardly see the relevence.
  because most are simply resolved to existing paradigm

that is because of choice, not reality as to be of choice and not be complacent, then each can see the truth simply by being honest with themselves to not allow beliefs to overtake integrity

meaning, if someone says the earth revolves around the sun, all it takes is to observe what is occuring and make quality determinations based on simply being honest with what you see and not believing just because it sounds good.

Thank you copernicus and then gallileo for being honest and doing what is right as a contribution to mankind!

Thank you for not giving a whoot about what people think of you and doing what was neccessary to give us, your future, a chance to see what is true over and above the monkeys, unevolved, but retaining faith.

Keep this in mind;   all words are the creation of mankind
« Last Edit: 28/07/2008 16:58:25 by Bishadi »
 

*

Offline Andrew K Fletcher

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 2331
  • KIS Keep It Simple
    • View Profile
What slows the progression of the sciences to prove Evolution?
« Reply #29 on: 28/07/2008 17:26:49 »
Indeed bacterial and viral evolution is propelled by gravity.

Your saying the force of gravity is equal on all creatures, plants and microbes is of course correct. However when this equal force is applied to density changes in fluids it gives us a whole new ball game to play with. For example suspended solutes in blood in a horizontally formed reptile causes fluids to slow down. And indeed these reptiles use postural changes to warm up and cool down. We also can show this in human physiology by laying flat, standing up sitting down and sleeping head down or head up at an angle. Solutes in a horizontal artery for example will have gravity forcing them towards the side of the artery closest to ground. Whereas a head up tilt will cause the solutes to be propelled along the artery inducing an accelerated flow.

Professor Michel Cabanac, University Laval as I have stated before has identified a very important flow independent of the brain by placing a Doppler probe where the eye meets the nose during rest and exercise using a static cycle machine. A Doppler probe records a reversal of the blood flow against the normal direction produced by the heart. This means blood flows normally from brain to skin through the holes in the skull and reverses when the body becomes overheated. Dean Falk published a paper titled selective cooling of the brain. Cabanac has asked me to write a paper in defence of his own paper on this important discovery.

So although we have equal exposure to gravity some animals have evolved to make more use of its beneficial driving force upon circulation and in doing so have reaped many other benefits from it.

Bishadi

A monkey has perfect dexterity in hands feet and tail and is quite capable of carrying its offspring to safety perhaps even more capable than us given its impressive agility in the canopy of trees.. So this one is probably not important in the greater picture
« Last Edit: 28/07/2008 17:32:47 by Andrew K Fletcher »
Science is continually evolving. Nothing is set in stone. Question everything and everyone. Always consider vested interests as a reason for miss-direction. But most of all explore and find answers that you are comfortable with

*

Offline Bishadi

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 75
    • View Profile
What slows the progression of the sciences to prove Evolution?
« Reply #30 on: 28/07/2008 18:53:33 »
Indeed bacterial and viral evolution is propelled by gravity.

  No it is not

Quote
Your saying the force of gravity is equal on all creatures, plants and microbes is of course correct.
  Again incorrect...  as then there would be NO gravity variations on the earths surfaces.

increased associations between bodies of mass, increases its potential (see Casimir or even how dark matter was conjured)

Quote
Bishadi

A monkey has perfect dexterity in hands feet and tail and is quite capable of carrying its offspring to safety perhaps even more capable than us given its impressive agility in the canopy of trees.. So this one is probably not important in the greater picture


you suggested that gravity was how bipedal evolution occured; i suggested no it is not and that freeing the hands for carrying was the benefit procured.

Haven't you ever notices human babies cannot hold on, they must be carried?

« Last Edit: 28/07/2008 18:56:31 by Bishadi »
 

*

Offline Andrew K Fletcher

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 2331
  • KIS Keep It Simple
    • View Profile
What slows the progression of the sciences to prove Evolution?
« Reply #31 on: 28/07/2008 20:32:57 »
Human babies demonstrate the holding on mechanism to great effect when newborn and for some time after birth.

Gravity variations on the Earth affect all of the animals in the area to the same degree and if animals were moved from one part to another then they would be affected the same. It is pointless to split hairs over this.

All evolution is gravity dependent and bugs are no exception to this force. Take the cells into micro-gravity and we see a very different evolution.

THE ABILITY TO ADAPT TO ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTS IS extremely important to pathogenic bacteria such as E. coli. One entirely unique environment is the microgravity experienced by bacteria during space flight. A large body of whole organism-based research has demonstrated that prolonged exposure to microgravity has significant effects at a basic, cellular level.1 The analysis of bacteria under microgravity has received considerably less attention because of the expense and difficulty of performing in-flight experiments onboard the shuttle or space station. In order to overcome this limitation, investigators have taken advantage of the partial simulation of microgravity obtained by growing bacterial cultures in High Aspect Rotating Vessels (HARV) developed by NASA.2 For example, a recent study3 showed that, Salmonella enterica serovar typhimurium grown under low-shear modeled microgravity (LSMMG) appeared to have increased virulence potential in a murine model system. A follow-up study4 revealed that a significant number of the genes are transcriptionally regulated in response to LSMMG. In addition to immediate changes in behavior, it is also possible that bacterial strains will evolve during long-term space flight, potentially modifying virulence, resistances, and rate of culture survival.Our goal is to develop a more general and deeper understanding of LSMMG on bacterial gene expression. http://www.isso.uh.edu/publications/A2002/fox1.htm



The team looked at the entire Salmonella genome and found that the expression of 167 genes and the levels of 73 proteins had changed in the space-travellers. Clearly, the environmental changes of space-flight had triggered changes in the bacteria at the molecular level.
When fed to mice, the altered bacteria were three times more virulent than their Earth-bound counterparts. The infected mice succumbed to much lower concentrations of space-faring bacteria and in much shorter times.
http://notexactlyrocketscience.wordpress.com/2007/09/24/space-flight-turns-salmonella-into-super-bug/



Indeed bacterial and viral evolution is propelled by gravity.

  No it is not

Quote
Your saying the force of gravity is equal on all creatures, plants and microbes is of course correct.
  Again incorrect...  as then there would be NO gravity variations on the earths surfaces.

increased associations between bodies of mass, increases its potential (see Casimir or even how dark matter was conjured)

Quote
Bishadi

A monkey has perfect dexterity in hands feet and tail and is quite capable of carrying its offspring to safety perhaps even more capable than us given its impressive agility in the canopy of trees.. So this one is probably not important in the greater picture


you suggested that gravity was how bipedal evolution occured; i suggested no it is not and that freeing the hands for carrying was the benefit procured.

Haven't you ever notices human babies cannot hold on, they must be carried?


Science is continually evolving. Nothing is set in stone. Question everything and everyone. Always consider vested interests as a reason for miss-direction. But most of all explore and find answers that you are comfortable with

*

Offline Bishadi

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 75
    • View Profile
What slows the progression of the sciences to prove Evolution?
« Reply #32 on: 30/07/2008 15:12:10 »
Human babies demonstrate the holding on mechanism to great effect when newborn and for some time after birth.
  enough to carry their weight while grasping Mom?

No they can't.....  as the suggestion was, that bipedal progressed because it freed the hands to carry with...

you suggested it was gravity and in a sense i guess it was; to over come it

Quote
All evolution is gravity dependent and bugs are no exception to this force. Take the cells into micro-gravity and we see a very different evolution.

then you should have an answer for why dinosaurs were so big.

I suggest because the oxygen content of the atmosphere was greater.   Roughly 32-35% back then, and now 21-23%.

Just because we can change something in the lab (space) does not mean, nature is following that protocol.

the thread is suggesting that if the math to evolution was correct, in which from atom and energy to adam and eve... if the core rules of the interactive process of mass and energy was correct, then nothing could stop evolution from being understood globally

i.e... it would be a known fact of nature!

 

*

Offline BenV

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1503
    • View Profile
What slows the progression of the sciences to prove Evolution?
« Reply #33 on: 30/07/2008 15:23:23 »
We need zero understanding of maths to understand evolution.  So even if the incredibly complex maths (which isn't widely understood) was wrong, it wouldn't make any difference.

I think you've picked an obscure reason to claim evolution isn't really what's happening.  Please can you explain to me your understanding of evolution as it stands?

*

Offline Andrew K Fletcher

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 2331
  • KIS Keep It Simple
    • View Profile
What slows the progression of the sciences to prove Evolution?
« Reply #34 on: 30/07/2008 19:09:21 »
Bishadi sorry to rain on your parade but this video may go someway to revealing the truth, and the truth in science is realy all that matters.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Xz4XxPXh6I

Incidentally not all dinosaurs were so big! so we have to have an understanding of why there was so much diversity. For example why is a dormouse so small when an elephant is so big? It is likely that there was a huge abundance of food for both grazing and meat eating animals. Rich pickings might have had something to do with huge bellies?

I have to agree with Ben. If the logic is not obvious then adding more complications to make the picture less obvious is hardly the right way to be going. Keep it simple has stood the test of time. Besides can't imagine getting dinosaurs to digest complicated maths.
« Last Edit: 30/07/2008 19:17:17 by Andrew K Fletcher »
Science is continually evolving. Nothing is set in stone. Question everything and everyone. Always consider vested interests as a reason for miss-direction. But most of all explore and find answers that you are comfortable with

*

Offline Bishadi

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 75
    • View Profile
What slows the progression of the sciences to prove Evolution?
« Reply #35 on: 31/07/2008 03:30:40 »
We need zero understanding of maths to understand evolution. 
   but if the math of how energy and mass was correct and uncomplicated, then evolution would be simply a part of math


Quote
  So even if the incredibly complex maths (which isn't widely understood) was wrong, it wouldn't make any difference.
  i disagree...

as it is if the performance of the simple phospholipid bilayers was understood, then 'creation from inanimate matter' would not still be believed

Quote
I think you've picked an obscure reason to claim evolution isn't really what's happening. 

way off the mark on what is being suggested. me may thump into about every religion you can get your hands on; but none are of the last chapter; understanding.  Such that once 'understanding' begins in each of the 4 corners of this world, the religions will become simply history lessons.

Quote
Please can you explain to me your understanding of evolution as it stands?
life progresses within an evironment

such that living things evolved

knowledge as well has evolved

such that life became aware (conscious)

the pinnacle of knowledge is when mass knows how it exists

 

*

Offline Bishadi

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 75
    • View Profile
What slows the progression of the sciences to prove Evolution?
« Reply #36 on: 31/07/2008 04:01:26 »
Bishadi sorry to rain on your parade but this video may go someway to revealing the truth, and the truth in science is realy all that matters.
  in a sense you are pretty much on the money; difference is, some are scientific in nature and some are controlled by the science or the business of.

i.e....  no tenure is granted without conformity as well, not many (true scientists) can survive without being within the business of the science (someone usually owns the work)

sorry to rain on your parade, but bell labs, mit and cal tech combined can't mess with what i bring; because they don't know it as well don't own it

so have a little religion coupled with reality (science)

that script such like Einstein's E=mc2 style, that combines the three core portions to existence itself (all mass, energy and all time) 'Get MET' works in a form, that is corporeal, spirit and transcendent; the trinity; in a script form is that long sought name of God.   God is not some dude sitting on a thrown, God is what we live within; Existence itself!

so you have my religious view


Quote
I have to agree with Ben. If the logic is not obvious
  the logic is obvious but when predeterminations are learned, then the stubborn simply shut off listening

i.e...  almost like a bible thumper

Quote
then adding more complications to make the picture less obvious is hardly the right way to be going.
  What is so difficult with removing all the stupidity of particle accelerators (created units of mass), dark matter, dark energy (does not exist; observance of increased entanglement between the stars in close proximity) and half of the garbage in current sciences (chemistry is a joke; no observance to the energy upon the mass).............what is wrong with combining all branches of the sciences within a single form that reduces the garbage rather than continues the stupid tangents and confuses the comprehension to even professors?

i.e...  Ptolemy had the math to represent the absolute law of the earth as the center of the universe by mathematically defining how the 'roaming bodies' (planets) crisscrossed the sky......

but then copernicus, another rude polock, used common sense and honest observance to begin another "paradigm shift"

Quote
Keep it simple has stood the test of time. 
  and throughout time they all said 'light is life'

so i did the homework and found; they're were correct.  Energy is light upon mass, and energy upon mass does share a progression within a good environment to assimilate more mass (evolve) and increase its total potential (life)...


Quote
Besides can't imagine getting dinosaurs to digest complicated maths.
  that is what i consider the old timers of the sciences

dinosaurs!

it is why the children are my target; i need not be accepted by the community

to give the children enough, they can run with it and not be complacent to foolishness of current thought;

then as the old books suggested that when the truth exists; "the young will begin to teach the old'..........

so if a single person had the knowledge to combine the sciences, religions and philosophies of this earth; who do you think it must be

and like i suggest to the christian gang; there are no 2 people coming in the end times scenario; it's all from the same ONE

no magic, not flying dragons eating seals...... its all about simply understanding what life is and how we can choice our eternity by what we do

and then have the math to back it up

don't joke about reality; because if 'ye lyin, ye dyin'

so i don't play when it comes to knowledge
 

*

Offline BenV

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1503
    • View Profile
What slows the progression of the sciences to prove Evolution?
« Reply #37 on: 31/07/2008 10:48:03 »
Okay then, don't play games with knowledge.

Please can you tell me a bit more about your understanding of evolution, as:

Quote
life progresses within an evironment

such that living things evolved

knowledge as well has evolved

Doesn't explain to me how much you understand.

Also, here's a challenge for you.  As you keep stating that the maths is wrong, you must know what the correct maths is.  Please explain to me the maths behind evolution.  Should I not be able to follow it, then a school child would also be unable to do so, (and so would not learn it) and your point will be completely null and void.

I am happy to explain evolution (without the maths) at a level that a school child would be able to understand and then use as a base on which to develop an understanding of the more complex issues, should you wish me to. However as the originator of this thread, I feel it is your responsibility to first explain yourself.