[Bored chemist]

For instance, if I said, "there is an inverse relationship with caloric intake and lifespan." I must show that there is an inverse relationship with temperature and lifespan as well. And guess what? There is.

There is not.
Imagine me and my (imaginary, but hypothetical) twin brother.
I don't know how many Calories I have got through in my life, but it must be something like 2400 per day or 880 thousand per year or 51 million over the course of my life.
My twin will be the same.
Imagine that he dies today and that I continue to live to be twice as old as I am.
I will burn thorough about 100 million Calories over the course of about 120 years and he  will only get through 50 million or so.
I live longer and get to take in more calories.
That's the opposite of your claim.

Your idea is absurd.
That's because you don't understand the ideas involved.

[thebrain13 (OP)]

For instance, if I said, "there is an inverse relationship with caloric intake and lifespan." I must show that there is an inverse relationship with temperature and lifespan as well. And guess what? There is.

There is not.
Imagine me and my (imaginary, but hypothetical) twin brother.
I don't know how many Calories I have got through in my life, but it must be something like 2400 per day or 880 thousand per year or 51 million over the course of my life.
My twin will be the same.
Imagine that he dies today and that I continue to live to be twice as old as I am.
I will burn thorough about 100 million Calories over the course of about 120 years and he  will only get through 50 million or so.
I live longer and get to take in more calories.
That's the opposite of your claim.

Your idea is absurd.
That's because you don't understand the ideas involved.

Dude this is weird. Read what I actually wrote and actually try to understand it, stop trying to find the next insult, this is beneath both of us. 95% of people who read this, without foam on their mouth would understand very clearly what I'm trying to say. It's very simple what I mean. If I eat 4000 calories a day I probably wont live as long as if I eat 2000 per day. It is that simple. Actually try to understand what I'm saying, or just go away. You are wasting everybody's time.

[Bored chemist]

If I eat 4000 calories a day I probably wont live as long as if I eat 2000 per day. It is that simple.

For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong.

H. L. Mencken

Imagine 2 people- perhaps me and my imaginary twin.
I sit around surfing the net all day.
He digs in his garden.
He eats more than me to give him the Calories he needs for the digging work.
If he works really hard, it might be 4000 a day.

He gets lots of exercise, I don't.
Which of us will live longer?

[thebrain13 (OP)]

It's pretty clear that when your opponents have to constantly insult and say things I never said to try to win an argument that they have no point. If they could do it fairly they would.

[Kryptid]

There are all kinds of curves for all types of life, plants, nematodes, insects, mammals that proves definitively that life has the same relationship with heat as well. Basically a plant a Nematode or a person will live longer in a cooler environment than a warmer one.

Not surprising, given that chemical reactions (and hence, the biochemical reactions associated with aging) happen faster at higher temperatures. I'm a little doubtful about the claim that a human lives longer in a cooler environment, though. They'd have to burn more calories in order to maintain a constant body temperature than someone in a warmer environment.

[thebrain13 (OP)]

There are all kinds of curves for all types of life, plants, nematodes, insects, mammals that proves definitively that life has the same relationship with heat as well. Basically a plant a Nematode or a person will live longer in a cooler environment than a warmer one.

Not surprising, given that chemical reactions (and hence, the biochemical reactions associated with aging) happen faster at higher temperatures. I'm a little doubtful about the claim that a human lives longer in a cooler environment, though. They'd have to burn more calories in order to maintain a constant body temperature than someone in a warmer environment.

It's true that generally speaking most mammals live longer in a cooler environment. (assuming obviously that you don't kill them by freezing them to death)

I would agree that if modern evolution was correct, being colder should put more strain on warm blooded creatures who have to continually fight it, but given my genetic theory, fundamentally it's not the caloric intake that matters but the ability to create photons that matters. Those two typically correlate very strongly but being in a colder environment cuts down the ability to create as many photons as shown by experimentally by things such as black body radiation curves.

According to my theory, it would not be exactly correct to say that eating more calories causes a shorter lifespan directly, but its the fact that eating more calories typically leads to a greater production of electrical gradients which can be targeted by cancer and other age related processes.

All things being equal, caloric intake will shorten lifespan. All things being equal, greater temperature of the environment will shorten lifespan. All things being equal greater sunlight for photosynthetic creatures will shorten lifespans.

These are all forms of energy that are all very well founded in the scientific literature to have a big impact on lifespan.

These energy forms can add or subtract onto each other. For instance, we could build an apparatus that creates photons from the  electrical energy directly. We could then pick up the whole experiment and put it into an oven and it would create even more since photons would come from the heat and the electric fields. If we put it into a freezer it would counteract some of the photons created.

That's the nature of thermodynamics. Energy is more likely to turn into heat in the absence of heat.

The mistake you made, which I'll forgive you for since I made this mistake so many times before (even as the creator of this new evolution theory) is that you assumed something exists that doesn't just because it matches the rhetoric of evolution. I don't make this mistake as often as I used to, but yes a quick google search can confirm the link between the lifespan of even warm blooded creatures and the temperature of their environment.

One last thing. You said that it makes sense that objects should live shorter in warmer environments because everything happens faster. I agree to an extent, but not fully.

For instance, I went to the pet store and bought some live blood worms for my fish. They'll tell you to put them in the fridge and not leave them at room temperature because their lifespans are dramatically different at these different. Leaving them in the room they may live for 3-7 days. If you leave them in the fridge they can last a month.

In Kelvin, a typical difference between the fridge temperature and room temperature could be 275 to 295 kelvin. If you say that we can account for this change based on things "happening faster" or due to increased disorder of entropy (which is what these metastudies typically hypothesize). Then shouldn't we expect lifespan to decrease linearly with the change in kelvin? In this instance there is a 7 percent difference in kelvin yet the worms lifespan difference is perhaps 4x with that change. Additionally all of the lifespan to temperature ratio curves I've ever seen, the lifespan changes much more aggressively than the temperature change does. Why?

If you knew the mechanics of how my genetic theory works you'd realize that these things should not scale linearly, but more for the same reason that if you increase the chances a coin flips heads by two percent then the chances you flip the coin ten times in a row is not 2 percent greater but much greater.

This is a very important concept I dubbed, the threshold point energy. This concept explains pretty much everything if you know enough and think about it enough.

Look at a chromosome like a house of mirrors. A photon enters this house of mirrors and bounces around.

The question is, how does a photon bounce around indefinitely?

Well one photon can't do it, but let's say the average number of bounces is 20 before the photon escapes. That photon could maintain itself indefinitely IF on average there was a 5% or greater chance that the photon created another copy per bounce.

The body wants to maintain balance between these two forces. The body wants the number of photons created per bounce multiplied by the number of bounces to be above 1 but very close. That is generally the ideal homeostasis. When it is one, I call that the threshold point. That's the point where all the magic happens.

If the two multiplied together equals 1.2, that would work, the only problem is that would also work for many other things like tumors which is bad. If that number is too high the chances other photons can infiltrate goes way up and if they are allowed to exist too long they will degrade your genetics more and more in favor of conditions that suit their existence.

There are two ways to alter the threshold point. You can change the energy or you can change the geometry of the chromosome. If the chromosome grows and the average number of bounces is 25 then the photon only needs to be able to replicate itself 4 percent of the time per bounce to be over the threshold point. There's geometrically changes, coiling, methylenation, epigenetics etc. We can get into any of that if you'd like.

This is why as I've shown before(on a different post titled "predicting telomeres with one idea" but kind of in this as well) that you can predict with 0 exceptions that's with a capital Z. The size of the chromosome through telomere changes just by thinking about the energy alone carefully. This is why these two variables move inversely with one another. 

The genius of this setup, is not only that it offers ways to help construct the body with the forces these photons can exert on the area(helping with construction or whatever) it's that this also allows life to be able to essentially "communicate" genetic information over space because it creates conditions that only photons from other complex life could realistically ever accomplish.

Only perfect photons are going to be able to reach this threshold point if the body is operating correctly.

(*Disclaimer* I'm well aware of peoples opinions of quantum mechanics) But photons are not as simple as people think they are.

But the way I think it works is that photons can replicate their probability waves PERFECTLY (or at least close enough) when they are not being "looked" at.

The chromosome as a whole is built like natural wavefunctions of circularly polarized photons bouncing around.

You see, one photon from all the way across the universe that has a wavefunctions that can reach 1.000001 has an infinitely greater chance of occupying a chromosome then 10^100 photons who can only reach a .99999 on the threshold point scale.

Of course that goes to *hit if the energy is too high or the chromosome is damaged.

There is an endless amount of examples I could point out on how this works. Let's talk about worms or mammals while we are at it.

If something is cold blooded and its temperature changes. In order to main its homeostasis it needs to change something else to maintain close to 1, but what?

We only have two options. Geometry or energy. It could be either. C Elegans which is the darling of research oftentimes because its genome is very small. Scientists have found that they can alter a gene leading to impressive increases in its lifespan and robustness. (don't quote me on the exact number but it's multiples of its lifespan x times increases).

This opens up two big mysteries for evolution.  Why should that even be a thing? If scientists can massively increase its lifespan with one gene why didn't mother nature simply have that gene on all the time? Doesn't make sense at all.

Additionally, how based on what this gene does increase the lifespan so much. Scientists don't know why, but they know what changes. The answer is this gene regulates how tightly coiled the histones are packed together.

You see, for a cold blooded creature with an unusually small genome, it can maintain the threshold point simply by unpacking histones. The coiling changes the average bounces and can be used to counteract the temperature changes and maintain. Of course it doesn't do this perfectly. But that is exactly why that gene exists.

If we are talking about mammalian genetics, it's more steady, not exactly steady (which is relevant) but certainly steadier than a worm. We can certainly not adjust lifespan of mammals like we can with worms.

Let's ask this question. There is a study where they alter fat cells of mice that creates heat. They were able to change the temperature of male and female mice this way by approximately 1 degree each.

Male mammals like people struggle with cancer more than their female counterparts. Mice, people and mammals also have the XX XY paradigm where male mice have smaller chromosomes as a whole than female because of the Y.

My question is this. Given a one degree change in temperature for each sex, whose lifespan was reduced by more, the male or the female? One of them is impacted negatively twice as much as the other. Based on threshold theory of genetics, which one is it and why?

[Kryptid]

The mistake you made, which I'll forgive you for since I made this mistake so many times before (even as the creator of this new evolution theory) is that you assumed something exists that doesn't just because it matches the rhetoric of evolution.

And what is that mistake?

Additionally all of the lifespan to temperature ratio curves I've ever seen, the lifespan changes much more aggressively than the temperature change does. Why?

Chemical reaction rates don't scale linearly with temperature. If I recall correctly, an increase of 10 degrees centigrade results in a doubling of metabolic rate.

Then shouldn't we expect lifespan to decrease linearly with the change in kelvin?

No.

If scientists can massively increase its lifespan with one gene why didn't mother nature simply have that gene on all the time?

A lack of selection pressure. If the majority of living things end up dying from predation, starvation, disease, accidents, etc., then there is only value in holding off aging for so long.

[thebrain13 (OP)]

The mistake you made, which I'll forgive you for since I made this mistake so many times before (even as the creator of this new evolution theory) is that you assumed something exists that doesn't just because it matches the rhetoric of evolution.

And what is that mistake?

Additionally all of the lifespan to temperature ratio curves I've ever seen, the lifespan changes much more aggressively than the temperature change does. Why?

Chemical reaction rates don't scale linearly with temperature. If I recall correctly, an increase of 10 degrees centigrade results in a doubling of metabolic rate.

Then shouldn't we expect lifespan to decrease linearly with the change in kelvin?

No.

If scientists can massively increase its lifespan with one gene why didn't mother nature simply have that gene on all the time?

A lack of selection pressure. If the majority of living things end up dying from predation, starvation, disease, accidents, etc., then there is only value in holding off aging for so long.

The mistake is you assumed lifespan in mammals and people doesn't change with the temperature of the environment because you didn't know why.

You're last point is exactly why it is 100 percent impossible to argue against evolution. With "lack of selection pressure" and evolution optimizes you have a convenient answer for anything don't you?

The real answer is it makes zero sense for a worm to live 5x shorter for no reason.

[Kryptid]

The mistake is you assumed lifespan in mammals and people doesn't change with the temperature of the environment because you didn't know why.

I never said or even implied that.

You're last point is exactly why it is 100 percent impossible to argue against evolution.

Not so. There would be quite a few things that would inconsistent with evolution if they were discovered.

With "lack of selection pressure" and evolution optimizes you have a convenient answer for anything don't you?

Not if something inconsistent with evolution was discovered.

The real answer is it makes zero sense for a worm to live 5x shorter for no reason.

I never disagreed.

[thebrain13 (OP)]

The mistake is you assumed lifespan in mammals and people doesn't change with the temperature of the environment because you didn't know why.

I never said or even implied that.

You're last point is exactly why it is 100 percent impossible to argue against evolution.

Not so. There would be quite a few things that would inconsistent with evolution if they were discovered.

With "lack of selection pressure" and evolution optimizes you have a convenient answer for anything don't you?

Not if something inconsistent with evolution was discovered.

The real answer is it makes zero sense for a worm to live 5x shorter for no reason.

I never disagreed.

You asked me this question and I answered. What specifically do you think would falsify evolution in the minds of scientists?

[Kryptid]

You asked me this question and I answered. What specifically do you think would falsify evolution in the minds of scientists?

A trove of pre-Cambrian vertebrate fossils would do it.

[Bored chemist]

It's pretty clear that when your opponents have to constantly insult and say things I never said to try to win an argument that they have no point. If they could do it fairly they would.

I made the point that you are clearly wrong.
A man eating 4000 calories a day will quite plausibly  outlive one  who eats 2000 calories a day.

Are you going to accept that fact?
Do you realise that it proves that your claim is wrong?

It's pretty clear that when your opponents have to constantly insult and say things I never said

Are you trying to pretend that you did not say this?

If I eat 4000 calories a day I probably wont live as long as if I eat 2000 per day.

Do you think your denial that you said it will fool anyone?

[Bored chemist]

Read what I actually wrote

I did.
That's what your problem is.
What you wrote is not sensible, and you know it.

[thebrain13 (OP)]

You asked me this question and I answered. What specifically do you think would falsify evolution in the minds of scientists?

A trove of pre-Cambrian vertebrate fossils would do it.

You are suggesting let me not misquote you. That if we a found trove of vertebrate fossils that would falsify evolution.

I disagree, what would happen is obvious. People would just say evolution happened earlier than we thought. That's it, everybody who believes in evolution would still believe in evolution, everyone.

Also the fossil already contradicts evolution in favor of my theory. Regular evolution suggests fast pace change with small things and quick change with big things. Yet the biggest creatures of all time pretty much all exploded through a blink of an eye in the Cambrian explosion. 

Here is the first sentence in wikipedia if you google cambrian explosion. "The cambrian explosion, cambrian radiation, cambrian diversification or the biological big bang refers to an interval of time 541 million years ago in the cambrian period when practically ALL ANIMAL PHYLA started appearing in the fossil record. It lasted for about 13-25 million years and resulted in the emergence of most metazoan phyla. The event was accompanied by major diversification in other groups of organisms as well. Before earlier Cambrian diversification most organisms were relatively simple composed of individual cells or small multicellular organisms, occasionally organized into colonies. As the rate of diversification subsequently accelerated, the variety of life became much more complex, and began to resemble that of today. Almost all present day animal phyla appeared during this period."

Let's be clear here. The fossil record does NOT in any way support even remotely stable steady growth over time. Not at all. Even Darwin knew this was a huge problem. We went from largely unrecognizable physiology to T-Rexes mammals, eyeballs, noses, the cardiovascular system and pterodactyls in possible 13 million years. A very tiny fraction of the 3.5 BILLION year history of evolution on earth. Of course my theory handles this perfectly....

If you don't think that scientists would abandon evolution because they found some vertebrates at earlier times, I just think you are not considering the culture you are a part of any more than the religious did in the 1400's. I'm not trying to insult you but there is not a chance in hell Harvard, Cambridge, Bill Nye, everybody talking smack to religious people on the internet are going to change their minds and apoligize? Or are they just going to change their minds about what year vertebrates started? Just being realistic, if you can't recognize the overwhelming impact culture has on our minds today, a culture you are absolutely a part of. I don't see how you can help me.
 This doesn't surprise me in any way (sadly) but I feel like I could sum up most comments with "I'm part of science, you need to believe like us, that's what makes us better than you."

Even though I'm a liberal agnostic physics major, and a serious self learner as well. The hypocrisy of the self proclaimed "objective" is just insane. 

If it's not some lecture about "real science" it's insults and gross intentional misrepresentations of what I'm saying.

You Kryptid, even though you are completely doubting everything I'm saying are the only person who is even remotely listening.

I would imagine this is exactly what it would of been like with Darwin and the religious. He figured it out though. He entertained with a book that became very popular. People wouldn't say this stuff to me in real life as often, but they certainly would online.

Anyways end rant. Do you have a better way to falsify evolution because that obviously would not work. There is no way Bill Nye is going on fox news and apologizing because we found some vertebrates somewhere, that's not how people work.

[alancalverd]

How do I win then? You just have to be a 100 times better than the person you are debating.

Don't waste time debating. Devise a critical experiment where your hypothesis predicts a different result from the other guy's, the get a third party to do it.

[alancalverd]

What specifically do you think would falsify evolution in the minds of scientists?

No baby looks exactly like both of its parents. I don't think you can deny that observation, and the fact that babies don't look exactly like both parents is called evolution. You can't falsify a definition.

[Kryptid]

I disagree, what would happen is obvious. People would just say evolution happened earlier than we thought. That's it, everybody who believes in evolution would still believe in evolution, everyone.

I don't think so. Pre-Cambrian vertebrates would completely upend everything we thought we knew about the history of life.

Regular evolution suggests fast pace change with small things and quick change with big things.

What's the difference between "fast pace chance" and "quick change"?

Yet the biggest creatures of all time pretty much all exploded through a blink of an eye in the Cambrian explosion.

You seem to be implying that 13-25 million years isn't enough time for that to happen. Why not?

Let's be clear here. The fossil record does NOT in any way support even remotely stable steady growth over time. Not at all. Even Darwin knew this was a huge problem.

And that's why punctuated equilibrium was proposed.

We went from largely unrecognizable physiology to T-Rexes mammals, eyeballs, noses, the cardiovascular system and pterodactyls in possible 13 million years. A very tiny fraction of the 3.5 BILLION year history of evolution on earth.

So 13 million years being a very tiny fraction of 3.5 billion years is somehow a problem? That sounds more like an issue of perspective.

If you don't think that scientists would abandon evolution because they found some vertebrates at earlier times, I just think you are not considering the culture you are a part of any more than the religious did in the 1400's. I'm not trying to insult you but there is not a chance in hell Harvard, Cambridge, Bill Nye, everybody talking smack to religious people on the internet are going to change their minds and apoligize?

One explanation being wrong wouldn't automatically make a different explanation correct. The discovery of pre-Cambrian vertebrates wouldn't make young Earth creationism right.

Or are they just going to change their minds about what year vertebrates started?

They can't reasonably do that.

Just being realistic, if you can't recognize the overwhelming impact culture has on our minds today, a culture you are absolutely a part of.

So are you talking to me, or are you talking to the scientific community? I obviously can only answer for myself.

Do you have a better way to falsify evolution because that obviously would not work. There is no way Bill Nye is going on fox news and apologizing because we found some vertebrates somewhere, that's not how people work.

People don't have to admit they are wrong in order to be wrong, so what Bill Nye did or did not do wouldn't save evolution's truth value.

Another way to falsify evolution would be to discover genetic inconsistencies. There are an awful lot of plants and animals that haven't had their genomes completely sequenced yet. As an example, let's say we tested a ring-tailed lemur in Madagascar and found that a collection of its genes were much more similar to those of the field cricket than they were to other lemurs. Then another collection of its genes were much more similar to those of the polar bear than to other lemurs. Basically, anything that would completely destroy the genetic relationships animals have to each other. Sometimes horizontal gene transfer between species does happen, but it's pretty rare. So ideally, you'd want to see profound genetic inconsistencies that horizontal gene transfer couldn't account for.

[Kryptid]

To expand on what I was saying earlier about fossils, I could go beyond merely Precambrian vertebrates and say that the discovery that there is no actual pattern to the development of new species in the fossil record would falsify a lot of what we know about evolution as well.

We have only sifted through a tiny fraction of the Earth's crust, so let's say we discovered that biodiversity was at a maximum during the Precambrian and has been getting progressively smaller ever since then. Every animal and plant type alive today  (humans, elephants, conifers, mushrooms, dinosaurs, etc.) is found in Precambrian strata. Then, as the ages go on, more and more of those organisms go extinct until we are left only with what we see today. That would be powerful evidence against current evolutionary theory, as it would destroy phylogeny and bring into question common descent.

That being said, evolution as a general concept is practically beyond falsification because it has passed so many tests and is readily observable. We know that allele frequencies in populations change over time. We know that mutations happen and that sometimes natural selection favors them. So evolution, to some extent or another, must happen. Trying to falsify that would be about like trying to falsify the round Earth model.

[Bored chemist]

You are suggesting let me not misquote you. That if we a found trove of vertebrate fossils that would falsify evolution.

That is indeed a misquote.
It's not what he said.
It misses out the important bit

pre-Cambrian vertebrate fossils

So the idea that

People would just say evolution happened earlier than we thought.

doesn't make sense.
It would be like the number 7 being before the number 3.
You can't just say "well it turned up early".

How do I win then?

Stop relying on ideas that are plainly wrong.

But, if your game is trying to disprove evolution...

[thebrain13 (OP)]

What specifically do you think would falsify evolution in the minds of scientists?

No baby looks exactly like both of its parents. I don't think you can deny that observation, and the fact that babies don't look exactly like both parents is called evolution. You can't falsify a definition.

Even as a self proclaimed liberal who lives in San Francisco, I have occasionally had heated discussions over the overstepping of boundaries of woke culture with my girlfriend who was a gender studies major. Last time we went out to eat she defined me as a feminist and had me cheers to it since I believe in the equality of men and women. I told her this would be funny if this was the only snippet of my life my friends had from back home lol.

Likewise, if all you mean by evolution is slow (from the perspective of a persons life) change over time. I'll cheers to being a staunch believer in evolution. If you believe in using "random" chance to explain whatever phenomena you want, we are not anywhere on the same page.

In fact I would go as far as saying. My theory is the theory of evolution just redone with a much bigger vision with all kinds of modern science, biology and physics Darwin never had access to. Evolution needs a rebuild.