Darwin is tricky

[Valjean]

The entropy argument continues to be brought up, no matter how many times it's refuted as irrelevant.

none so blind...

 

[Tau]

(chemistry is a joke)

Is it?

So anything from toothpaste to high explosive to cancer medicine is also a joke?

 

[smidget]

Read a little on what's come out of Cuba

4. [pdf] Title: The energy cost of protein messages lead to a new protein information law
Authors: Robersy Sanchez, Ricardo Grau
Comments: 13 pages, 1 figure. Article process
Subjects: Biomolecules (q-bio.BM); Quantitative Methods (q-bio.QM)



Point is evolution is a good description of what darwin observed ......yet unless you have actually looked into the math... then you really have no idea

the attached is that a few youngsters are stepping up to the plate to shares how the genes and protein construct can progress in a 'linear' (evolving) process based on environment. This is a simple representation for genes but the molecular interactions have never been published with the physics behind the energy and mass interactions.

That is what this thread is about. And a reason as to why the current scientific 'student body' cannot do the work 'now' is that the definitions of energy and how molecular structures interact is not currently up to speed. (chemistry is a joke)

we found theoretical and experimental proof that proteins −from all living organisms− tend to​

have their estimated semantic content of information proportional to their molecular weight.

Is this not initially rather obvious? They go on to conclude that:​

The law expresses the solution to a continuous optimization process that living organisms had to face, in which there is a compromise between biological functionality, economic feasibility and the survival requirements.​

How does this indicate anything away from sensible logic, and support for the evolution that we observe?​

 

[smidget]

The example shares mass evolving into a life.

Chemistry....

What about Chemistry? You've got muddled about chemistry? You're saying that chemistry has a role in life (well, yes...). Are you deliberately being incomprehensible? I'm not quite sure any one here can get a notion of what exactly you are arguing.

Then read a little on entanglement before commenting. ..

You said:"Still; the differences is the math of current scientific explanations; has no mechanics to show the increase of potential between 2 inanimate forms of mass.

Like wise, the progression is based on the interrelation of all mass to each other based on the entanglement property of energy between all mass/existence. "
What are you arguing then? That particles in organisms are entangled? Hey, that'd be interesting if it is so. What are you proposing? 1. Is the evidence that points towards this? and 2. What would you propose the result of this would be? I'm curious.

like how do 2 people copulate?

Which was in response from me saying: "Two species coming together does not automatically mean a longer lived offspring, and that's the only notion I can get from what you are saying." And I still don't see your point. The vast majority of the time in science, we're better without metaphor & are really better concentrating on what happens, don't you think? I don't really see what your response has to do with anything either, it's just a random interjection. Unless I'm missing something? In that case, I would appreciate a comprehensible explanation of what I'm missing

And organelle is a life living within a cell. The cycle and process is true but your scales of observance is a little biased. Does alfalfa need bees? Do bees need pollen?

The quote of mine this was in response to was just carrying on questioning what you were meaning by your strange wave metaphor. Unless you were saying by your metaphor that symbiosis is Good?

Darwin didn't coin the word evolution; creationsit labeled Darwinism..... or 'why didn't I think of that'

Darwin described a process true at all levels. Did the solar system evolve from celestrial mass and energy?

I still don't quite see why we're still concentrating on what Darwin said in the 19th C. We've come a long, long way from then. Perhaps it's nice to still pay homage to him as the first person that observed something, but evolution in a biological sense is at basics (like everything in life) a molecular phenomenum...

Saved by the bell..... Yes... evolution is 'good'...

Math needs to change at core level (i.e... finish Einstein's pursuit) addressing energy as light (em upon mass) and maintain observance to the 'entangled' environment.

all mass, all energy and all time; the total: One: is that 'trinity' sharing the name of you know who

It all reveals itself by 'light'

You've become incomprehensible again

 

[Bishadi]

Is it?

So anything from toothpaste to high explosive to cancer medicine is also a joke?

define heat?

heat is simply em upon mass..... "everytime"

every atom that combines with another must have em

it's a 'light' thing ....

energy is not defined correctly

SO just because water and dirt makes mud and we all can observe this does not mean, the scientist know how it is occuring.

Such that a doctor can shoot your butt up with a whole bunch of chemicals that have proven to assist in curing an ailment; much of the data is based on probabilities and test cases in which a 'majority' have favorable advantages....

but do they know how most of it works at the molecular level; take a real class in molecular biology and find out; they really don't......

or simply..... if biology was based in electrical potential then anyone with any basic electronics knows a magnetic would be like kryptonite. as a magnet can affect an electrical potential at the single atom level.... so to simply rub a magnetc on someone would tear the structures apart.....

life is not based on electical potential; chemistry is a joke!

 

[Bishadi]

the article "

we found theoretical and experimental proof that proteins −from all living organisms− tend to​

have their estimated semantic content of information proportional to their molecular weight.


"

Is this not initially rather obvious? ​

Then you are a little behind the 8 ball. In basic quantum physics; energy or light has no mass (weight).

What the comment meant is that a molecular structure can have varied potential based on the construct of the mass. Basic common sense to thinking but not grounded in physics but in chemical potential were the 'excess' is heat released and heat is not a property of energy but simply em upon mass, that has momentum; That heat are impacts. Note the flame of a fire.

A test: take 1000H atoms and 500 O atoms; isolate in vacuum at absolute zero; weigh them each separately.

combine them, again in a vacuum; fire em into the specimen. Nothing electrical, just em.

Will the mass combine?

Will the combinations have a different weight than the sum of the 2 isolated specimens added?

Go get your nobel.

What these guys did is observe a progression and offer an algebraic form to share how this progress can actually occur;

and it is based on observing the mass having a potential within an environment and then when combinations occur; it further affects the environment to continue the elevations.

for example; to seek the greatest wave in a bath tub; we tap the surface; to get an increase we can watch the wave coming back and then splash the water again at the right time and increase the wave even further.... well in a sense, this is what mass and energy does to increase the potential to mass 'life'

we eat to so the same thing; we take in mass (with energy) and convert (metabolisms) that energy and blank the mass out..... no one is consuming Oxygen and water or carbon or or or...

it is the energy upon that mass (light) that is being used for life....

simple, basic and of pure common sense;

now let's see anywhere in all the globe that shares that light is the energy upon mass.

ooops............ find it right here

and for them of religious roots................. in the beginning, there was light!

it all starts there

​

 

[Scuba Pete]

What could possibly make anyone think that evolutionary science is still purely Darwinian? The inability of creationists to understand evolutionary science is astounding.

I'm a creationist. I not only understand evolution, but believe that God designed and used it.

 

[Bishadi]

You said:"Still; the differences is the math of current scientific explanations; has no mechanics to show the increase of potential between 2 inanimate forms of mass.

Like wise, the progression is based on the interrelation of all mass to each other based on the entanglement property of energy between all mass/existence. "What are you arguing then?

Energy entangles mass; which is literally in fact that unknown phenomenon known as ‘gravity’

That particles in organisms are entangled?

absolutely!

To go to a concert and listen to the band; everyone there was entangled by the energy exchanged. Words entangle; Love is entanglement in a physical sense; See casimir/ van der waals …. Increased association can increase the attractive potential. (see the gecko’s feet)

Hey, that'd be interesting if it is so. What are you proposing? 1. Is the evidence that points towards this? and 2. What would you propose the result of this would be?

I'm curious.

combining all the sciences; change the world.

Basically sharing what is necessary to comprehend life and what makes us alive as well perfect the comprehension to know what we do in choice governs our everlasting life; the religions will be historical record versus a reason to be complacent with ‘unknown’.

Which was in response from me saying: "Two species coming together does not automatically mean a longer lived offspring, and that's the only notion I can get from what you are saying." And I still don't see your point.

‘Two species’ associating takes time; note the dog or even the finches of Galapagos (turtle tic eating). Or even how people associate (four colors of man) once isolated and then advantages became apparent, generations passed (time) and associations increased. Maybe you can be on a research team to provide further ‘evidence’ of this observance.

The vast majority of the time in science, we're better without metaphor & are really better concentrating on what happens, don't you think?

seems fair but often a metaphor offer a sutra (idea/word to convey a meaning….i.e… what does, ‘let’s talk about the birds and the bees’, mean to you What do you have in mind?

I don't really see what your response has to do with anything either, it's just a random interjection. Unless I'm missing something? In that case, I would appreciate a comprehensible explanation of what I'm missing

Ask the question; the scope of the thread is that
darwin’s description is pretty A-OK
Today’s sciences do not have a mathematical frame at the molecular scale to share the pattern.
The final paradigm shift; addresses light as energy and all the world is affected.

Just the little stuff!

“And organelle is a life living within a cell. The cycle and process is true but your scales of observance is a little biased. Does alfalfa need bees? Do bees need pollen?”

The quote of mine this was in response to was just carrying on questioning what you were meaning by your strange wave metaphor. Unless you were saying by your metaphor that symbiosis is Good?

Let someone else share

Conclusions

Life in an ecosystem is a complex system. Depending on the scale of observation one can try to understand the interaction among individuals of the same species or one can dissert about the relationship among different species in a higher scale. In the first case we are doing sociology of a particular species and in the second case we are studying ecology. In any case, the detailed analysis of each problem reveals new variables outside the scale of observation that are important to explain the dynamical behaviour of the system. Thus, for instance, the human society can not be understood as only a set of interacting human beings without the constraints imposed by the social superstructures such as institutions, public administration, corporations, etc., and by a similar argument, the evolution of rabbits and foxes populations is not understandable independently of an entangled system of interactions with other species in their respective environments. Hence, as a first approach to the dynamics of an ecosystem, three main types of interaction between two species, namely the predator-prey situation, competition or mutualism, have been proposed as basic bricks for understanding how the populations evolve in that ecosystem. Thus, we have interpreted three cubic two-dimensional coupled logistic equations as three discrete models to explain either the evolution 10 of two symbiotically interacting species, either a predator-prey system or two species under competitive interaction. Extinction, stable coexistence, periodic or chaotic oscillations are found in the dynamics of the three systems. Also the common phenomenon of multistability is present in the
three models. We hope that the basic couplings here proposed can be useful for future investigations on multi-agent systems in order to better unveil the problem of human life in society.

Note how ‘entangled’ systems must be addressed. It is our (human) ignorance in observing of defining a system that has caused to current foolishness upon this globe.

In a scientific frame; entanglement is when energy is shared between mass. Take an ‘f’ of light (photon per se) and split is between 2 separate structures; there is now a potential between these 2 as well to take one side and affect it, the other is affected as well; instantaneously; that is that missing ‘non-local’ affect between mass.

That missing link!

but evolution in a biological sense is at basics (like everything in life) a molecular phenomenum..

not any more……. Take that word out of the dictionary; the truth exists!

So let’s repeat the top section and see if you understand

You said:"Still; the differences is the math of current scientific explanations; has no mechanics to show the increase of potential between 2 inanimate forms of mass.

Like wise, the progression is based on the interrelation of all mass to each other based on the entanglement property of energy between all mass/existence. "What are you arguing then?

Energy entangles mass; which is literally in fact that unknown phenomenon known as ‘gravity’

 

[smidget]

I'm not a student of physics, but of biochemistry, but the basics of quantum physics that I am aware of is rather different to what you are saying.

"Energy entangles mass" ... E=mc squared? Is this what you are saying then?
"which is literally in fact that unknown phenomenon known as ‘gravity’" You are saying you've figured out what the basis of gravity is? Well, go write a paper and send it off - that'd be an important development, no?

we eat to so the same thing; we take in mass (with energy) and convert (metabolisms) that energy and blank the mass out..... no one is consuming Oxygen and water or carbon or or or...

it is the energy upon that mass (light) that is being used for life....

simple, basic and of pure common sense;

now let's see anywhere in all the globe that shares that light is the energy upon mass.

ooops............ find it right here

and for them of religious roots................. in the beginning, there was light!

it all starts there

I'm sorry, your prose simply does not make sense. If english is not your first lanuage, then I guess that's understandable, but I'm sorry, it does not make sense. As result of that, I'm afraid I'm leaving this thread - I can't see any logical argument to discuss

‘Two species’ associating takes time; note the dog or even the finches of Galapagos (turtle tic eating). Or even how people associate (four colors of man) once isolated and then advantages became apparent, generations passed (time) and associations increased. Maybe you can be on a research team to provide further ‘evidence’ of this observance.

I am on a research team, but to look at rather more interesting, not so covered, medically applicable stuff! I heart science

 

[smidget]

I'm a creationist. I not only understand evolution, but believe that God designed and used it.

So you basically just think that God made the physical laws of the universe? Like gave thymine the property of making dimers on exposure to UV, the replication machinery of the cell the property of sometimes misreading the sequence etc? I guess this is more likeable than alot of the creationist views I've come across, but I still think it's far more interesting to look for physical basis only - I think everything could potentially be answered by science, and the answers are frequently rather cool .

Actually, thinking about it, do you think that God put single-celled organisms on the planet, then set them to evolve into us by his set down physical laws? Or do you think that God made the chemicals that would be suitable for the origin of life and let them do what they do?

 

[Scuba Pete]

So you basically just think that God made the physical laws of the universe? Like gave thymine the property of making dimers on exposure to UV, the replication machinery of the cell the property of sometimes misreading the sequence etc?

The best one is water. Life would not be possible if water did not float when it froze. What a coincidence, n'est pas?

I guess this is more likeable than alot of the creationist views I've come across, but I still think it's far more interesting to look for physical basis only - I think everything could potentially be answered by science, and the answers are frequently rather cool .

Your faith in science is greater than many theists' faith in God.

Actually, thinking about it, do you think that God put single-celled organisms on the planet, then set them to evolve into us by his set down physical laws? Or do you think that God made the chemicals that would be suitable for the origin of life and let them do what they do?

Like a master programmer, God created the laws of nature and physics to produce this earth. I don't think we have seen the final output yet. Hang on, there is a lot more to come.

 

[smidget]

The best one is water. Life would not be possible if water did not float when it froze. What a coincidence, n'est pas?

No, I'm afraid I don't see why life should only be possible because water floats when it freezes! Please explain! I've found little things on why it'd be good as an insulator, but there's arguments against it being good, apparently (I'll start posting links in a couple more posts on when this annoying site lets me!). It's certainly not the most obvious thing I would have hit on .

But anyway, I'll assume I'm ignorant on the reasoning behind this (and I freely admit I'm really really ignorant of loads!). So, if life isn't possible without floating ice, would you not say that it could be equally likely that the reason life is around would be because it was possible - because all the conditions were all favourable for it. So the properties favourable for life would, by this reasoning, obviously be present? I'm not saying this is proof that God did not dictate this property, just that it cannot be used as proof that he did.

Your faith in science is greater than many theists' faith in God.

Actually, I'd say I have no faith in anything (except perhaps in certain people, trusting them when I do not have any solid evidence for their trustability, but I'm aware that this isn't logical, just that I do it because it makes life livable, so perhaps that's not proper faith - it's just my actions? [apologies if that is a nonsensical ramble to you ]) - the concept of faith suggests lack of anything backing it up, which I'm not capable of doing (in many ways I think it'd be lovely to believe that there was some greater being that cared about you, some purpose meant for me, that I might find people that have died again, but I see nothing at all pointing towards this, and so am not able to believe it).

I fully admit science gets stuff wrong, but the idea of evidence, reasoning, experiment, yeah, I reckon that's a good way of finding out things .

The reason I say I think everything could be potentially investigated by science is that, well, as far as I can see, I reckon everything does have a physical basis. And I think it is, as I said, really interesting to keep on asking "Why?"

Like a master programmer, God created the laws of nature and physics to produce this earth. I don't think we have seen the final output yet. Hang on, there is a lot more to come.

I can't answer really why the laws of physics are, but I think perhaps the physicists may be able to answer this at some point (whether I'd understand the maths is debatable, sadly. I guess you could argue that I'd have to have faith in the physicists then, if I don't understand the maths, which I guess is true). I just think it's more satisfying to keep asking why? rather than say that God did it. The concept of God doesn't satisfy me at all as an answer any way - the whole why/what/how would he be would also be a prob, and I'm not ready to accept that he just is.

 

[Scuba Pete]

No, I'm afraid I don't see why life should only be possible because water floats when it freezes!

If it didn't, then lakes, rivers and oceans would have frozen solid, especially during the ice age. As it is, ice provides a thermal barrier that enables these large bodies of water to remain mostly liquid. Life came from water.

 

[Tau]

define heat?

heat is simply em upon mass..... "everytime"

every atom that combines with another must have em

it's a 'light' thing ....

energy is not defined correctly

SO just because water and dirt makes mud and we all can observe this does not mean, the scientist know how it is occuring.

Such that a doctor can shoot your butt up with a whole bunch of chemicals that have proven to assist in curing an ailment; much of the data is based on probabilities and test cases in which a 'majority' have favorable advantages....

but do they know how most of it works at the molecular level; take a real class in molecular biology and find out; they really don't......

or simply..... if biology was based in electrical potential then anyone with any basic electronics knows a magnetic would be like kryptonite. as a magnet can affect an electrical potential at the single atom level.... so to simply rub a magnetc on someone would tear the structures apart.....

life is not based on electical potential; chemistry is a joke!

What on Earth are you talking about Bishadi...

Define heat?

Ok

Heat radiation is a particular wavelength of the electromagnetic spectrum, it is electromagnetic radiation, like TV & Radio waves or visible light rays.

The heat of an object is a manifestation of the kinetic energy of the constituent molecules or atoms.

Chemistry is simply the science that explores how molecules and atoms interact with each other electrically.

You seem very confused...

 

[Valjean]

The best one is water. Life would not be possible if water did not float when it froze. What a coincidence, n'est pas? Your faith in science is greater than many theists' faith in God. Like a master programmer, God created the laws of nature and physics to produce this earth. I don't think we have seen the final output yet. Hang on, there is a lot more to come.

Forgive me, but this seems a bit of a stretch.

The laws of physics were in play long before our galaxy was formed. There were, no doubt, billions of "Earths" formed over billions of years. What makes us so exceptional?

 

[Scuba Pete]

Forgive me, but this seems a bit of a stretch.

You are forgiven!

The laws of physics were in play long before our galaxy was formed. There were, no doubt, billions of "Earths" formed over billions of years. What makes us so exceptional?

So? God was playing long before our galaxy was formed. I don't know about you. but I LOVE this particular galaxy! It's special because you and I are here.

 

[crystalonyx]

I don't subscribe to "magic wand" theories.

 

[Willamena]

The best one is water. Life would not be possible if water did not float when it froze. What a coincidence, n'est pas?

It's not a coincidence at all if "freezing" is defined as "the point at which water floats".

 

[Scuba Pete]

It's not a coincidence at all if "freezing" is defined as "the point at which water floats".

Precisely! Everything else seems to get HEAVIER as it solidifies. The dipolar construct of the molecule has it getting lighter in the las degree or so of freezing. It also allows for the absorption of atmospheric gasses such as oxygen. It's quite remarkable in spite of modern day cynicism.

 

[crystalonyx]

Precisely! Everything else seems to get HEAVIER as it solidifies. The dipolar construct of the molecule has it getting lighter in the las degree or so of freezing. It also allows for the absorption of atmospheric gasses such as oxygen. It's quite remarkable in spite of modern day cynicism.

Cynicism about what, chemical reactions involving water?