Darwin is tricky

[Bishadi]

One example of how Darwin’s representation of evolution or the existing pattern he described is tricky to understand is that the math of current sciences maintain a ‘law’ of equilibrium or entropy.

This means mass will always ‘cool’ or lose its energy to its surroundings so to speak. (chaos)

And in most tests with inanimate matter, this is pretty much, experimentally supported as well Newton provided the math to substantiate what is observed. So in a sense, this ‘law’ is set in stone. (current paradigm)

But evolution and the pattern naturally observed shares that life, can entangle with its environment and evolve or adjust to the surrounding associations. Such that in a literal sense for mass to migrate, like herds of buffalo; the animal is adjusting for the associated environment, is as pure as an egg of a “single cell” follows a time established genetic development into a human being. i.e…. to observe a human fetus developing in the early weeks; see how many tail bones there are (count them) and then when born or fully developed; how many tail bones do we have. So just to watch a birth through the development of a new born; watch evolution in a hurry.

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.

So to confirm evolution and how the progression actually exists is as simple as observing how energy (light) entangles mass in time. Or to share in a easy way for each to recognize;

Tap the surface of a flat pond, see the wave (life) move through the pond, in time (anywhere in the pond the wave can be neasured) . Now tap the surface 2 times; when 2 waves interact, the combined increases their total potential and the life of the individual and total wave lasts longer in life with greater affect and action upon the whole pond.

So another tricky part of Darwin’s description of evolution is that there is no real mechanism (math) defining this process in the current sciences that can be accurate to all levels of science.

The reason is in how energy is defined.

 

[Tau]

Life obeys the laws of thermodynamics as does everything else.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I didn't have a problem with Darwin... he was simply trying to work out his data (which was considerable) the best that he could, and many great minds have tweaked his concepts.

 

[Bishadi]

I didn't have a problem with Darwin... he was simply trying to work out his data (which was considerable) the best that he could, and many great minds have tweaked his concepts.

perhaps my mistake for not considering 'your' mind before anyone else on this earth.

As for Darwin; here is a little trivia: How many times was the word evolution used in the Origin of species.

But I agree many discount Darwin and his basic rendition of what he "oberserved"..... (he did not create the term or pattern) and other try to discount the work simply because it contradicted variant theological renditions.

The thread was to share why the sciences have a difficulty with perfecting the model' their math is incorrect based on how energy is defined (planck)

 

[Bishadi]

Life obeys the laws of thermodynamics as does everything else.

see what I mean; chaos is a law, that will not allow evolution to work

the dichotomy of all time;

the sciences observe evolution but the math doesn't work

The religions will not accept evolution as they can prove it contradicts the math.

Yet knowledge evolves as well the evolution of species can be observed and described.

funny stuff

 

[angellous_evangellous]

perhaps my mistake for not considering 'your' mind before anyone else on this earth.

True. Don't let that happen again.

As for Darwin; here is a little trivia: How many times was the word evolution used in the Origin of species.

I don't rightly recollect... but it seems to me like you're asking the wrong question. Could it be that the question should concern "survival of the fittest?"

But I agree many discount Darwin and his basic rendition of what he "oberserved"..... (he did not create the term or pattern) and other try to discount the work simply because it contradicted variant theological renditions.

Yes... what he did do was apply an existing theory to a wider range of research.

 

[Bishadi]

kind of nice to see how a man would give of his life for the benefit of mankind wihout having to remain complacent to a theology; a prophet of sorts. Especially when we can all recognize He is still alive in his contribution.

The thread was to share a few truths that NO theology can contest.

 

[Tau]

see what I mean; chaos is a law, that will not allow evolution to work

the dichotomy of all time;

the sciences observe evolution but the math doesn't work

The religions will not accept evolution as they can prove it contradicts the math.

Yet knowledge evolves as well the evolution of species can be observed and described.

funny stuff

Bishadi molecular evolutionary trees are extremely complex for example yet mathematically comprehendable, where exactly are you saying evolution contravenes the laws of physics?
If that is what you are saying if not then ignore me cause in that case i don't understand what you are saying.

Chaos is simplexity, order from disorder, when in fact disorder is just very complex order....stars forming from collapsing gas clouds, order from disorder (seemingly) in actuality it is just gas obeying Newton and various other laws.

Chaos is Law.

Just very complex, ask the quantum butterfly...

 

[Sunstone]

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

 

[McBell]

The inability of creationists to understand evolutionary science is astounding.

I disagree.
It is not their "inability" to understand that is astounding.
It is their "refusal" to understand, that is astounding.

 

[Bishadi]

Bishadi molecular evolutionary trees are extremely complex for example yet mathematically comprehendable, where exactly are you saying evolution contravenes the laws of physics?

There is no frame (in math) to share how inanimate matter assembles representing the basics of life. 'the missing link' And that same form to define is what defines what Darwin was describing; evolution. So for the chaos minded folk; I must ask; 'do you include the environment in the defining experiments?' and the let;s question the extent of that defining

If that is what you are saying if not then ignore me cause in that case i don't understand what you are saying.

Chaos is simplexity, order from disorder, when in fact disorder is just very complex order....stars forming from collapsing gas clouds, order from disorder (seemingly) in actuality it is just gas obeying Newton and various other laws.

Chaos is Law.

Just very complex, ask the quantum butterfly...

sorry charlie.

Planck made an error by maintaining the exact precept in establishing 'h'.

Do you like experiments or do you like the math part?

The old law is and incorrect law when addressing life; as life abuses entropy.

 

[Tau]

There is no frame (in math) to share how inanimate matter assembles representing the basics of life. 'the missing link' And that same form to define is what defines what Darwin was describing; evolution. So for the chaos minded folk; I must ask; 'do you include the environment in the defining experiments?' and the let;s question the extent of that defining

sorry charlie.

Planck made an error by maintaining the exact precept in establishing 'h'.

Do you like experiments or do you like the math part?

The old law is and incorrect law when addressing life; as life abuses entropy.

Nevermind, evidently you havent heard of naturally occuring self replicating proteins, you will find amino acids even in space, within molecular clouds....its simple chemistry, no violations of any laws of entropy occur.

 

[Tau]

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

Is Bishadi a creationist?

That would explain stuff, I had trouble understanding what he was saying.

 

[logician]

Actually, the basic principles of evolution are fairly easy to understand, the underlying mechanisms are complex in that they combine knowledge in biology, chemistry, physics, paleontology, geology, zoology, genetics, and a few other sciences for a full understanding.

 

[meogi]

Random stuff about entropy

As a rebuttal, I present:

The sun.

 

[smidget]

Nevermind, evidently you havent heard of naturally occuring self replicating proteins, you will find amino acids even in space, within molecular clouds....its simple chemistry, no violations of any laws of entropy occur.

Do you? I'm curious , I know of prions, but they don't actually self-replicate, they just alter proteins to become like them.

 

[smidget]

One example of how Darwin’s representation of evolution or the existing pattern he described is tricky to understand is that the math of current sciences maintain a ‘law’ of equilibrium or entropy.

This means mass will always ‘cool’ or lose its energy to its surroundings so to speak. (chaos)

And in most tests with inanimate matter, this is pretty much, experimentally supported as well Newton provided the math to substantiate what is observed. So in a sense, this ‘law’ is set in stone. (current paradigm)

But evolution and the pattern naturally observed shares that life, can entangle with its environment and evolve or adjust to the surrounding associations. Such that in a literal sense for mass to migrate, like herds of buffalo; the animal is adjusting for the associated environment, is as pure as an egg of a “single cell” follows a time established genetic development into a human being. i.e…. to observe a human fetus developing in the early weeks; see how many tail bones there are (count them) and then when born or fully developed; how many tail bones do we have. So just to watch a birth through the development of a new born; watch evolution in a hurry.

No, the development of fetuses is not evolution as it's talked about in science - that ought to involve the changing of the genetic material of the species, not here where you're seeing one organism undergoing changes pre-dertermined by its already present genes. Unless your point was something else?

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.

I think you've gotten really muddled about quantum physics. Although quantum physics certainly does have a role in molecular bio (after all, quantum physics applies at the molecular level), what you are saying below doesn't really gel with, well any of it.

So to confirm evolution and how the progression actually exists is as simple as observing how energy (light) entangles mass in time. Or to share in a easy way for each to recognize;

Tap the surface of a flat pond, see the wave (life) move through the pond, in time (anywhere in the pond the wave can be neasured) . Now tap the surface 2 times; when 2 waves interact, the combined increases their total potential and the life of the individual and total wave lasts longer in life with greater affect and action upon the whole pond.

Analogies don't really do much - this has absolutely not applicability to life, evolution or anything. How on earth do you mean that waves interacting can even be used as a metaphor for life? 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.

So another tricky part of Darwin’s description of evolution is that there is no real mechanism (math) defining this process in the current sciences that can be accurate to all levels of science.

The reason is in how energy is defined.

Overall, evolution doesn't need to be called Darwinian any more - Darwin after all did not have any mechanism by which it happened panned out, and we've come an awful long way since then.

I think if you look at it at the molecular level, it's pretty much undeniable that evolution will occur, just by looking at the facts - organisms have genes which determine their properties. Mutations occur in genes, changing their properties making some better suited to their enviroment and others worse suited. The better suited organisms tend to live for longer and have more offspring, passing on more copies of that specific gene. It's very, very simple logic.

 

[Bishadi]

Nevermind, evidently you havent heard of naturally occuring self replicating proteins, you will find amino acids even in space, within molecular clouds....its simple chemistry, no violations of any laws of entropy occur.

Read a little on what's come out of Cuba

4. arXiv:q-bio/0512025 [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)

 

[Bishadi]

Actually, the basic principles of evolution are fairly easy to understand, the underlying mechanisms are complex in that they combine knowledge in biology, chemistry, physics, paleontology, geology, zoology, genetics, and a few other sciences for a full understanding.

Now someone sees the absolute minimum that is required to deduce what is being suggested.

Or simply; studing has been a life times entertainment so to speak.... Carl Sagan and little old me would have had a blast.

As when he would say; 'and we really don't know' (a real man: honest)

Perhaps all them sentences could have been removed

 

[Bishadi]

The example shares mass evolving into a life.

I think you've gotten really muddled about quantum physics. Although quantum physics certainly does have a role in molecular bio (after all, quantum physics applies at the molecular level),

Chemistry....

what you are saying below doesn't really gel with, well any of it.

Then read a little on entanglement before commenting. ..

Analogies don't really do much - this has absolutely not applicability to life, evolution or anything. How on earth do you mean that waves interacting can even be used as a metaphor for life?

like how do 2 people copulate?

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 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?

Overall, evolution doesn't need to be called Darwinian any more - Darwin after all did not have any mechanism by which it happened panned out, and we've come an awful long way since then.

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 think if you look at it at the molecular level, it's pretty much undeniable that evolution will occur, just by looking at the facts - organisms have genes which determine their properties. Mutations occur in genes, changing their properties making some better suited to their enviroment and others worse suited. The better suited organisms tend to live for longer and have more offspring, passing on more copies of that specific gene. It's very, very simple logic.

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'