Evolution, maybe someone can explain?

[YoursTrue]

I'm not against conversation with you in general, but specifically, I'm interested that it be meaningful and on point. That claims are followed with evidence and explanation supporting the claims.

I'm not sure I understand that. That seems like an argumentum ad populum to me. What other's may think could be correct, but it could be wrong. Using only what is popular and what others merely claim to know isn't a sound basis for concluding in favor of those popular claims in my opinion. Popular opinion could be based on misconceptions, misinformation, ignorance or bias among other things. Even if it is not, it would be better to know why these others accept it and to examine their reasons and reasoning to get where they got. Those I have seen that accept the theory base that acceptance on the evidence and the demonstration of that evidence supporting the theory.

I agree.

That is an issue that I do not understand. It has been demonstrated that population gene frequencies change over time. So the basics of the theory are established. There is experimental evidence for selection, both in natural and artificially in agriculture.

@It Aint Necessarily So has a much more informed voice on this subject than I do and perhaps may choose to respond as well if we are lucky.

I read the article and do have some thoughts. I didn't come to the conclusion you have based on what the article states. It was an intensive study with a large sample group specifically looking at the outcome of invasive surgical procedures compared to drug therapy and lifestyle change on those with stable heart conditions. The finding is that drug therapy and life style change were as effective as surgery. Especially good news to those that are uncomfortable with surgery.

I see this a scientific success. There was a question regarding the efficacy of two different treatments. One surgical and one medical therapy alone. This is right from the article. “This has been one of the central questions of cardiovascular medicine for a long time: Is medical therapy alone or medical therapy combined with routine invasive procedures the best treatment for this group of stable heart patients?”

The evidence indicates that medical treatment and lifestyle change had equivalent outcomes to surgery, so the surgery (which has risks all of its own) could be foregone in favor of non-invasive treatment in those with stable heart conditions. Stents and invasive surgery were seen to remain more efficacious in those with coronary artery disease who also had symptoms of angina.

I didn't see that there was a conclusion that doctors were ignoring this and performing surgery anyway. It seems clear to me that this would give doctors more evidence to come to treatment decisions and would likely reduce the number of surgical procedures as a treatment.

I think you misinterpreted the conclusions of this study. It isn't a case where scientists are ignoring the science and doesn't act as evidence that scientists could have gotten the theory of evolution wrong. For one, you are trying to make an association between a specific set of medical circumstances and an experiment that isn't designed to challenge any theory and comparing that to a body of evidence, rather than a single study supporting a theory. It wouldn't make much sense to turn the theory of evolution over just because of one questionable study and the study you reference isn't questionable as near as I can see.



I'm still at a loss to see that it challenges science or the findings and how that applies to the theory of evolution. The article indicates the groups that the findings apply to and those where it does not. I clearly shows that within the specific study group, treatments had equivalent outcomes, thus giving evidence to favor medical therapy over surgery for the specific group of patients.

I appreciate that you actually brought evidence to the discussion. That is the sort of thing I'm in favor of in these discussions.

Consensus or belief in something doesn't mean it is correct. So going back to miller urey for a moment, what do the results mean as evaluated by scientists? From my recollection of reading, it seems to verify the theory of abiogenesis.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Consensus or belief in something doesn't mean it is correct.

But agreeing with a consensus doesn't make that which is agreed upon false or wrong either. You have to look at who makes up this consensus and their reasons for agreeing with it.

So going back to miller urey for a moment,

When were we at the Miller-Urey experiment? And that is evidence supporting a natural origin of life, not evolution.

what do the results mean as evaluated by scientists?

That biochemicals can form naturally from inorganic components.

From my recollection of reading, it seems to verify the theory of abiogenesis.

It supports abiogenesis and could be evidence leading to a theory. It doesn't confirm it.

 

[sayak83]

Since this seems to be a scientific answer about genes. Can someone explain how the genes came about?
It is said and I do not deny it that all living organisms on Earth have genes made of the same four bases: adenine (A), thymine (T), cytosine (C), and guanine (G). These bases are used to form double-stranded DNA molecules that store genetic information. The genetic code is written in the DNA and RNA molecules, and it encodes instructions for how to reproduce and operate the organism.
So these things themselves seem very, very complex. Do scientists know exactly how the DNA structure came about?

Origin of first gene is part of abiogenesis and not evolution.

 

[LuisDantas]

I wish more people became aware of how complex chaotic, unguided phenomena can be and become.

DNA and RNA are hardly indicative of intentional design; they just happened to randomly develop a form and measure of self-replication capacity.

It was almost unavoidable.

 

[YoursTrue]

so basically, what you are really saying, is that genetics don’t happen, or genetics don’t work? It is just magic?

What I am basically saying is this, and I glad that I had this discussion because it led me to check out various ideas and statements, "Truth in science, however, is never final and what is accepted as a fact today may be modified or even discarded tomorrow." Definitions of Fact, Theory, and Law in Scientific Work | National Center for Science Education.

 

[YoursTrue]

well, a cell, cannot exist without organic matters, so Abiogenesis (not Evolution), do focus on the origins of essential biological compounds, like

the origin of protiens (which are made of any chain of 22 different types of amino acids), so understanding how amino acids formed, is essential for life​

​

the origin of carbohydrates, which have many different functions, depending on the cells or tissues, which are essential for life,​

​

the origin of lipids,​

​

and the origins of nucleic acids, which are made of one of 2 types of carbohydrates (ribose for RNA, deoxyribose for DNA), 1 phosphate, & 4 out of 5 types of nitrogenous base molecules (nucleobase).​

Knowing how each of these biological molecules Formed, will give biochemists , molecular biologists and other scientists, ideas on how to answer some of the questions, about the origin of the earliest cells, and therefore, the origin of life.

Going back to a scientific discussion of abiogenesis and evolution, here is what one explanation says: "Indeed, as we will now describe, the generally accepted supposition that life's origins emerged from some prebiotic autocatalytic process can be shown to lead to broad insights into the chemistry–biology connection and to the surprising revelation that the processes of abiogenesis and biological evolution are directly related to one another." ("directly related to one another") Now I'm not saying that is true, but that is what a leading science organization claims. The origin of life: what we know, what we can know and what we will never know

 

[Yerda]

It can be intriguing. The more I see the less likely it seems that it just 'happened" by sheer physical forces with no intelligence behind it all. Nevertheless I can learn. Thanks.

Maybe every natural process, even things as simple as a rock making it's way downhill under the force of gravity, is mindful in some way - I've encountered people who take this perspective. The natural laws that govern the world are an instantiation of God's nature in some way. Or that everything is an aspect of the pervasive universal spirit.

For me the dizzying volume of activity going on in every cell in our bodies is a source of wonder, like looking up at the vastness and beauty of the cosmos. For me, however, it doesn't point to gods or an intelligent universe; I guess we all respond to the world in our own ways.

With respect to the OP, there are a few plausible sounding ideas about how the first replicators arose. The RNA-first idea seems to me the most promising for a couple of reasons:

• the sugar ribose seems able to occur quite naturally, meaning we can get the main component without too much improbability (this is also the main component in DNA),
• RNA chains can exist in single stranded form and some replicate themselves autocatalytically, meaning they can act as enzymes that significantly improve the chances of more copies of themselves existing (some reactions that would take millions, billions or trillions of years normally can occur rapidly in the presence of an enzyme),
• it is RNA that is the mediator in DNA replication and protein synthesis in the cells (it can store information),
• RNA chains in solution exhibit the features of selection and adaptation (fundamental characteristics of genes and life in general).

Here's a wiki page about a closely related idea: RNA world - Wikipedia

Feel free to ask question and I'll see if I can answer or find answers. I studied a lot of this stuff at undergrad level about two decades ago so I know a little without being an expert, and I've also forgotten most of the details.

 

[YoursTrue]

well, a cell, cannot exist without organic matters, so Abiogenesis (not Evolution), do focus on the origins of essential biological compounds, like

the origin of protiens (which are made of any chain of 22 different types of amino acids), so understanding how amino acids formed, is essential for life​

​

the origin of carbohydrates, which have many different functions, depending on the cells or tissues, which are essential for life,​

​

the origin of lipids,​

​

and the origins of nucleic acids, which are made of one of 2 types of carbohydrates (ribose for RNA, deoxyribose for DNA), 1 phosphate, & 4 out of 5 types of nitrogenous base molecules (nucleobase).​

Knowing how each of these biological molecules Formed, will give biochemists , molecular biologists and other scientists, ideas on how to answer some of the questions, about the origin of the earliest cells, and therefore, the origin of life.

Going back to a scientific discussion of abiogenesis and evolution, here is what one explanation says: "Indeed, as we will now describe, the generally accepted supposition that life's origins emerged from some prebiotic autocatalytic process can be shown to lead to broad insights into the chemistry–biology connection and to the surprising revelation that the processes of abiogenesis and biological evolution are directly related to one another." ("directly related to one another") Now I'm not saying that is true, but that is what a leading science organization claims. The origin of life: what we know, what we can know and what we will never know

I'm not against conversation with you in general, but specifically, I'm interested that it be meaningful and on point. That claims are followed with evidence and explanation supporting the claims.

I'm not sure I understand that. That seems like an argumentum ad populum to me. What other's may think could be correct, but it could be wrong. Using only what is popular and what others merely claim to know isn't a sound basis for concluding in favor of those popular claims in my opinion. Popular opinion could be based on misconceptions, misinformation, ignorance or bias among other things. Even if it is not, it would be better to know why these others accept it and to examine their reasons and reasoning to get where they got. Those I have seen that accept the theory base that acceptance on the evidence and the demonstration of that evidence supporting the theory.

I agree.

That is an issue that I do not understand. It has been demonstrated that population gene frequencies change over time. So the basics of the theory are established. There is experimental evidence for selection, both in natural and artificially in agriculture.

@It Aint Necessarily So has a much more informed voice on this subject than I do and perhaps may choose to respond as well if we are lucky.

I read the article and do have some thoughts. I didn't come to the conclusion you have based on what the article states. It was an intensive study with a large sample group specifically looking at the outcome of invasive surgical procedures compared to drug therapy and lifestyle change on those with stable heart conditions. The finding is that drug therapy and life style change were as effective as surgery. Especially good news to those that are uncomfortable with surgery.

I see this a scientific success. There was a question regarding the efficacy of two different treatments. One surgical and one medical therapy alone. This is right from the article. “This has been one of the central questions of cardiovascular medicine for a long time: Is medical therapy alone or medical therapy combined with routine invasive procedures the best treatment for this group of stable heart patients?”

The evidence indicates that medical treatment and lifestyle change had equivalent outcomes to surgery, so the surgery (which has risks all of its own) could be foregone in favor of non-invasive treatment in those with stable heart conditions. Stents and invasive surgery were seen to remain more efficacious in those with coronary artery disease who also had symptoms of angina.

I didn't see that there was a conclusion that doctors were ignoring this and performing surgery anyway. It seems clear to me that this would give doctors more evidence to come to treatment decisions and would likely reduce the number of surgical procedures as a treatment.

I think you misinterpreted the conclusions of this study. It isn't a case where scientists are ignoring the science and doesn't act as evidence that scientists could have gotten the theory of evolution wrong. For one, you are trying to make an association between a specific set of medical circumstances and an experiment that isn't designed to challenge any theory and comparing that to a body of evidence, rather than a single study supporting a theory. It wouldn't make much sense to turn the theory of evolution over just because of one questionable study and the study you reference isn't questionable as near as I can see.



I'm still at a loss to see that it challenges science or the findings and how that applies to the theory of evolution. The article indicates the groups that the findings apply to and those where it does not. I clearly shows that within the specific study group, treatments had equivalent outcomes, thus giving evidence to favor medical therapy over surgery for the specific group of patients.

I appreciate that you actually brought evidence to the discussion. That is the sort of thing I'm in favor of in these discussions.

Not to painfully protract a discussion, and you can please tell me when it becomes uncomfortable, I was researching (on the web) what is truth in science. And I came across what I consider to be a decent explanation.

Maybe every natural process, even things as simple as a rock making it's way downhill under the force of gravity, is mindful in some way - I've encountered people who take this perspective. The natural laws that govern the world are an instantiation of God's nature in some way. Or that everything is an aspect of the pervasive universal spirit.

For me the dizzying volume of activity going on in every cell in our bodies is a source of wonder, like looking up at the vastness and beauty of the cosmos. For me, however, it doesn't point to gods or an intelligent universe; I guess we all respond to the world in our own ways.

With respect to the OP, there are a few plausible sounding ideas about how the first replicators arose. The RNA-first idea seems to me the most promising for a couple of reasons:

• the sugar ribose seems able to occur quite naturally, meaning we can get the main component without too much improbability (this is also the main component in DNA),
• RNA chains can exist in single stranded form and some replicate themselves autocatalytically, meaning they can act as enzymes that significantly improve the chances of more copies of themselves existing (some reactions that would take millions, billions or trillions of years normally can occur rapidly in the presence of an enzyme),
• it is RNA that is the mediator in DNA replication and protein synthesis in the cells (it can store information),
• RNA chains in solution exhibit the features of selection and adaptation (fundamental characteristics of genes and life in general).

Here's a wiki page about a closely related idea: RNA world - Wikipedia

Feel free to ask question and I'll see if I can answer or find answers. I studied a lot of this stuff at undergrad level about two decades ago so I know a little without being an expert, and I've also forgotten most of the details.

Thanks.

 

[YoursTrue]

Maybe every natural process, even things as simple as a rock making it's way downhill under the force of gravity, is mindful in some way - I've encountered people who take this perspective. The natural laws that govern the world are an instantiation of God's nature in some way. Or that everything is an aspect of the pervasive universal spirit.

For me the dizzying volume of activity going on in every cell in our bodies is a source of wonder, like looking up at the vastness and beauty of the cosmos. For me, however, it doesn't point to gods or an intelligent universe; I guess we all respond to the world in our own ways.

With respect to the OP, there are a few plausible sounding ideas about how the first replicators arose. The RNA-first idea seems to me the most promising for a couple of reasons:

• the sugar ribose seems able to occur quite naturally, meaning we can get the main component without too much improbability (this is also the main component in DNA),
• RNA chains can exist in single stranded form and some replicate themselves autocatalytically, meaning they can act as enzymes that significantly improve the chances of more copies of themselves existing (some reactions that would take millions, billions or trillions of years normally can occur rapidly in the presence of an enzyme),
• it is RNA that is the mediator in DNA replication and protein synthesis in the cells (it can store information),
• RNA chains in solution exhibit the features of selection and adaptation (fundamental characteristics of genes and life in general).

Here's a wiki page about a closely related idea: RNA world - Wikipedia

Feel free to ask question and I'll see if I can answer or find answers. I studied a lot of this stuff at undergrad level about two decades ago so I know a little without being an expert, and I've also forgotten most of the details.

Going back to thoughts of the universe, it is a mind-boggling concept to think of everything going on. in the universe. Since I do believe in God as Creator, it nevertheless causes wonderment in considering the universe. I think now that's how God means it to be -- awesome (mind-boggling). Yet I believe God is in control of what He wants when He wants. (Such as I do not believe he causes disasters such as may occur when tsunamis and/or earthquakes occur -- I think He permits them, but does not cause them to happen--with some exceptions such as described in the Bible. But I'm not going to argue --yet-- about that.)

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I think you misinterpreted the conclusions of this study. It isn't a case where scientists are ignoring the science and doesn't act as evidence that scientists could have gotten the theory of evolution wrong.

Is that what this was all about - a medical article used as an argument against trusting science and evolution?

I'm fifteen years out from my last day as a working physician, so my knowledge is a bit dated now. In my time, stents had been shown to be of benefit to certain kinds of cardiac patients, and patients had them inserted to good effect.

It appears that medical (nonsurgical) treatment has caught up and now achieves similar results. If so, that's going to be due to advances in pharmacology, not advances in the recommendations for and efficacy of lifestyle modifications.

Regarding any delay in implementing this new understanding, there's a learning curve between when an advancement is made and when it is widely accepted and applied. None of this reflects on any inadequacy in science. Au contraire. It demonstrates it march forward. Clinical physicians are not scientists. We applied science. Other kinds of people are doing the science, some research physicians, some pharmacologists or organic chemists, some developing new devices.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Is that what this was all about - a medical article used as an argument against trusting science and evolution?

That does indeed seem to be what we have here.

I'm fifteen years out from my last day as a working physician, so my knowledge is a bit dated now. In my time, stents had been shown to be of benefit to certain kinds of cardiac patients, and patients had them inserted to good effect.

And still that knowledge and experience is valuable here. Clearly.

It appears that medical (nonsurgical) treatment has caught up and now achieves similar results. If so, that's going to be due to advances in pharmacology, not advances in the recommendations for and efficacy of lifestyle modifications.

That was my take too. Implementing a life style change supported those advances in medical therapies.

Regarding any delay in implementing this new understanding, there's a learning curve between when an advancement is made and when it is widely accepted and applied. None of this reflects on any inadequacy in science. Au contraire. It demonstrates it march forward. Clinical physicians are not scientists. We applied science. Other kinds of people are doing the science, some research physicians, some pharmacologists or organic chemists, some developing new devices.

Again, what I would expect from any new knowledge. It isn't magic.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Going back to a scientific discussion of abiogenesis and evolution, here is what one explanation says: "Indeed, as we will now describe, the generally accepted supposition that life's origins emerged from some prebiotic autocatalytic process can be shown to lead to broad insights into the chemistry–biology connection and to the surprising revelation that the processes of abiogenesis and biological evolution are directly related to one another." ("directly related to one another") Now I'm not saying that is true, but that is what a leading science organization claims. The origin of life: what we know, what we can know and what we will never know

Not to painfully protract a discussion, and you can please tell me when it becomes uncomfortable, I was researching (on the web) what is truth in science. And I came across what I consider to be a decent explanation.

Thanks.

Regardless of the origin of life, it would be related to the living things that exist. This would be true despite the nature of that origin. That the origin remains unknown is not evidence refuting what is known about the nature of life that exists.

I'll just say that I appreciate what to me seems a sudden shift in style. As if a curtain had been drawn back.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

What I am basically saying is this, and I glad that I had this discussion because it led me to check out various ideas and statements, "Truth in science, however, is never final and what is accepted as a fact today may be modified or even discarded tomorrow." Definitions of Fact, Theory, and Law in Scientific Work | National Center for Science Education.

I believe this has been related to you numerous times. It is a fact often used erroneously by those unfamiliar with logic and science to claim that scientists don't know anything. Thus science and theories that some find uncomfortable can be surgically dismissed as useless conjecture. I think we have seen many examples of those attempts.

The reality is that the knowledge gained by logical, methodical examination is cumulative and prior knowledge is not discarded. Even when no longer relevant or applicable. What we have learned in the present that tells us what we thought in the past is recognized and retained. It also means that a position that has been and continues to be well-supported would require more than feelings to overturn.

It does not mean that science cannot find the answer. Just that, without being omniscient, it is impossible to claim it is the ultimate answer. This is opposed to the paradigm of those that suddenly believe all of their answers are ultimate without being capable of demonstrating that condition. While in conflicted opposition to still others that have come up with their own and different ultimate answers.

 

[YoursTrue]

I wish more people became aware of how complex chaotic, unguided phenomena can be and become.

DNA and RNA are hardly indicative of intentional design; they just happened to randomly develop a form and measure of self-replication capacity.

It was almost unavoidable.

So is there a scientific explanation of how these things (DNA and RNA replication) just happened? I mean it seems incredible that these "just happening" processes led to human life as we know it.

 

[YoursTrue]

Regardless of the origin of life, it would be related to the living things that exist. This would be true despite the nature of that origin. That the origin remains unknown is not evidence refuting what is known about the nature of life that exists.

I'll just say that I appreciate what to me seems a sudden shift in style. As if a curtain had been drawn back.

I'm trying to understand the science. And the evidence. Right now I'm at the point where procreation by natural means stops between various elements. Maybe I'm not using the right terminology, but I mean, putting crudely, fish do not breed with apes, and humans and monkeys or gorillas, or one of them if I remember correctly failed to grow within a woman, do not physically breed in any manner. But we are to assume that somewhere down the line from the UCA of apes they must have interbred.

 

[YoursTrue]

I believe this has been related to you numerous times. It is a fact often used erroneously by those unfamiliar with logic and science to claim that scientists don't know anything. Thus science and theories that some find uncomfortable can be surgically dismissed as useless conjecture. I think we have seen many examples of those attempts.

The reality is that the knowledge gained by logical, methodical examination is cumulative and prior knowledge is not discarded. Even when no longer relevant or applicable. What we have learned in the present that tells us what we thought in the past is recognized and retained. It also means that a position that has been and continues to be well-supported would require more than feelings to overturn.

It does not mean that science cannot find the answer. Just that, without being omniscient, it is impossible to claim it is the ultimate answer. This is opposed to the paradigm of those that suddenly believe all of their answers are ultimate without being capable of demonstrating that condition. While in conflicted opposition to still others that have come up with their own and different ultimate answers.

Not to be contentious, but I'm still trying to figure things out. Almost, but not quite, like a scientist. (haha, a little joke there...) Now figure about what? not so much the law of entropy, because I believe God can turn back what He wants to, and science itself realized there is a genetic cap on some cells where they stop multiplying, or something like that. Do I think God can remove those "caps" in his due time? Yes, I do.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I'm trying to understand the science. And the evidence. Right now I'm at the point where procreation by natural means stops between various elements. Maybe I'm not using the right terminology, but I mean, putting crudely, fish do not breed with apes, and humans and monkeys or gorillas, or one of them if I remember correctly failed to grow within a woman, do not physically breed in any manner. But we are to assume that somewhere down the line from the UCA of apes they must have interbred.

There is no expectation that different species will interbreed or did interbreed. You have the idea of universal common ancestor very confused. A universal common ancestor that consists of multiple species that couldn't exist when your idea requires them to exist is not the projected common ancestry described by science.

Keep thinking of a tree continually putting out branches. One branch need not disappear when a neighboring branch splits. The nodes of the branching need not disappear as the branch forms. But follow the branches back down to the main limbs then to the main trunk and from there to the roots and you are approaching conceptually, the universal common ancestor.

 

[LuisDantas]

So is there a scientific explanation of how these things (DNA and RNA replication) just happened? I mean it seems incredible that these "just happening" processes led to human life as we know it.

I'm no expert, but I guess that yes, they just happened.

When you have a whole planetary surface (and oceans and atmosphere) and who know how many years for molecules to randomly interact between themselves and a variety of temperatures (and variations of same), radiation, electricity, pressure, etc, a lot can happen.

At some point some molecule accidentally develops the ability to crudely mount copies of itself from similar molecules nearby. From that, the variants with better duplication ability end up simply overlasting others.

I don't know that to be how DNA and RNA developed, but I have very little doubt that it was so.

 

[YoursTrue]

Is that what this was all about - a medical article used as an argument against trusting science and evolution?

I'm fifteen years out from my last day as a working physician, so my knowledge is a bit dated now. In my time, stents had been shown to be of benefit to certain kinds of cardiac patients, and patients had them inserted to good effect.

It appears that medical (nonsurgical) treatment has caught up and now achieves similar results. If so, that's going to be due to advances in pharmacology, not advances in the recommendations for and efficacy of lifestyle modifications.

Regarding any delay in implementing this new understanding, there's a learning curve between when an advancement is made and when it is widely accepted and applied. None of this reflects on any inadequacy in science. Au contraire. It demonstrates it march forward. Clinical physicians are not scientists. We applied science. Other kinds of people are doing the science, some research physicians, some pharmacologists or organic chemists, some developing new devices.

I found the article interesting but -- it showed me that doctors will approve stents even though they are aware statistics show they do not increase the lifespan of the patient. My guess is that they do it for money. So this is not necessarily in regard to evolution, but to how humans perceive things, in this case called facts. And how the "unwary" believe the experts.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Not to be contentious, but I'm still trying to figure things out. Almost, but not quite, like a scientist. (haha, a little joke there...) Now figure about what? not so much the law of entropy, because I believe God can turn back what He wants to, and science itself realized there is a genetic cap on some cells where they stop multiplying, or something like that. Do I think God can remove those "caps" in his due time? Yes, I do.

You are attempting to learn knowledge it has taken me 40 years of study and research to learn and squeeze it all down to a few days, weeks, perhaps months with the sole intent of demonstrating it all wrong. And I recognize that 40 years of knowledge is incomplete. More than some, but less than others. But it is still knowledge and takes much time to acquire.

I fail to see what significance there is in considering the number of times a cell can divide in all of this. I think your focus on things you find interesting can be as much misleading as it can be enlightening.

But people will often fixate on whatever they think will get them what they want. Even when it is more likely to take them no where due to misunderstanding their own time, abilities and ignorance.

It isn't as if you couldn't learn the basics and continue building on that. But the way you are going about it piecemeal and disjointed and starting above the base is going to lead to rather dubious results limited in extent and practical use.

I applaud your attempts, but I think you should focus on understanding the basics and then moving up.