Cells and entropy

But it would be a reasonable hypothesis, given all the other evidence we have of evolution happening in observable populations.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

That is a swell argument to allow you to maintain your ignorance. You are right though, no matter how many transition species we find, you can always ask for finer gainularity and due to the nature of fossilization you will never have all of the transition species.

None of that lessens the reality of the evolution, it only allows you to have a piss poor excuse to disbelieve evolution.

The abscence of any number of 'transition species' will never have a negative impact on evolution. Now if find a human fossil with a dinoasur fossil then you got something.

For now the best you can do is to come up with the lack of transitions fossils and your goofy attempts at 'the entropy connection' to convince yourself that the obvious is not real.

Enjoy.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Here is some very interesting observational data, which is not only useful for my energy/entropy purposes, but also helps challenge some of the assumptions of evolution. This is based on studies where scientists removed the external membrane of cells and found that the naked cells will still partition potassium and sodium ions with potassium ions accumulating within the cell.

http://www.lsbu.ac.uk/water/cell.html

Let me analyze this data in the context of evolution. If a cell without a membrane can preferentially partition or accumulate potassium ions, even without cationic pumping, did the cationic pumping initially induced an internal global equilibrium internal state, which is now able to reciprocate? (potassium in).

In other words, there are two evolutionary ways to explain this. The first is the simplest. It only requires a few proteins, which form some form of cationic or proton pumping boundary condition. This induction, impacts the inside of the cell, and then causes a long term evolutionary equilibrium type affect within the cell, until the inside of the cell lines up its ducks in a row to forms an equilibrium state that naturally partitions potassium.

The alternate explanation, which is more in line with current evolutionary theory. Thousands of proteins and structures randomly form over time, filtered by natural selection, until the final result is able to partition potassium. It is all random, with no sense of order.

The first only requires a few proteins that can set the internal potential of the cell and then require everything that is evolving within the cell to have to line up its ducks in a row filtering the results. The final result mirrors what the potassium, has always induced and therefore causes the potassium to mirror back. A global potential is not about random but about minimizing random.

In my posts about entropy and the cell I have tried to start with the membrane to show the hierarchy of order via equilibrium, but there is constant distracting foot dragging trying to defend scenario number two.

Let us scale this up, if the membrane potential can induce a global equilibrium allowing potassium partitioning, even without a membrane, does this equilibrium extend all the way to the DNA?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

There is a huge excess of energy in the partial system that you are considering. Evolution is not about the most effincient it is about the most likely to reproduce.

You clearly will not acknowledge that becasue that would force you to the clear conclusion that evolution is a fact. I assume this is some sort of religious conviction since I personnally cannot concieve of any other reason to put on such obvious blinders. So why don't you just leave it to "God works in mysterious ways", because your attempts at trying to bring in science to back you up are laughable.

 

What data? The question of whether evolution is continuous is not a statistical one. It's an elementary observation about nature. Your attempts to muddle the clarity of science doesn't change science one iota. It just establishes your own reticence to learn about nature.

The statement "evolution is continuous" merely says individuals do not appear out of thin air. Your statement "the data would say discontinuous" says "there is data to show creatures appear out of thin air". That statement is utterly bogus. In fact, the only mainstream writing that would suggest that is the Bible, which does not concern itself with statistics or scientific proof one tittle or jot.

The question of whether a fossil is on hand to show the existence of a particular creature is a completely different issue. There are more fossils than any one of us would ever be able to wrap our minds around in a lifetime - in 10 lifetimes - if we were tasked with classifying them all.

I need only show you one example - Neanderthal - to prove that we evolved. It no longer matters which came first or even when. What matters is that the bones of a different human life form have been recovered - and, I might add, at the great expenditure of effort of the scientists who bothered to dedicate themselves to this effort. Isn't that a noble human undertaking in itself? Shouldn't that be enough to quell the persistent anti-science rant? It's a huge discovery, one to be proud of: great achievement. This is another blatant defect of Creation Science: envy.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Of course, that would require character, to pay tribute to a great contributor to science, wouldn't it? And Creation Science doesn't require character, does it? No, Creation Science only requires an assault on character, beginning with the character of every one of their adherents being reduced to the capacity of a child, unable to open a book - or any of a million sources - to read and discover facts that are as plain as the nose on your face.

From the Neanderthal bones - after the huge advances in DNA PCR technology and a thousand related scientific accomplishments - came the startling news that the Neanderthal genome has been decoded, and surprise: there is a correlation of several percent between us and Neanderthals.

Now what does that say? Several things. It says Evolution is continuous so much so, that when speciation occurs (or even sub-speciation), the groups may diverge in isolation, then cross paths at a later date and interbreed. It says that evolution is continuous forward and backward. It says no living creature springs out of thin air. It says Neanderthal, and about 20 hominids known (either as species or subspecies) were all continuously linked in an evolutionary chain. It says human development proceeds no differently than animal development, or plant development, namely, that all living things struggle for survival, they leave their DNA behind, and once in a while the genome mutates, and a new species arises.

Creation Science is not science. It barely qualifies as pseudoscience, which is just sham science. Creation Science is worse than a sham, it's pretense plus sanctimony, a lie dressed up in Sunday clothes to prey on the minds of the young and impressionable. Creation Science robs people of opportunity, such as when textbooks are denied from schools in southern US states, or when scientific research is interrupted or when the pressing social and economic questions of the day are preempted by the incessant attacks by Creation Science advocates, against noble endeavors like scientific research.

Evolution does not depend on how many human fossils are found. Evolution can take place right beneath out noses. The evolution of drug-resistant microbes is a common example.

But it is ridiculous to argue that humans did not evolve when there have been approximately 500 fossils of evolved humans already unearthed. And it is ridiculous to deny that from these discoveries we find the following fossil evidence of human evolution:


Sahelanthropus tchadensis
Ardipithecus ramidus
Australopithecus anamensis
Australopithecus afarensis
Kenyanthropus platyops
Australopithecus africanus
Australopithecus garhi
Australopithecus sediba
Australopithecus aethiopicus
Australopithecus robustus Australopithecus boisei
Homo habilis
Homo georgicus
Homo erectus
Homo ergaster
Homo antecessor
Homo heidelbergensis
Homo neanderthalensis
Homo floresiensis


and of course Homo sapiens.

To pretend that they don't exist is pure denial.

 

When I look at fetal development, I see evolutionary layers built upon layers, with the deepest layers common to more primitive life. This suggests that evolution had milestones, which retain traces of these layers, in fetal development. Once a milestone is reached a new layer begins and old is sealed shut.

If the process of evolution was entirely random, there should not be layers since random would erase and not conserve. This does not deny evolution, but supports the assumption of order in evolution. Order would create layers and milestones, while random would erase this. I see layers therefore order.

The simplest way to explain how this is possible is with an observation. Cells with their membranes removed, will still partition sodium and potassium ions and enrich themselves in potassium ions, even though there are no sodium-potassium pumps.

The simplest way to explain this is the cationic pumping, by enriching the cell in potassium, causes a potential in the cell, which induces an equilibrium response in the cell. All the cellular innards adjust to this equilibrium induction. Over the time scales of evolution, the equilibrium induction eventually causes the innards to mirror the membrane potential and the impact of the potassium ions. Once the balance is established, if we remove the membrane, the organic equilibrium remains and potassium will builds up via the mirror. This long term induced order even applies to multicellular, since the same potassium membrane induced equilibrium schema is in effect in all cells.

If we assume this equilibrium induction, even if the DNA results in a new random protein, the equilibrium within the internal protein grid of the cell will have a global constraint. The protein needs to fit in or else it it toast for recycle.

This equilibrium censoring can be modeled with configurational equilibrium. A particular protein, as an integrated molecular shape/surface has a sweet spot in the equilibrium grid. Even new membrane proteins will end in the membrane, because anywhere else is a sour spot relative to equilibrium.

There are cases where proteins will find their sweet spot, but will be transported, using ATP energy, to a non equilibrium place. This is useful for adding energy to the protein, but it needs to be anchored or else it will diffuse to lower toward lower energy. During late cell cycles when the scaffolding protein dissolve, the proteins diffuse toward lower energy in the new grid. Energy and entropy tells it where to go.

 

I think many people, like myself, see evolution as having a sense of direction. This does not deny evolution, but suggests a different mechanism.

The question I have is, if the bacteria need random genetic changes and natural selection to evolve, how do they initially resist the antibiotic, so the evolutionary process can begin? Doesn't the ability to fight the antibiotic and live long enough to start mutation process, mean they can already deal with it?

As an analogy, I put mustard gas into a room full of people. Some people appear to resist the gas. The theory goes, these then breed so they can evolve the ability to resist the gas? They were already able to fight the antibiotic, out of the blocks, or else they would not be able to live to breed another day. Is this due to real time adaptation followed by a sense of direction so they can do it better? Then they can share horizontally so they brothers have a sense or order and are not at the whim of chance.

Relative to the analogy, if you were resistant to the mustard gas, you don't just throw the dice in the air, and look randomly. Rather common sense says you try to figure out what is helping you, and then work on a solution from there. Once this is done you share horizontally with others.

 

Like many other ideas you have this is incorrect.

 

Answer the rest of the analysis. Some of the bacteria need to survive the first wave of antibiotics or else there is nobody left to evolve a resistance. This means there are some bacteria with at least a partial resistance out of the blocks. Random does not make sense if you already have a partial answer. This appears to be bias of tradition. forcing a one size fits all.

 

Evolution is not random...mutation is random, and then evolution selects certain traits non-randomly. So the process of evolution has both random and non-random elements, but that is not the same thing (in my mind) as evolution having a "direction."

As you know, resistance is not an all or nothing state. In the "first generation" population of bacteria that gets exposed to a given antibiotic, some will have a partial immunity, but this likely means they have a smaller chance of being killed off than their less resistant counterparts. Let's say the only ones that survive have some degree of resistance, but of those 99% die off (along with 100% of those with no resistance).

In the next generation, there will again be variation, but not the "baseline" is that of the survivors of the first generation, so it's likely that the whole population (or close to it) will have some resistance. Some portion of that population may have a higher resistance than the prior generation, due to chance. So to simply it, let's say that in the second generation we have three basic classes: (i) due to random mutations, 1% of the overall generation has no resistance, (ii) 98% of the second generation has the same resistance as the survivors of the first generation (so each bacterium in this group has a 1% chance of surviving exposure to the antibiotic) and (iii) due again to random mutations,1% of the population has a 2% chance of surviving exposure to the antibiotic.

Assuming this generation is also hit with the antibiotic, it's not entirely "random" that group (iii) will do relatively well, even though they are a minority. If you imagine a similar process over many generations, you can see how the average resistance factor creeps up until you eventually have a population that can be largely composed of highly resistant individuals, based on the pattern of random mutation, followed by selection pressures that favor certain traits in a non-random way.

If an initial population has no resistance at all, then there is no guarantee that subsequent generations will ever develop it. There may or may not be a future mutation, randomly, that confers a degree of resistance, but selective pressure needs some trait upon which to act, and can't cause a trait to appear from nothing just because it would be helpful. With bacteria, good new for them, they generally have the ability to reproduce so fast and in such large numbers that new traits are always arising due to random mutation, giving natural selection a lot to work with.

I don't see that as evolution having a "direction" though. Going back to the resistant bacteria population, imagine that the second generation is never treated with the antibiotic. In that case, evolution is not going to favor increased resistance in the third generation. Just because a given population has a particular trait if no guarantee that evolution will enhance that trait over time. Humans, for example, aren't destined to evolve into an even more intelligent form, just because we happen to be highly intelligent (relative to other animals). It's entirely possible that we could, as a species, lose intelligence over time, depending on the conditions we and our descendants face.

If we do, it will most likely be because selective pressures are making it advantageous to be less intelligent (which can happen) (though if our high intelligence were largely a largely survival-neutral trait, we could also lose it due to "genetic drift," which is a random phenomenon).

 

When you have an infection there are millions of bacteria attacking your body, antibiotics (along with your body defense systems) will almost always defeat the infection. Antibiotics are prescribed millions of times a year. There are untold billions upon billions of bacteria killed by these drugs. It is not surprising that in that incredible number of bacteria there would be bacteria with mutations that would be able to overcome the toxins of the anitbiotics.

A rather farfetched and rather gruesom analogy, but I can go with it.

A real time adaptation? No. That sounds more like magic than science. A sense of direction so they can do it better? Of course not! That line of reasoning is preposterous, and has nothing to do with the mechanism of evolution.

You are hopeless. It isn't that you try to figure out what is helping you and work out a solution, it's that fact that mating with dead people will not produce offspring.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

You're anthropomorphizing here. Evolution has no direction other than survival. If survival means reducing brain volume, eliminating eyes and weakening the skeleton - that's the direction evolution will go in.

Most of them do not. They die. (Which, of course, is why antibiotics work to begin with.) The remaining ones - the ones with random mutations that give some small amount of protection to that antibiotic - are then either killed off by the body's immune system, or killed off eventually by the antibiotic.

That, by the way, is why it is critical to finish a course of antibiotics - to kill off the bacteria that have a little bit of resistance. Otherwise you breed them.

Yes. The people who can hold their breath the longest will survive the longest. If you select for these people, you will end up with people with large lung capacities, higher hemoglobin counts and lower oxygen needs.

Does this mean they were "born with the ability to resist mustard gas?" Not really. It's just that a random combination of their traits (i.e. lung size, blood composition) allowed them to survive slightly longer than their peers.

?? Surely you are not talking about an intelligent response to the mustard gas issue? If so the answer is simple - shoot the people about to gas you. That's sort of a meaningless answer though.

 

If you mean "milestones toward a goal" such as Intelligent Design, no.

This sounds almost Biblical. Just say "variation". Variations in DNA are seen within populations, and particular kinds of variations may lead to the evolution of new species. It's as simple as that.

No. "Entirely random" is purely subjective. Mutations are one of many kinds of random processes in biology. They happen to account, in part, for speciation. But the mechanism for preserving random processes is natural selection. Natural selection is also very complicated and can not be whittled down as you may think. Nor can it be ignored. Not if you are examining the causes of evolution (as you often do).

It seems to deny science as a whole, that is, you are diverting us away from the scientific treatment of the subject.

You are just inventing ideas at random. You have completely diverged from the subject of the genome itself, which is the object of the variation. In the embryo, it is the stem cells which diversify, and you are evading that subject altogether.

The layers you should be looking at are the endoderm, mesoderm and ectoderm (of the primitive embryo).

So far you haven't acknowledged stem cell development, and the way cells and tissues diverge into many different kinds, from a single cell of one kind.

It is not the issue of membranes that immediately surface in this question of fetal development, but rather, the actual machinery of cell diversification, which centers around the mechanisms of gene expression, synthesis of specialized proteins and enzymes, signalling and so forth.

The simplest way to talk about science is to talk about science. Why are you evading science?

:shrug: Mumbo-jumbo. Incoherent, absurd, pointless, muddled obscurity with no substance, character or use.

Zero. You get a zero. I come away from this with nothing added to the question, which inquires into the nature of pharyngeal arches.

 

I was not initially addressing fetal development, but showing you data that confirms my theory of induced global order based on equilibrium. What I was hoping is you would explain how we can remove of cell membrane and the potassium will partition even without an enzyme mechanism, using existing theory based on randomness at the DNA and natural selection.

Once you understand this equilibrium design, then it will make sense that fetal development makes use of an equilibrium schema. You start at genetic expression, leading the differentiation, but I start at the membrane to do the same thing. A signal from another cell has to go through the membrane before the DNA can get it. You explain starting three steps later. I start at step one when the signally first enters the cell and alters equilibria on the DNA. Then the current theory starts at that point, missing the first boat.

 

Let me explain how this cationic partitioning works so you can see the global equilibrium within the cell. Sodium and potassium cations have different impacts on the structure of water. The potassium cations are larger and its positive charge is more shielded than sodium, causing potassium to bind, to water in a weaker fashion, than water and sodium cations.

When the cell expends all that ATP energy to separate these cations, it does so to alter the water potential in the cell, in line with the potassium induction. All the organics see this specific water potential, and like oil and water mixing, need to form an equilibrium. If we use this same induction for eons, the innards of the cell have no choice but to evolve an equilibrium. It is not my choice or your choice. It has nothing to do with random choice. The goal is to minimize energy.

In more detail, since potassium binds to water weaker than water itself, the water inside the cell tends to hydrogen bond better with itself forming structuring with the water. The impact is that hydrophobic molecules, like signally molecules, and protein surfaces are better able to dissolve or expand in water. This opens up proteins and the DNA equilibrium for action.

I am not sure why science starts in the middle of the process and ignore all the front end. This is misleading. If you control the membrane you can control the real time water potential setting the global potential even for the DNA.

 

If you look at natural selection, it reduces all the possible alternatives to fewer. If have a large number of plants or critters and only one or two are selected, the future for breeding has fewer alternatives. This reflects a decrease in complexity or a reduction of biological entropy.

The DNA will increase diversity again, in the next generation of offspring. This increases entropy and complexity. Then natural selection reduces this complexity down again to less. How does natural selection go in the opposite direction of the second law? The DNA follows the second law.

The answer will still follow the second law in the biggest picture of the earth, but not where natural selection is usually presented in evolution. There a reduction in variety is occurring.

Relative to new species, the DNA can increase variety and complexity. But natural selection will skinny this variety and complexity down to the most fit. The DNA might form a new species in this complexity, but then this new species needs to make the global lowering complexity cut of natural selection. This creates a paradox for some new species that are more complex, since natural selection reduces complexity, unless.......

Picture a scenario where the earth is huge and can support endless life. There is no need for natural selection, since there is plenty of room, plenty of food and no predators, so even the sick and mutant can get by. With only the DNA leading the charge, lineages are forming in all directions. We would have maximum diversity, complexity and entropy and a maximum energy requirement; explosion of life.

Next, we will add natural selection due to environmental limits being suddenly taxed. What will happen is variety and entropy will begin to fall as food falls and predators appear to help open up new sources of food. Regardless, there is still only so much energy/food and not all can be supported.

There is an energy limit in the environment (food) being placed on the original entropy/complexity. Entropy needs energy so as energy reaches the limit, so does the amount of biological entropy. We need to reduce variety to free up entropy so life can become more complex. Life also needs to get more efficient it the context of the environment or complex life would exceed the limited energy. Natural selection chose efficiency so it can also support more complexity, with less energy, to maintain the energy limitation.

If we get back to new species, natural selection can be satisfied with a new species if there are improvements in efficiency so the energy balance is fine.

 

You mean Creation Science. But that's been disproven, even in court.

First you need to understand

How the Sodium Potassium Pump Works

You will notice that randomness of the trajectory (Brownian motion) of each sodium and potassium ion accounts (in part) for the success of active transport. You need to expand your understanding of randomness to reflect the actual behavior of chemicals in nature.

Active transport is exploited for reasons other than regulating sodium and potassium concentrations. However, you should compare it to other functions of the cell membrane, especially

Osmosis, and

Facilitated Diffusion

By now you should understand that these are each necessary and beneficial functions of the cell membrane. And it should be intuitive that osmosis is the simplest, facilitated diffusion is slightly more complex, and active transport is even more complex.

You next ask how "randomness at the DNA and natural selection" caused cells to acquire these functions in their cell membranes. The quick answer is: because the mutations (which are random) that created DNA, which coded for proteins, that exhibit the features of active transport, conveyed to the host cell a particular trait, which is the ability to move ions across the concentration gradient, and this trait was favored in the primordial environment of the Archaen eon, thus, the lack of this trait was selected out, and the cells carrying this trait evolved it, and passed it down to the many life forms that branched afterwards, leaving this trait as permanently bound to the library of traits that were then evolving.

Note: the Archaean lasted 1.2 billion years.

Fetal development is the consequence of stem cell differentiation. Until we get to that discussion, we are lost in a quagmire of no escape.

No, embyogenesis starts at genetic expression, leading to differentiation. You can't seem to get started because you have contempt for science.

In this case they are stem cells, and what they are doing is what we should be talking about.

Really? OK let's get started. Go ahead, describe signalling and stem cell differentiation. Then we will finally be discussing biology instead of rambling out in the weeds.

...he says as he launches a vessel called Contempt.

Go for it.

 

Correct. And mutation increases the possible alternatives.

That's not a paradox, more of a balance. Mutations increase complexity without regard to function. Natural selection removes those increases in complexity that compromise function. The balance between the two gives rise to the functional complexity of modern life.

There is still natural selection in that case. An organism with defective reproductive organs will not reproduce, and will be selected against; its DNA will be removed from the pool.

However, your general observation that natural selection is decreased with a decrease in competition is reasonable; one of the selective pressures has been removed.

Variety will not fall; indeed, new organisms will evolve to better extract the available resources. Animals without any need for defense will evolve claws, quills and armor. Animals without any need to find food in trees will evolve longer necks as the trees start to get taller to avoid them. Plants will evolve trunks and long branches to reach more sunlight than their neighbors.

The total NUMBER of species may well decline, since there is less energy to support an unlimited number of species. But within those species, variety will tend to increase as "niches" appear where none existed before.

 

I love it when Creationists so publically illustrate their total lack of understanding of the second law of thermodynamics. Hint" It only applies to closed systems and says nothing about local decreases of entropy(which is what life itself basically is), but only about the total entropy of the system. The Earth is not a closed system(now where could any energy, say heat and/or light be coming from?), life living with a non closed system has plenty of energy to harvest, decreasing it's own entropy at the expense of an increase in the environment, fed by outside energy.

DNA is not information, it is a chemical molecule. Changes to the sequence of the building blocks making up that molecule may or may not do anything. Sections of the molecule can assemble other molecules which life has found useful, but changes in those sequences(mutation)neither adds nor subtracts from any "instruction", information or code, it changes what that molecule does directly. We look at this and call it information or code so we can understand it, but the information or code exists nowhere but in the maps we make to describe that process, but these maps are not the process any more than a geographical map is the territory.

Grumpy

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

First I am not a creationist, but I do look for logical design which requires less in the way of random assumptions. All I said was natural selection lowers entropy, and is therefore moving in the opposite direction of the universe. This is possible, like you said, as long as there is an increase in entropy elsewhere. I also said that.

However, I was also pointing out the center piece of evolution or natural selection is defining lowering entropy. This is not the spontaneous direction for entropy, according to the second law. Yet it occurs constantly and consistently, according to the theory. I was trying to open the scope of the analysis, to provide the potentials needed to drive this contrary to spontaneous direction.

In engineering, entropy is connected to the irretrievable heat within work cycles and is a measure of inefficiency. If selective advantage is lowering entropy, which is going in the opposite direction of spontaneous entropy, than natural selection is evolving life in the direction of higher engineering efficiency.

The interesting point is, order overcoming chaos, via natural selection, since the spontaneous direction of entropy is disorder. I am not a creationists, but they see this order, which can be proven by science. The denial was never right.