Cells and entropy

No, it isn't.

No, it doesn't.

And so forth.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Actually DNA does have a double helix of water. But this is not stressed because when the cart of math is leading the horse of evolution a complete reality mechanism is not important, since the math can do the heavy lifting with less than reality. The power of statistics is it is black box math and allows us to ignore the reality of what is inside the black box. Again, I am not saying there is not a process of change within life that we call evolution. What I am saying is, the current mechanism works because it is conforming itself to the needs of the math; cart leading the horse. The mechanism does not have to be correct, to wor, since the math can make use of a black box to compensate.

In the image below, the extra hydrogen bonding hydrogen on the bases, as well as the extra electron density on the nitrogen and oxygen atoms of the bases were designed by evolution with water in mind. To use evolutionary lingo, this arrangement had selective advantage since the very beginning, even before cells, and therefore plays a important role in evolution. But it may not fit into the current math car, since it does not lead to a needed random grease for the cart wheels. Again math is a powerful tool, but the hammer should not swing the carpenter.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I have heard this complaint before, that mathematical analysis is being considered prior to biological mechanisms in the bioscience mainstream.

I don't have the link, but a paper was published that undermined the statistical validity of a few hundred other papers. Whether this made a big impact on bio research I don't know. A few hundred papers isn't that many considered over 10 years on a global scale.

It made me wonder - how is it possible that we are using maths to work on genetics?? Bio molecular systems are far from understood fully. Is it possible that a few hundred papers were published and were based on the wrong maths?

The problem with this is that oftentimes these papers take precedence over novel studies that fully disclose the physical mechanisms of action, and it is very hard to overturn the results if there is an already established collection of mathematical studies based on faulty assumptions.



On the other hand, the mechanisms of chromosomal recombination are based on mathematical principles and have been for over a hundred years. These were used to map early genomes with great effectiveness. Digital organisms are beginning to be used to study population mechanics and genetics, and they are often run against real, in lab experiments to check their validity. So, these models are not necessarily wrong either.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You know Wellwisher, even if you repeat this 1000 times:

It will still not be true.


First and foremost evolution is built on observation and the fossil records. Genetics of course has become more and more important as our understanding and knowledge has increased.

What MATH are you specifically talking about?

 

Seriously? That is your double helix of water??? You are really reaching.

So based on your definition I could just as easily say that DNA is a double helix of phosphates.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Tell me again that you don't have an [thinly veiled] agenda against evolution.

Your logic is completely lacking about the need for water. Are life and biological processes tied to water? Of course. Is water, O and H, incorporated into DNA? Of course. Does this mean that DNA formed in the abscence of any other organic material? Of course NOT. Your silly assumption that biologist believe that DNA formed on its own in some water environment is absurd (which I think you know, but facts are not an important aspect of your sermon).

 

No it doesn't.

No, they weren't.

Evolutionary lingo says nothing like that.

 

Fossil evidence is very important to help show the rough progression of life over time. The data is discontinuous, as expected, since nature tends to recycle. This recycling to create discontinuous data, means there is no guarentee basing a theory on this data will lead to the correct assumptions about the evolution life. Discontunous data implies a discontinuous model for evolution (to fit the random assumptions of the math), with recycle able to hide the true nature of the data.

Let me give an example of how letting the tail of discontinuous data, wag the dog, can lead to problems. Say I made a large four leaf clover pattern on the ground out of popcorn. I was careful to make each piece touch the adjacent pieces. I leave the design and come back weeks later to show others my popcorn artwork. The birds, in the mean time, have pillaged my design (nature recycles) leaving a fragmented and discontinuous fraction of the original design. Based on the hard data remaining, you may not be able to infer the reality of the actual original design.

If it was fragmented enough, nobody may even believe, it was a perfect four leaf clover, since the hard data to prove this is not there. Instead the experts will infer I was drunk and made some multiple random design that were discontinuous in continuity and shape. How can you argue the reality of the four leaf clover design, when the illusion has this hard data that appears to prove otherwise?

Water is an important part of the DNA, with the predominate nature DNA, B-DNA, the most hydrated. .

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

 

But DNA, living things, and the fossil evidence all support the theory. This is the mark of a good theory, and so far there is no alternative theory with the same explanatory power.

 

Sure there is, and it is even simpler than ToE: "God is Evil." That is the whole theory.

I.e. God likes to trick and mislead people. For two examples:

(1) None of the stars exist (except the sun, if considered to be a star). There appear to be more stars than grains of sand on Earth's beaches - Making all that mass is lot of work, even for God, so about 10,000 years ago, he just made beams of parallel light a little wider than the solar system about 25,000 light years long and pointed them at the sun from many different directions.

Note the GiE theory is falsifiable and the ToE is not! I.e. GiE theory is false if: (1) After about 15,000 years more the heavens are NOT free of their apparent stars. OR if (2) the pioneer space craft, which are now outside of many of God's light beams, had cameras, which still look at where the stars are falsely believed to be, did observe "star light;" but scientists were stupidly believing in the ToE so did not test the GiE theory as they should have. Thus man can test the GiE theory currently, but can not show the ToE is false, with no possibilitity that the "disproof" cannot be explained away so as to keep the ToE alive.

(2) When God created Earth, less than 10,000 years ago, God made all the fossils and placed them in succeeding layers of Earth so that man would falsely conclude that whales evolved from large land animals, etc. He even went to the trouble of making the meat of whales red like that of other land animals, and having them be air breathers with lungs, not like the fish of the sea, and placing their vestigial tiny leg bones deep inside their posterior part of their body for future seekers of whale oil to discover etc. God even foresaw that man would learn about DNA etc. so he cleverly made the changes found in it from one species to the other such as to trick man in to accepting the ToE (and of course, this DNA ToE "evidence" was created to be in full agreement with the sequence of fossils found in the various layers of rocks, etc.)

Your problem is that you have swallowed that false nonsense* about "God is Good" instead of the truth God reveled to me. (That God is Evil and did mislead intelligent men into believing in the ToE, despite its greater complexity.)
-------
* It is amazing that the faith that God is Good still exists when every day you get many examples showing his evil nature. If God were good (and cared about people) then Hitler would have gotten run over by a truck at age 20, etc. I.e. there is much more evidence for the GiE theory than the ToE.

 

Considering Voyager cameras were still operational up to a few years ago and that Voyager uses star mapping for orientation, I think they would have noticed something by now. Also evolution is easily falsifiable while god tricking us its not: assuming god is omnipotent he could trick us and make it impossible for us to detect the trick.

Evolution can easily be disproven in a number of ways that could not be explained away. Genetics for example could have proven non-relation of all creatures or even god signature, but it didn't. Unless of course it was gods intent to make it look like they evolve, but if then why would there ever be any evidence to the contrary? God is fucking GOD, he can make 2+2=fish at the snap of his fingers so he can easily make it impossible to detect his forgery. He can forsee all the times people will test his false reality and make an illusion for each test.

Oh and I'm willing to be a follower! But science does not care, science only cares to understand and map the nature of reality, be it that reality is false or real doesn't matter. And so far science mapping of reality has allow the human population to swell into the billion with more people living happier and in standards of opulence better then any time before... unless of course everything we know is false, that we were spawn into existence just seconds ago with false memories and false history and all :m:

 

There is not a continuous line of every change because fossilization is not that common, it is not because of 'recycling'. The fossil evidence is very rich and shows unmistakably that evolution is occuring. I thought your only objection was the 'Math Tool', whatever that is.

Well welcome to science, engineering, and reality. We NEVER have the luxury of 100% of the data. That does not mean we do not have coherent and viable theory. Based on your requirements we have NO theories.

What a misleading and trite example.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

So you have back peddled from "DNA contains a double helix of water" to "water is an important part of DNA". Yeah, I think that is pretty obvious to anybody that has looked at it.

Of course that website as well as biology in general give NO support to your absurd straw man concerning the initial formation of DNA.

 

You'r right no doubt. I.e. God foresaw the trajectories of Pioneers, so did provide "curved" star beams to follow their progress thur space. That was hardly worth mentioning in my prior post as they are small - only about 100 meters in cross section. Do you think the radiation pressure not being exactly what was expected could account for the anomaly (No camera looks directly at the sun, so God may not have it shine in that direction or could have made it shine stronger than it should to really bother scientists with the extra acceleration, which would be harder to explain. - He is very evil, you know.)?

Yes, that updating memories, Star parallax film photos, etc. every second or so, is the approach lesser Gods ruling other universes probably use, but not our great and evil God.
While true that many more humaoids are happier now than even only 100 years ago and certianly ~10,000 years ago when God made Adam, (and Eve as an after thought to show how evil he could be), you forgot to mention all the millions who starve to death, etc. now. How can you deny all the evidence that God is evil?

 

If god wants to trick us why would he not make sure every detail reaffirms that trick? He has gone this far why not all the way? So no the off-course anomaly is most certianly something else then a flaw in God's trickery.

I believe the the amount of pleasure for humans has increased greater than the amount if pain: before human population was kept in check by starvation and democide, but sciences has allowed the balance to be broken, ultimately this is likely part of gods evil plan to allow us to crawl up a little just to strike us down again and laugh at our failure, it pleases him so! Thus our progress and inevitable degeneration is like a game of Whac-a-mole to him.

I was watching videos of Libyan rebels fighting and when a comrade is hit and bleeding to death his compatriots would yell out "Allahu akbar!" over and over again, it stuck me that they must also know that god enjoys their suffering and to celebrate gods joy when one of them dies, so they yell out "god is great!" over and over, praising god for hurt them.

Finally I think the evil god topic should be split off into a new thread.

 

The short answer is that evolutionary theory is not the pattern. Evolutionary theory explains the pattern.

This exact silly, mistaken analogy was rebutted in detail, in another thread, just a couple of weeks ago. I'm not going to bother finding or rehashing the argument.

You can also find adequate refutation on sites such as talkorigins, etc, on the web.

You can take a basic probability and statistics class in any decent institution of learning, such as a local high school or community college. Your teacher can go over your many errors of reasoning, and help you.

Yet you repeat it, as if it had never been addressed. Yet you ignore the fact that it's just the latest in a series of falsehoods and goofy errors you have posted on this topic, each one following the denial of the last.

There is no end to this shit. You don't even have to go around in a circle, as every one of your predecessors in this bs have - with enough digging on those scam websites you are regurgitating here, or enough imagination of your own, you can keep on inventing new and ever more elaborate garbage like this indefinitely, each time expecting respectful and reasonable response.

That's an abuse of the forum. It's rude, disrespectful, childish.

Go away and learn the basics of Darwinian evolutionary theory. Learn from people who employ it and understand it. That will take you a couple of years. Then you can post reasonably on the topic.

So your objection to the ToE is that it leads to interesting hypotheses and brings up questions for further research?

That it does not immediately answer all questions of fact and history in the field of biology?

Or what exactly do you mean by the "arrogant certainty" of "speculations"? The "veil" of public, open, diligent research?

 

I prefer the idea of evolution having a sense of direction by means of chemical mechanisms.

Consciousness is not about lacking a sense of direction, like is assumed by the theory of evolution. Consciousness, is goal orientated. If the brain and consciousness is an artifact of the DNA, how can consciousness have a sense of direction when evolutionary change lacks sense of direction?

When you depend on the tail to wag the dog, you miss things.

 

Huh? Chemical mechanisms cannot predict the complex future environment in which an organism must live. Consciousness in the context of an existing being has many purposes. It's a threat detection and avoidance system. It evaluates potential mates. It helps creatures find and remember food sources, etc... It's a product of what worked successfully in the past. If in the past, it was beneficial for an organism to, for instance, know that it had to fly south for the winter, that's what it's led to do in the present. DNA can code for this sort of instinct without knowing the future.

You are missing all sorts of basic things.

 

Like what?

 

When you have some idea of evolutionary theory, including the reasoning and evidence supporting it, you will be in a position to have preferences among the ideas.

Until then, you can have guesses and errors and preconceptions and bigotries and goofball fantasies like helical water, and various other mental irrelevancies, but you can't have "preferences".

 

Your preference does not appear to have a basis in reality. If evolution has a sense of direction then it appears to be worse than my mothers sense of direction!

 

Yes, there is no doubt but what evolution involves a chemical/biological mechanism. We are not born because we want to and we live according to instinctive desires that evolved in us biologically.

We also shape our lives in a social evolutionary way in the sense that the ideological systems we depend on to bind us small group primates into huge societies have to have some goal among its ideals, a goal which all its believers are to some extent dedicated to achieve. These goals have, in the past, been illusionary ("God's Kingdom, Nirvana, the communal utopia, etc.), they even so worked because they enabled their believers to cooperate and make their society operate with maximum efficiency in the developing of further understanding, technology and the population growth that results.

This all may seem a strange way of looking at us, but I see it as the understanding that can enable us to move out of the decline phase of this civilization and look well into our future. This is the perspective of social evolution which is further explained in "The Last Civilization."

brough