Denial of evolution IV

[Robittybob1]

Yes I did miss your point. I now understand that you are asking about the creation of my persona. I will give it shot, I haven't thought much about it.

First I was born, pure id, with the mind of a lizard and a sucking reflex. These were imparted by the DNA, integrated from the aggregate of vestigial ancestral survivability components. After normalizing my reflexes, focus and digestive tract, I then executed a bootstrap program mainly in motor control and the auditory aspect of speech. A lot of pattern recognition began accumulating samples, and by age 2, I was walking, talking with 90% of my neural pathways completed.

At this point the ego operating system loader loaded, under the id bootstrap controller with DNA as its kernel. With this I loaded an operational version 1.0, the onset of personality, and went through a period of mental metamorphosis which we call "the terrible twos", manifest by tantrums. It was a shakedown, a defragging and reformatting operation to reconfigure the neural net for a MAC layer implementation of ego inter-neural packets using a compressed pseudorandom sequence of self replicating code that unfolds within the framework of the parietal platform. After that, the curiosity module opened out of the loader and initialized itself and I became a cute pain in the ass. By then I was running a 47th order moment-about-the-mean statistical capture and recognition for audio, video, tactile, olfactory, and taste sensor inputs through a analog sample-and-hold collector and muliplexor into a first order integration module distributed throughout the cerebrum, and hardwired into a duplex backplane at the pons for distribution up and down the spinal cord.

This of course is a system overview, as the DNA kernel endows us with redundancy between lobes, realtime error handling, interrupt service, a suite of object-oriented reentrant library modules, self replicating code, auto-encapsulation and realtime instantiation of experiential data and methods, and direct port tunnelling through the universal positron gateway to the edge of the universe where Mind ultimately resides.

That's my religion, if I had to sketch it in the back of a napkin at Hooters.

Other than that, I'm just a regular old atheist.

Memory of my early childhood has all but gone.
You are a bloody genius remembering the passage down the birth canal and all successive development since then. But you did make me think - are we programmed so much by our early experiences?
Have you consciously decided to make a change? Something that you were not programmed to do genetically? But as you have shown how would we know what is genetic and not?

 

[Aqueous Id]

Memory of my early childhood has all but gone.
You are a bloody genius remembering the passage down the birth canal and all successive development since then. But you did make me think - are we programmed so much by our early experiences?
Have you consciously decided to make a change? Something that you were not programmed to do genetically? But as you have shown how would we know what is genetic and not?

I certainly would never admit to remembering any of my last answer. I was just messing with you.

I like this question, it's sincere. It seems to me that denial of evolution hinges on two assumptions for theists:

(1) the prime-mover theory of Aristotle, something had to come first and theology gives us God to answer that one (answering a riddle with a riddle)
(2) the search for an origin to sentience, the mind, emotion, and especially virtue, answered again by standard-model theists that these are gifts from God (again answering a riddle with a riddle).

A lot of these discussions grapple with (1) because the sciences have a lot to say about it. But (2) is barely covered under science just some peripheral elements of psychology.

I like the way you framed this because it speaks to free will in a neutral way. The place for this action seems to be the frontal lobe, and I can never get this scene out of my mind--McMurphy's lobotomy in One flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest.

Who knows how the brain works. It's a mystery. Clearly there is a wealth of data available today that was unknown when we were children.

But I don't differentiate between this aspect of the brain or any other, or even the spinal chord, ganglia and all the nerve endings and other components that form the integrated system that constitutes Self.

What I mean is, it's no more wonderful or miraculous that I can sense the color of the apple I am about to eat, or that my eye reflex will auto focus as I examine it for worms. And my decision to eat it whether it is green and wormy or not will be weighed against how hard my pancreas is screaming for caloric intake. And another factor is the reward of taste and the other satisfaction of eating.

But I have to reach for it, so the will kicks in to get the job done, somehow using the same machinery. And so that addresses will at a surface level at least, for the example of something almost instinctive like eating.

As to change of direction, change of one's goals or the resolve to change, to be a better person, all of this seems to be centered in the frontal lobe as well. I think that this phenomenon among humans is very complicated in analysis because we have been programmed at so many levels. One of these is cultural. Another is imprinting and learning. Another is familial bonding. Another is education. And so on.

If you were raised by iguanas at Galapagos since birth would you ever even have a sense of self improvement or a desire to change? I can imagine a desire to explore beyond the confines of an island, but I'm not sure this "pure" human would ever conceive of remorse, shame, love or a host of feelings that we associate with common experience.

It's a good question. Everyone wants to know the answer but it's just beyond human comprehension. All I can say with certainty is that it's genetic, so this is the legacy of evolution.

 

[Aqueous Id]

We all agree that the natural direction of cationic flow is in the direction of lower energy and higher entropy. If we took the membrane potential, stopped ATP addition and allowed it to lower energy and increase entropy, it will move in the opposite direction of the gradient. As such the membrane potential creates a boundary condition of lowered entropy and higher energy. This take energy and work to establish and does not violate the entropy/energy of the universe. But it does create a boundary for the cells that maintains lower entropy and higher energy.

I have asked how does evolution take that into account? An intelligent design, based on science, does not ignore things that are new or inconvenient. A dogmatic design will try to defend traditions using whatever means necessary. The lack of response to what I showed, but followed by trying to discredit with emotional appeal is what I was talking about.

I asked a simple question, how does the cell maintain the low entropy with the single handedness of bio-materials?

I already answered this repeatedly, so did Trippy, arioch, and at least a dozen other folks who have given sound and credible reasons which you continue to ignore.

The answer is: you have incorrectly drawn the system boundary at which you can claim entropy has changed.

Redraw the system boundary as it occurs in the real world, not in your imaginary world, and you will discover your error immediately.

 

[Robittybob1]

If you were raised by iguanas at Galapagos since birth would you ever even have a sense of self improvement or a desire to change? I can imagine a desire to explore beyond the confines of an island, but I'm not sure this "pure" human would ever conceive of remorse, shame, love or a host of feelings that we associate with common experience.

There are the occasional case of human babies being raised by animals and when they are rescued they do lack emotions as we know them.
But when I study my animals I still see vestigial emotions, mothering caring instincts (cow), concern, loving attributes (dog), and joking (horses). We might see these in the animal behaviour and they may even see these in us. But in the rough and tumble of the jungle there would be less time for niceties.

Thanks again for the very thorough reply.

 

[Aqueous Id]

I am not denying evolution, but evolution is denying this low entropy and higher energy boundary conditions, which should have an impact on evolution, such as inducing the lower entropy of single handedness. The denial is based on prestige and emotional appeal but never on actual scientific proof that says otherwise.

You are denying science in general, moreso you are demonstrating that you do not understand fundamentals of science. You are alleging facts that you yourself do not understand, then refusing to listen to what the teachers are telling you.

Before you can stand on a soapbox and claim superior knowledge you have to be able to tie your shoes and get up on the box by your own capacity.

The reason you are not getting responses to your questions is that they are fallacious. As long as you build bogus claims and reformulate them into bogus questions you should continue to expect the type of responses you have been getting.

It is unclear if you have ever had to solve a formula before or if you have ever had to even scratch at the surface of a technical problem. A technically oriented person is at a loss to communicate with you on a technical level since it requires that you learn science. The way an informed person communicates with an uninformed person is through teaching. Take a clue from your own allegations about the 2nd law of thermo and apply this to education: it doesn't flow in reverse.

Every informed reader of this board has been through the difficulties of self-development and most probably feel like perpetual students. They all see that you are trying to jump through a course in evolutionary biology by reading a flyer from a creationist group, then walking into the final exam and declaring that the test is fraud because______ (and then comes your bogus claims.)

You are pretending to want to talk about cellular thermodynamics but you have not yet begun to follow through. You must first declare what is known. Declare the equations for Gibbs free energy and the related Boltzmann equation. Discuss what the formulas mean and their relevance to the thermodynamics at the membrane or other structure you are describing. Discuss osmosis and how it applies. For each case you distinguish, define a system boundary and discuss the factors that require the boundary to be drawn as you indicate. When describing particle ordering discuss the probability density and why it correctly generates the statistics for the case you are discussing. This would begin to satisfy most folks as an intro.

But by then, even if you somehow manage to get to that point the discussion will be moot because by then you will have discovered your own errors.

Here are slides and text to help you get started.

I have posted several graphics. Here is another to jog your thinking:

 

[wellwisher]

For a reaction to occur spontaneously the entropy of the universe must increase.

This is misleading because it does not say that the entropy of the reaction has to increase. It only says that the entropy of the universe needs to increase. The equation is G=H-TS. The S or entropy can decrease as long as the H decreases even more to get G negative. It is simple math. For example, the polymerization of polyethylene from ethylene lowers the entropy of ethylene, but still goes forward because there is a lot of energy (enthalpy) given off. This energy output can be used to increase the external entropy for the universal balance.But the polyethylene becomes frozen as a plastic with high crystalline order.

The answer is: you have incorrectly drawn the system boundary at which you can claim entropy has changed.

Redraw the system boundary as it occurs in the real world, not in your imaginary world, and you will discover your error immediately.

I don't think you are listening or reading properly. I have been focusing only on the membrane potential, period. The cell uses a lot of ATP energy to induce this potential. This creates a situation, relative to K+ and Na+ of high energy and low entropy due to the segregation of these cations.

I have not finished the energy and entropy balance. I first need to make clear the cationic gradient exist at higher energy and lower energy then if you stopped adding ATP and allow the potential to disperse. This dispersal of potential will move the direction of lower energy and higher entropy; uniform solution.

Since nature prefers lower energy and higher entropy, things connected to this unstable boundary condition, will need to balance this out, like you say. The input of ATP and the cationic boundary is the straw that stirs the drink inducing the dynamics into and out of the membrane, plus many other things, which all combined are consistent in energy and entropy, as you say.

We see the same thing, the difference is I am building it in layers starting at the main source of all the potential. I am looking at the motor first, and not the entire car, just yet.

I already showed how adenine is like mini-TNT and modern DNA contains 30% adenine. Since the enthalpy of formation of adenine is endothermic, the concentration of adenine would have started low in evolution compared to the other more exothermic nucleic acids, all else being equal. The high energy boundary is consistent with the rise in adenine incorporated into the DNA.

I am developing the DNA in another way, more consistent with the needs of an energy/entropy connection. Next I need to look at the purpose of the phosphate. Then I will be able to backtrack and complete the energy and entropy balance that surrounds the cationic gradient.

 

[wellwisher]

The intellectual problem that exists, when you discuss evolution, is many of us agree on the data integrity behind the theory of evolution. This data was collected over decades, in good faith, by scientists seeking to learn about the origins of life. Where differences appears is not the data but in the interpretation of this data. Not everyone thinks the status quo is the best way to interpret the data or that this way is complete.

Some people, like myself, accept the data, but think there are other factors at work that are not included in the current theory, such as doing an energy and entropy balance based on the energy and entropy within a cationic boundary condition.

What tends to happen is if you disagree with the status quo, it is pitches as you can't see the data, therefore you are a witch. That is not true. It only means one does not believe the current theory is complete. The data is a separate issue. For example, in the current model based on random change, why do cells retain a consistent order within the single handedness of bio-materials (one of two stereo isomers). This is totally not random, and shows it is possible to resist random. ID is looking for an intelligent want to explain this without blindly applying random.

 

[Aqueous Id]

The intellectual problem that exists, when you discuss evolution, is many of us agree on the data integrity behind the theory of evolution. This data was collected over decades, in good faith, by scientists seeking to learn about the origins of life. Where differences appears is not the data but in the interpretation of this data. Not everyone thinks the status quo is the best way to interpret the data or that this way is complete.

Some people, like myself, accept the data, but think there are other factors at work that are not included in the current theory, such as doing an energy and entropy balance based on the energy and entropy within a cationic boundary condition.

What tends to happen is if you disagree with the status quo, it is pitches as you can't see the data, therefore you are a witch. That is not true. It only means one does not believe the current theory is complete. The data is a separate issue. For example, in the current model based on random change, why do cells retain a consistent order within the single handedness of bio-materials (one of two stereo isomers). This is totally not random, and shows it is possible to resist random. ID is looking for an intelligent want to explain this without blindly applying random.

Do you deny any of the tenet's of Darwin's theory posted above under his picture?

 

[Dywyddyr]

This is totally not random, and shows it is possible to resist random.

Strawman.

ID is looking for an intelligent want to explain this without blindly applying random.

Incorrect. ID is an unintelligent way of bringing "god" back into the equation.

 

[Billy T]

This is misleading because it does not say that the entropy of the reaction has to increase. It only says that the entropy of the universe needs to increase. The equation is G=H-TS. The S or entropy can decrease as long as the H decreases even more to get G negative. It is simple math. For example, the polymerization of polyethylene from ethylene lowers the entropy of ethylene, but still goes forward because there is a lot of energy (enthalpy) given off. This energy output can be used to increase the external entropy for the universal balance.But the polyethylene becomes frozen as a plastic with high crystalline order.
I don't think you are listening or reading properly. I have been focusing only on the membrane potential, period. The cell uses a lot of ATP energy to induce this potential. This creates a situation, relative to K+ and Na+ of high energy and low entropy due to the segregation of these cations.
I have not finished the energy and entropy balance. I first need to make clear the cationic gradient exist at higher energy and lower energy then if you stopped adding ATP and allow the potential to disperse. This dispersal of potential will move the direction of lower energy and higher entropy; uniform solution.
Since nature prefers lower energy and higher entropy, things connected to this unstable boundary condition, will need to balance this out, like you say. The input of ATP and the cationic boundary is the straw that stirs the drink inducing the dynamics into and out of the membrane, plus many other things, which all combined are consistent in energy and entropy, as you say.
We see the same thing, the difference is I am building it in layers starting at the main source of all the potential. I am looking at the motor first, and not the entire car, just yet. The constant distraction never allow me to build the full system..... Once you understand the cationic engine of energy and entropy it impacts evolution. ...
I already showed how adenine is like mini-TNT and modern DNA contains 30% adenine. Since the enthalpy of formation of adenine is endothermic, the concentration of adenine would have started low in evolution compared to the other more exothermic nucleic acids, all else being equal. The high energy boundary is consistent with the rise in adenine incorporated into the DNA.

I am developing the DNA in another way, more consistent with the needs of an energy/entropy connection. Next I need to look at the purpose of the phosphate. Then I will be able to backtrack and complete the energy and entropy balance that surrounds the cationic gradient.

With the possible exception of part I made bold, there is nothing new or wrong in this.
I.e. if by "energy and entropy it impacts evolution." you simple mean that life forms can not violate conservation of energy and by their existence in lower entropy states (prior to ultimate death) they constantly cause the total entropy to increase, then even that now bold part of your text is OK too.

However, I think you are suggesting, as you more specifically have in other posts, that as creatures evolve they are guided by some desire to lower their entropy rather than the accepted "natural selection" of the more fit random variations in each generation for greater probability of reproducing.

Most of your posts with any original content are at best just verbal garbage and at worst include false "facts" you have invented to support your alternate theory of entropy and energy guiding evolution. For example you note that most of life only uses the left handed isomers and then to be supportive of your theory, postulate that they are the higher energy from than the right handed version, so have been selected for as they store more energy, etc.

Problem is that you have reversed the scientific method. - stood it on its head. You, as you say, start, according with your theory "at the main source of all the potential. ... Once you understand the cationic engine of energy and entropy" - your alternative energy / entropy drive or selection theory, then look for supporting facts (or pull some false ones out of your ass when none are found).

The proper scientific method starts by collecting many facts (by observation or experiment) and then tries to construct a theory that consolidates them within one model of reality. For example, Darwin collect many biological samples and made many more observations of FACTS, then constructed the theory.

 

[wellwisher]

The proper scientific method starts by collecting many facts (by observation or experiment) and then tries to construct a theory that consolidates them within one model of reality. For example, Darwin collect many biological samples and made many more observations of FACTS, then constructed the theory.

What is the scientific basis for natural selection, in terms of known principles of science? Natural selection is usually pitched as its own nebulous natural law. But what is the basis for this using only established principles of science?

Don't get me wrong, natural selection is a good theory, and I have all the respect in the world for Darwin, but still this concept, used to fit the data, still has a lingering mythology since it still needs to be explained in terms of only existing scientific principles. It was good in 1850, since they didn't really have most of the physics and chemistry settled yet. This was understanding was not there for Darwin, to include, so he left the theory as a metaphysical goddess. It created a mental placeholder for someone to make the goddess, science. This is the basis for this religious war, goddess of natural selection vs God. I am neutral like Swiss.

 

[Dywyddyr]

You appear to be assuming that "natural selection" is still envisaged exactly as put forward by Darwin and that it hasn't moved on or improved since he proposed it.
Is this due to your own ignorance or are you setting up (yet another) strawman?

 

[wellwisher]

Explain it to us, and contribute, rather then be the bouncer of the forums.

 

[spidergoat]

What is the scientific basis for natural selection, in terms of known principles of science? Natural selection is usually pitched as its own nebulous natural law. But what is the basis for this using only established principles of science?

Don't get me wrong, natural selection is a good theory, and I have all the respect in the world for Darwin, but still this concept, used to fit the data, still has a lingering mythology since it still needs to be explained in terms of only existing scientific principles. It was good in 1850, since they didn't really have most of the physics and chemistry settled yet. This was understanding was not there for Darwin, to include, so he left the theory as a metaphysical goddess. It created a mental placeholder for someone to make the goddess, science. This is the basis for this religious war, goddess of natural selection vs God. I am neutral like Swiss.

Evolution by natural selection is still science, even if the creator of the theory did not know about DNA. The principle was a somewhat new one in biology, which is that variations exist among individuals, meaning that some are better suited to existing conditions than others, which means that the survivors pass down those traits to their children, and over time, the species adapts. There is no need to invoke any physics.

 

[Billy T]

What is the scientific basis for natural selection, in terms of known principles of science? Natural selection is usually pitched as its own nebulous natural law. But what is the basis for this using only established principles of science? ...

That was well stated, long ago as follows:

Every species is fertile enough that if all offspring survived to reproduce the population would grow (fact).

Despite periodic fluctuations, populations remain roughly the same size (fact).

Resources such as food are limited and are relatively stable over time (fact).

A struggle for survival ensues (inference).

Individuals in a population vary significantly from one another (fact).

Much of this variation is inheritable (fact).

Individuals less suited to the environment are less likely to survive and less likely to reproduce; individuals more suited to the environment are more likely to survive and more likely to reproduce and leave their inheritable traits to future generations, which produces the process of natural selection (inference).

This slowly effected process results in populations changing to adapt to their environments, and ultimately, these variations accumulate over time to form new species (inference).

From post 674. I admit it is not all points are observed facts - some logic is also used.

 

[wellwisher]

Some of the" facts" contain subjective fuzz in them. For example, resources such as food are limited and relatively stable over time. The terms limited and relatively stable, is normalized to what, since this impacts an energy balance? We don't state exact amounts since we need creative liberty.

Individuals in a population vary significantly? The term significantly is subjective. The layman may not appreciate these differences as much as the expert, or someone defending the theory, since it is not an absolute thing. The current theory needs that fact to be fuzzy to help make it work. I prefer no fuzz.

I am not insulting Darwin since he did this 150 years ago. Not bad for what he had to work with. Two thumbs up. But the natural selection theory is still stuck at inference and subjective facts. Would it not be better if it was explained with hard variables?

If look at animals, the most efficient have an advantage, since for any given amount of resources they can perform more work with less energy. This could be battling for breeding rights or getting the female with colorful feathers. The less wasted motion to get the job done, the more efficient it is. In terms of machine efficiency that has a connection to energy and entropy.

If we alter the environment, so parameters change, so does all the efficiencies. If we place a turbo in a sand storm the parameters will change. Nevertheless, the new pecking order will involve the least wasted energy and motion. This drive is inherent in life and can be terraced to the boundary conditions. It does not matter what you throw against life, it sill will order itself in terms of efficiencies.

 

[Aqueous Id]

Some of the" facts" contain subjective fuzz in them. For example, resources such as food are limited and relatively stable over time. The terms limited and relatively stable, is normalized to what, since this impacts an energy balance? We don't state exact amounts since we need creative liberty.

Resources such as food are limited and are relatively stable over time.

Darwin says true. Can you say false, and if so, can you explain at least as well as Darwin did?

 

[wellwisher]

I would like to shift gears and look at phosphate and ATP. The phosphate group is an important part of the DNA, RNA and high energy molecules, like ATP.

Phosphate is an electron withdrawing group due to all the oxygen atoms, which cause the phosphorus atom to reach +7 oxidation state. Phosphate is also a kosmotrope. A kosmotrope will create order in water, thereby lowering the entropy of the water near phosphate. For the DNA and RNA, it offers a buffer between the inside of the double helix and outside the double helix. Inside the organics tend to create surface tension in hydrated water, while outside the K+ create entropy or chaos in water. Phosphate creates an aqueous dam to separate this.

In molecules like ATP, the phosphate is also an electron withdrawer while also creating order in water around the ATP molecule. When ATP goes to ADP and phosphate, there is disruption in this order, releasing aqueous entropy along with the energy in ATP. Below is ATP.

The adenine, as was discussed previously, has an endothermic enthalpy of formation or it needs to absorb energy to form. I like to think of it as mini-TNT. The triphosphate is an electron acceptor group and will try to the pull that extra electron density in adenine to itself. But there is a intermediate sugar in the middle that bridges these two powerful opposite direction bookends. This sugar keeps most of the opposing punch in place, while being separated. We get our mini-TNT and an oxidizer on the same molecule, separated by a sugar buffer. The ribose has a heat of formation of -250 kj/mole it can handle the bridge work.

We also need to add the water that will surround ATP to get the full picture of this high energy molecule. The phosphate will create order in water, with tri-phosphate even more order. The adenine can form aqueous hydrogen bonds but there is much less order in the water. Once you add the triphosphate, ATP is under the shroud of semi-ordered water.

Although we have mini-TNT and an oxidizer in one place, and one might expect this to go poof, the entropy gain in the ordered water is really the driving force. Once the phosphate group is released, the triphosphate order is disrupted and the water is scrambling to higher entropy. We can water slap big things. The water takes much of the hit allowing the hot ADP gun to be reloaded again and again.

 

[Robittybob1]

Resources such as food are limited and are relatively stable over time.

Darwin says true. Can you say false, and if so, can you explain at least as well as Darwin did?

"Stable over time" is no use to living organisms. There is the need to consistency. So during food shortages genetic advantages could be critical to survival. So the oddball catastrophic events, longer term climatic changes, atmospheric pressure changes, affected the survivability of whole kingdoms.
So what was an advantage in one set up, looses it in sudden change.
All in all something living survives, and survivors adapt overtime to the changes.
Survival of the luckiest and survival of the fittest both play their part.

 

[Billy T]

... it {evolution} sill will order itself in terms of efficiencies.

Yes efficiency in passing genes to the next generation, NOT in energy efficiency or lowering entropy.

For example, using one you mentioned, the peacock can barely fly and has used great deal of energy to make that tail, which makes him spend much more energy when he does fly. - Clear example that refutes you ideas of selections for low entropy and high energy efficiency AND confirms ideas related to efficiency (better competitiveness) in reproduction to pass genes down to next generation.

You have not offered one valid (but several false) observations and "facts" to support you alternative theory. You have not made one calculation or even given anything but standard thermodymanic equations (an failed even there to note they are temperature dependent.)