What does it mean to have Random Mutations?

[Bishadi]

Bishadi, your intricate grasp of the blindingly obvious staggers me. OF COURSE it isn't random where a cause can be assigned at some reasonable level of significance.

then to know how mass and energy worx, at EVERY exchange, then the uncertainties of today's physicists would eventually go extinct?

yes or no

Are you congenitally stupid?

taking on the globe?

some might think so but conveying how ignorant you are is too easy.

from religion, philosophy and anything of science, you keep putting your foot in your mouth at just about every post.

your fascade has no character, except in self gratification

"random aint an option"

that means if you need the probabilities, then your venue of observing the evidence is WRONG

deal with it; learn more

 

[GeoffP]

then to know how mass and energy worx, at EVERY exchange, then the uncertainties of today's physicists would eventually go extinct?

I know how spelling "worx". And if you want a civilized answer, ask a civilized question.

yes or no

Well naturally one wishes some people would go extinct.

"random aint an option"

It is, and you are a fool.

 

[Bishadi]

I know how spelling "worx". And if you want a civilized answer, ask a civilized question.

like what? i thought i posted up my additions in a thread, and watched you rant, calling me all kinds of names.

it is your M.O....
(not capable of addressing the questions without your own idiocracy)

for example; i asked; then to know how mass and energy worx, at EVERY exchange, then the uncertainties of today's physicists would eventually go extinct?

yes or no


and your idiotic answer was

Well naturally one wishes some people would go extinct.

the UNCERTAINTIES go extinct

It is, and you are a fool.

as your ranting is just the same


i have no problem, as i know your type

not equiped enough to deal a straight answer, when it proves how ignorant your acceptances are



"random aint an option"

except to perhaps 'bible' thumpers and wannabe's of science, too complacent to do the extra work



ie.... not a person YET has proved me wrong, from the 2LoT to the Double slit and most everything in between.


all they can do is be like you and rant

 

[GeoffP]

Bishadi, such knowledge is, flatly, impossible, due to Heisenberg.

Good luck with your career as a village idiot.

 

[Bishadi]

Bishadi, such knowledge is, flatly, impossible, due to Heisenberg.

Good luck with your career as a village idiot.

WOW....

we gotta winner here.

now anyone can observe themselves what randum acceptance do to the unevolved.

jeff, are you telling us all that you have not evolved since the knowledge of the 20's?


no wonder your position and momentum is left uncertain; you forgot to continue learning

have you heard of Led Zepplin yet?

 

[GeoffP]

Let us know when you complete your development of your mass-energy machine, as well as any details of your eventual institutionalisation.

 

[Bishadi]

Let us know when you complete your development of your mass-energy machine,

there ya go trolling and derailing a thread.

not a once ever since being on this site, have i ever suggested building such a thing, nor stating such a claim, nor supporting such a product

you just a troll, in every post incapable of simply observing what is being shared

'random is not an option"

and why, because the deeper you go down the rabbit hole, the less requirement for using uncertainties to describe experiment evidence

jeff, i would suggest, that if you like beliefs, get out of science

your credibility is really bad

you make it seem like being uncertain is the bottom line, but can't understand how certain that ignorance is, especially within an evolving environment (like science)

 

[GeoffP]

LOL. What could you possibly know about science?

If you want to challenge me, start with Heisenberg.

 

[Bishadi]

LOL. What could you possibly know about science?

that integrity rules! Not the community accepted benchmarks!

(not toilet paper hanging on the wall, showing an ivy league education)

If you want to challenge me, start with Heisenberg.

math is not the hard part and i have sat with mathematicians who know damn well.

defining the evidence is where the advancements come from.

ie.... black body radiation or that UV catastrophe; has anyone changed the types of mass? Observed the structures (molecular and volume) to RE-check the predictions.

Same with the double slit experiment.

The photoelectric effect in itself shares that each structure has different thresholds to release a 'per se' electron

as well the bohr quantum leap/jump analogy in itself shares the same ideology of 'energy upon mass' at each potential change

but how many OF the EXPERIMENTS (evidence) have you REHASHED?

"Predicting" is what people like you like to read. ("what happens at the event horizon"; crap)

but from how phospholipid bilayers assemble to what is holding the nuclear pore of the 'nuclear envelope" in place.....

that be what is most important (and i 'predict' all the time for all of them; from the Max demon thu to the UVC......... seems best to address the underlying rules, versus just the theorem (mathematics is not the hard part))

ie... to combine the comprehension of what many have accepted, any true physicist should know that chemistry in itself is a joke (reductions?????????? life based on reductions???????)


or even the thread title

What does it mean to have random mutations?

answer: the community does NOT know how it works, (per the OLD OLD school, like you.........it's just uncertain, see heisenberg)

it is like a bible-thumper, you have your benchmarks (road blocks, and that is just it and of nail-biting arrogance, you continue, because the MAJORITY OF THE COMMUNITY holds the fool with the most 'toilet paper' as the idiom of sustaining the last word)

guys like einstein and wolff, observe evidence before belief (both knew, the work is incomplete; 'ie.... "random is not an option"'

and like here, the 'accepted', (heisenberg and planck) hold the most clout (in copenhagen)

almost 100 yrs since, and to this day, not a mathematical frame sharing how nano crystals GROW

nor how life exists upon mass


jeff............. you like your beliefs

i don't

 

[GeoffP]

Bishadi.

I couldn't give less of a fuck what you think about my beliefs. You are to me as a stain on my shoe. No, really. You have that level. Until you can form a unitary theory of your beliefs, they're meaningless, and without any kind of authority. Sorry. Not my fault.

 

[Ophiolite]

Writing to GeoffP: for example; i asked; then to know how mass and energy worx, at EVERY exchange, then the uncertainties of today's physicists would eventually go extinct?

yes or no


and your idiotic answer was

the UNCERTAINTIES go extinct

Bishadi, I have a considerable respect for anyone writing in a foreign language. I have never on this, or any other forum, made derogatory remarks about the quality of English of a non-native English speaker. (Native speakers are fair game.) However, I feel compelled to make an exception in your case.

Your English is good enough that you must be able to recognise that it is disjointed, erratic and confusing. This is as much a stylistic matter as it is one of command of the language. You have control over your style and so some of the lack of clarity can be laid at your door.

In the example above GeoffP cannot answer since you have not asked a question. The sentence is filled with grammatical errors and spelling mistakes, which together contribute to the total lack of clarity and cohesiveness. From what I have seen of your posts this is wholly typical.

Since your arguments are disjointed, your questions obscure and demeanour hostile, it is little wonder that GeoffP and others treat your posts with disdain.

Have a nice day.
O.

 

[Bishadi]

Bishadi.

I couldn't give less of a fuck what you think about my beliefs. You are to me as a stain on my shoe. No, really. You have that level. Until you can form a unitary theory of your beliefs, they're meaningless, and without any kind of authority. Sorry. Not my fault.

seems i have exercised quite an authority over your emotions and your consciousness (it is getting funny that you even return to reply)

'random is not an option'

and orph...... soooory

As ooosual, u sho litel cumphaumptshun of moast inee reedun

to know how mass and energy worx, at EVERY exchange, then the uncertainties of today's physicists would eventually go extinct?


it is asking, if the causality is understood would the uncertainties exists?

if you cannot answer that, then like jeff, you in the wrong field

 

[thinking]

Well, actually a fair proportion of it probably is. There've been a few meta-analyses of selection and drift in the past; all sort of whistling past the graveyard, but they're probably not far wrong.

if what your saying that random mutations are " actually the fair proportion " of genetic mutations give an example of one then ?

 

[thinking]

that integrity rules! Not the community accepted benchmarks!

(not toilet paper hanging on the wall, showing an ivy league education)



math is not the hard part and i have sat with mathematicians who know damn well.

defining the evidence is where the advancements come from.

ie.... black body radiation or that UV catastrophe; has anyone changed the types of mass? Observed the structures (molecular and volume) to RE-check the predictions.

Same with the double slit experiment.

The photoelectric effect in itself shares that each structure has different thresholds to release a 'per se' electron

as well the bohr quantum leap/jump analogy in itself shares the same ideology of 'energy upon mass' at each potential change

but how many OF the EXPERIMENTS (evidence) have you REHASHED?

"Predicting" is what people like you like to read. ("what happens at the event horizon"; crap)

but from how phospholipid bilayers assemble to what is holding the nuclear pore of the 'nuclear envelope" in place.....

that be what is most important (and i 'predict' all the time for all of them; from the Max demon thu to the UVC......... seems best to address the underlying rules, versus just the theorem (mathematics is not the hard part))

ie... to combine the comprehension of what many have accepted, any true physicist should know that chemistry in itself is a joke (reductions?????????? life based on reductions???????)


or even the thread title

What does it mean to have random mutations?

answer: the community does NOT know how it works, (per the OLD OLD school, like you.........it's just uncertain, see heisenberg)

it is like a bible-thumper, you have your benchmarks (road blocks, and that is just it and of nail-biting arrogance, you continue, because the MAJORITY OF THE COMMUNITY holds the fool with the most 'toilet paper' as the idiom of sustaining the last word)

guys like einstein and wolff, observe evidence before belief (both knew, the work is incomplete; 'ie.... "random is not an option"'

and like here, the 'accepted', (heisenberg and planck) hold the most clout (in copenhagen)

almost 100 yrs since, and to this day, not a mathematical frame sharing how nano crystals GROW

nor how life exists upon mass


jeff............. you like your beliefs

i don't

Bishadi

start a new thread on blackbody radiation

it would be interesting to me , serious

 

[thinking]

seems i have exercised quite an authority over your emotions and your consciousness (it is getting funny that you even return to reply)

'random is not an option'

and orph...... soooory

As ooosual, u sho litel cumphaumptshun of moast inee reedun

to know how mass and energy worx, at EVERY exchange, then the uncertainties of today's physicists would eventually go extinct?


it is asking, if the causality is understood would the uncertainties exists?

if you cannot answer that, then like jeff, you in the wrong field

Bishadi

I agree with Ophiolite

your very unclear in your thinking , your reasoning

just slow down a bit in your thoughts and focus on that , and not your emotions , such as being condescending and it seems having a chip on your shoulder , it gets you no where

just take one subject at a time

 

[thinking]

“ Originally Posted by GeoffP
Bishadi, your intricate grasp of the blindingly obvious staggers me. OF COURSE it isn't random where a cause can be assigned at some reasonable level of significance.

Geoffp

then what is your basis for " random mutations " ?

 

[Bishadi]

Bishadi

start a new thread on blackbody radiation

it would be interesting to me , serious

i wanted to see if they had the mustard (most do not like dealing with the BB)

and since, i am "so confusing" perhaps you can open it.

be sure to use the 'experiment' not the beliefs or renditions

go to the experiements and open up whatcha got

add pubs, not just wiki junk

 

[iceaura]

if what your saying that random mutations are " actually the fair proportion " of genetic mutations give an example of one then ?

All of the mutations caused by radiation - including background radiation common to the biosphere - would be random, yes?

Are you claiming they are of no importance?

 

[Hercules Rockefeller]

Bishadi
start a new thread on blackbody radiation
it would be interesting to me , serious

i wanted to see if they had the mustard (most do not like dealing with the BB)

Yes, I can imagine it now. In fact, such a thread involving Bishadi and thinking can be portrayed pictorially.....

:fart:

:crazy:

:wallbang:

 

[DRZion]

All of the mutations caused by radiation - including background radiation common to the biosphere - would be random, yes?

Are you claiming they are of no importance?

Mutations caused by ionizing radiation work through particular chemical processes - so they are still partially dependent on the DNA sequence and the contents of the cell. They are not 100% random.