It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Step aside Darwinism, say hello to "Dissipation-driven adaptive organization"

page: 11
18
<< 8  9  10   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 17 2014 @ 09:13 AM
link   
a reply to: funkadeliaaaa


You mean genetic resequencing, to prodocue an entirely new better adapted set of genes, amirite?

No, he means mutation. Mutation is not 'resequencing' — I think you mean reshuffling. Reshuffling moves genes around on chromosomes. Mutation changes the genes themselves.




posted on Dec, 17 2014 @ 09:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: Astyanax

I'm not even going to read the rest of your post, because you've made it plain that you don't understand. There's no point in arguing any further. You need to learn more. A good place to start would be from scratch. Forget everything you think you know about evolution and natural selection. Start again.


best possible advice right there. It will sadly be ignored like every other rational point made.



posted on Dec, 17 2014 @ 09:28 AM
link   
a reply to: peter vlar

Well, that's as may be, but I'm not arguing any further.

I'm waiting for the day someone who actually understands evolution comes up here to tell us it's bunk. So far, not a single evolution denier I've spoken with has understood what they're denying.

Not so surprising, I guess. Once you really understand it, the truth of it becomes obvious.


edit on 17/12/14 by Astyanax because: it's obvious.



posted on Dec, 17 2014 @ 11:25 AM
link   
a reply to: Astyanax

Pretty foolish position to take here imo seeing as none of us are deyning evolution.



posted on Dec, 17 2014 @ 11:52 AM
link   
a reply to: peter vlar


It's how you interpret and process the information that is flawed. What you stated is a dumbed down version of what I originally wrote. In science, WE FOLLOW THE DATA OR EVIDENCE. it doesn't matter if we like it or if it agrees with current paradigms. It's quite simple actually. What it doesn't mean is that we as you imply, pursue any notion just because it's there. if you're onto something and can support it then present it.
You dont follow the evidence, you interpret the evidence, and follow what the theoretical model for an interpretation. If the theory is flawed somehow, the interpretation is also going to be flawed. Simply following evidence is not the only thing that occurs when a scientist looks at data, they also follow theoretical interpretations, and the data or evidence can either prove or disprove the interpretations, or neither. Persuing any notion because its there is precisely what many scientists DO do, and its what all fields of science should be doing! Its called branching out and it happens all the time in science.



posted on Dec, 17 2014 @ 12:38 PM
link   
a reply to: funkadeliaaaa

Ironic that what you're complaining about to me is EXACTLY what Jeremy England has done with his hypothesis. As for me... You haven't got a clue because one thing I never did was blindly follow any theoretical models. In fact, things I hypothesized in grad school in the 90's and was mocked for are now accepted as scientific fact. How much science have you done since you learned about genetics in high school biology? How many digs have you participated in? Papers authored? Please don't talk down to me about how science is done when you've yet to roll up your sleeves and get your hands dirty or put your career on the line by going against the grain with a hypothesis that eventually panned out but couldn't be proven at the time due to technological limitations. This is a joke and you're just a parrot for someone else's words. A to your comments about "branching out". Everyone hypothesizes and spitballs but you don't run with it if you can't back it up. You need to buy yourself a vowel and dig a little deeper.



posted on Dec, 17 2014 @ 01:18 PM
link   
a reply to: Astyanax

Actually no it is re-sequencing, because the specific set of codons that define the gene are literally re-sequenced, resulting in a new gene or a mutated gene, but it can also be called a re-sequenced gene, because that's what it is. A mutated gene, is a formerly healthy strand of genetic code or gene sequence, becoming damaged by a "mutagen" and is recoded differently. In other words the gene sequence gets damaged, resulting in a new variation, a re-sequenced gene. You cant deny the science. It is what it is.
edit on 17 12 14 by funkadeliaaaa because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 17 2014 @ 01:50 PM
link   
a reply to: peter vlar

HAHAHA bitter much?

Actually i wasn't complaining, and neither was i attacking you for anything, chill out, i was simply stating facts.

1 Roman dig... but no, im not at the level academic peer reviewing.

So what?

Do you care to point out where Jeremy England has blindly followed his hypothesis (if that's what you were complaining about). The thread is after all supposed to be about his hypotehsis.



posted on Dec, 17 2014 @ 02:08 PM
link   
a reply to: funkadeliaaaa

Bitter? no... irritated with tom foolery, sure. It's annoying to have someone lecture you on what you've worked on for nearly 2 decades when they're just parroting someone elses work. As for England, I never stated nor implied he blindly followed anything. that's your circle. What I have said repeatedly is that while his data may have some validity, his interpretations of it are what I call into question. And I'm not the only one. Many of his own peers echo those concerns as well as a couple people I have corresponded with who are better suited to interpreting his data than I, agree that while an interesting premise it needs a LOT of support and evidence to back it up that is currently lacking. Great, he has the math down but tying the physics into MES is still a long way off.



posted on Dec, 17 2014 @ 02:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: funkadeliaaaa
a reply to: Astyanax

Actually no it is re-sequencing, because the specific set of codons that define the gene are literally re-sequenced, resulting in a new gene or a mutated gene, but it can also be called a re-sequenced gene, because that's what it is. A mutated gene, is a formerly healthy strand of genetic code or gene sequence, becoming damaged by a "mutagen" and is recoded differently. In other words the gene sequence gets damaged, resulting in a new variation, a re-sequenced gene. You cant deny the science. It is what it is.


NO!

What are we speaking Chinese here? Do we need to start speaking in Chinese? Would it help? I didn't think we'd have to explain this to you! It should have been in your face obvious to anyone that read our posts!


edit on 17-12-2014 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 17 2014 @ 03:34 PM
link   
a reply to: peter vlar


What I have said repeatedly is that while his data may have some validity, his interpretations of it are what I call into question.

Can you be more specific?



posted on Dec, 17 2014 @ 08:47 PM
link   
a reply to: funkadeliaaaa

I've never heard the term re-sequencing in that respect. Where did you find it?

What really happens is explained here.



posted on Dec, 17 2014 @ 09:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: funkadeliaaaa
a reply to: peter vlar


What I have said repeatedly is that while his data may have some validity, his interpretations of it are what I call into question.

Can you be more specific?


Basically, England is attempting to state that the most efficient way to increase entropy in a large system is to populate it with self-replicating, long-lived subsystems. Each subsystem is a low entropy state, but is very efficient at creating entropy in the rest of the system.

This could possibly be a truism in regards to the smallest eukaryotic organisms on Earth but for larger ones( Apes, Whales, Rhinos, Elephants...I think you get the idea) it bears no relevance in regards to the total system entropy on a planetary scale. There is absolutely no principle that states or implies that "Entropy should be created as efficiently as possible".

Entropy should,on average, increase. that is a corollary of the principle that all macrostates increase. Statistical mechanics itself, with no further assumptions, has nothing to say at how entropy increases. That varies from system to system, and needs to be calculated from microscopic theory. For some systems (“semiclassical” ones) this works, but for most systems doesen’t, and certainly a system with many entropy maxima and fluctuations between them (the protein folding problem , for example), this should not be the case.

Equations such as (6)-(8) in the paper look very much like those of the Metropolis algorithm, widely used in Montecarlos. This algorithm is guaranteed to get at the right minimum, but (and this is something stressed to all students doing computational physics) one should be careful not to confuse “montecarlo time” and “real time”: Running the montecarlo gives you the finish, but not how the system gets there.


For reference- en.wikipedia.org...

Special thanks to Dr. Robert Fuller, Dr. Giorgio Torrieri and AC for their thoughts, words and input. I'm an Anthropologist not a Physicist so unlike some, I know my limitations and acknowledge them but I also know when bull s# walks
edit on 17-12-2014 by peter vlar because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 18 2014 @ 01:37 AM
link   
a reply to: peter vlar


It bears no relevance in regards to the total system entropy on a planetary scale.


What about on the surface of the planet?



posted on Dec, 18 2014 @ 06:31 AM
link   
a reply to: funkadeliaaaa

Last time I looked, The surface was a part of the whole of the planet. What do YOU think?



posted on Dec, 18 2014 @ 09:47 AM
link   
a reply to: peter vlar

You said It bears no relevance in regards to the total system entropy on a planetary scale."
What i meant was, what about not in regards to total system entropy on a planetary scale, and in regards only to the entropy on the surface of the planet where you said for complex animal it bears no relevence (in rreference to the planetary scale)



posted on Dec, 18 2014 @ 09:58 AM
link   
a reply to: funkadeliaaaa

but the scale is precisely what England is talking about. He believes his theorem applies across the board regardless of scale. It doesn't appear to actually be the case though. What do you think? Do you believe that the math he proposes is an across the spectrum solution and if so why?



posted on Dec, 18 2014 @ 12:20 PM
link   
a reply to: peter vlar




It doesn't appear to actually be the case though. What do you think? Do you believe that the math he proposes is an across the spectrum solution and if so why?
Yes potentially, because I agree with the model. The behaviour of molecules that we are composed of behave very differently according to different temperatures. The state of matter in a system affected by entropy in our case the entropy from the energy of the sun, changes according to the distance it has from the heat of the sun. Our planet is able to sustain biological self sentience (consciousness) as a result the way molecules have been able to behave on this planet given its distance from the sun. Water is able to be kept on the surface of the planet for most of the year at a a relatively even temperature, without freezing or boiling due to proximity. Therefore life that has evolved on the planet has been a direct result of these temperatures so England model may still apply even up to the most complex life. If you look at our body, we are the perfect models for a system designed for entropy as we match the thermodynamic principles in the way our body is designed.



new topics

top topics



 
18
<< 8  9  10   >>

log in

join