Denial of Evolution VII (2015)

Discussion in 'Biology & Genetics' started by davewhite04, Jan 5, 2015.

  1. wellwisher Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,160
    My ideas may appear nebulous, because they are more consistent with a hard science approach to the facts. The modern theory of evolution is closer to the study of natural history, than it is to hard science. In terms of a comparison, the study of history also makes use of a wide range of scientific disciplines. For example, ancient history requires scientific disciplines from chemistry to geology. It also uses the physics of carbon dating. They will make use of satellites. In spite of all this science support, to gather data, history is not considered a hard science. Lab coats alone do not make it science. Evolution works the same way in that it is the history of life, supported by a wide range of science disciples who gather data.

    Hard science theory requires proof of concept using reproducible experiments, in real time. If we claim X evolved to Y, hard science cannot just accept the correlation because fossils show this. It will also require that this theory be demonstrated in several labs. History, is different in that is only has to state the facts that are supported by solid science. It is not about reproducing the data to test the strength of any theory.

    History is considered a social science, which is soft science. Lab coats may be involved in all data collection, but after the theories are formed, as to why, there is no predictive verification requirement.

    What I am attempting to do, is turn the social science of evolution, into real science. This is where a line of logic can be used to infer changes subject to verification through experiment.Water makes this possible since it reduces the complexity of the organics into a common link through surfaces. The science of evolution is an oxymoron if the scientific method is applied; has to run experiments to show man came from apes and not just depend on the data itself. History does no have this requirement.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. origin Heading towards oblivion Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,888
    This is just more of the fantasy world you live in. Let me assure you evolution is 'real science'. Your lack of knowledge about science in general and evolution in particular lead you to come up with these rather odd ideas.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. matthew809 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    480
    Good luck with that. The legitimacy of the theory of evolution depends entirely on it masquerading as real science(while also keeping creationism/ID confined to religiously motivated pseudoscience). The credibility of either theory seems to be more political than scientific; mandated rather than derived.

    Downgrading the perceived status of the theory of evolution, from a hard science into a soft science, would be putting it on the same level as the theory of design, and there are powerful forces opposing this.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. wellwisher Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,160
    Water will form hydrogen bonding networks. The impact of various ions in the water is to change the hydrogen bonding water network. Some ions will bind stronger and some weaker with water, compared to water with itself. Chaotropes (chaos) like K+, bind weaker to water than water to itself, while Kosmotropes (cosmic order) like Na+ bind stronger to water than water to itself. Life makes use of these two main cations to tweak the bulk water, so it alter the equilibrium of the aqueous continuum that is contact with the organics of the cell. Neurons change and alter these cationic concentrations quickly due to firing and recovery. This helps to push and pull organics into time averaged equilibrium memory structures.

    Cells normally pump out Na+ and accumulate K+. The accumulation of K+ creates aqueous disorder inside the water of the cell. During cells cycles, the cell will now allow more Na+ to enter the cell, to change the internal equilibrium into higher aqueous order. The needs of a mother cell is more about going through an ordered sequence of events that is the same for nearly all cells no matter their differentiation.

    The higher K+ states is where cells become much more different; adds the potential for chaos. This simple connection is a key part of evolution since there is a global aqueous push and pull based on the basic aqueous trigger/switch. Order and disorder in the water is a simple an ion flipping the switch.

    One very interesting observation is ; if we caused a cell to loose lose control of its cation pumps, via chemical inhibition, the potassium and sodium cations will still segregate on the opposite sides of the membrane with more potassium on the inside. The reason for this is, the organics of the cell, also have an impact on the water via surface contact. This induced water equilibrium then causes an equilibrium with the potassium cations; system. After eons of ion pumping and potassium accumulation, the organics of cells have been induces to evolve an equilibrium with potassium/water through chemical selection. Now cationic pumping is considered more of a fail safe. However, it can still used to force new equilibria.

    The pumping of Na+ and exchange for K+ stored energy in the membrane. This energy is used to assist transport mechanisms. The cations will reverse, locally, to give up their energy to the transport protein as this is needed. The result is a local switching in the aqueous binary, superimposed on the bulk water potential. Local data is transmitted in real time through the water, superimposed on the bulk data in continuum of protein.
     
  8. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,198
    Do you have a link, supporting that POV or is it more invention of "fact." It is true that axons of nerve cells "pump out Na+" to get the interior electrolyte potential down to near or at -70mV. Accumulating K+ is surely a false idea you have invented as if they did than the interior would always be positive and nerves could not discharge/ "fire" via permitting a sudden influx of Na+. I don't know much about non-nerve cells, but bet they can not be generalized as you do.
     
  9. wellwisher Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,160
    Explain to me how the origin of species and evolution is different from history. Both use science to collect data, but neither require verification of predictions in the lab. It is about stating the facts as proven. I believe dinosaurs once existed, just like I believe that Julius Caesar once existed, even though I never met either but need to infer them from fossils and other evidence. We are not required to make these tangible in the lab show this is even possible.

    Relative to creation and evolution, both are history. Creation does not claim to be more than a historical account beginning about 6000 years ago. This also make use of science to verify things, like the invention of written language occurs about the time; in the beginning was the word and the word was GOD. Evolution goes further back into natural history, but it is still history. Ancient history is not science and modern history only history because one has older data. Both are still history. If we could label evolution in a rational way and not use politics to spin the truth this will open the possibility for real science to appear.
     
  10. matthew809 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    480
    I agree. Within evolutionary "science", there is actually science intermingled with anecdotal extrapolation, both depending on the other for the legitimacy of the overall theory. This theory is no more scientific than the science of Star Trek(which also is based in much actual science). The theory of evolution must be dismantled into it's component parts and rearranged... thereby separating the scientific from the conjecture, and bringing the theory of evolution down the hierarchy to it's proper location as one possible theory, not the possible theory.
     
  11. wellwisher Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,160
    Na+ ions have a tighter hydration sphere than K+ ions. The Na+ ions are smaller with a more compact charge density. This impacts water stronger. The net effect is the Na+ plus water, is more sturdy than K+ plus water. The result is the K+ is able to move more freely across the membrane, while the Na+ is more restricted in terms of its movement.

    The cation pumps will exchange these two cations, with Na+ out and K+ inside. This creates concentration gradients on both sides of the membrane. Both cations want to lower the concentration gradient and blend into a uniform solution, but only K+ has the mobility to blend; able to increase entropy. The net result is more plus charge will end up on the outside; composed of pumped Na+ plus the entropy driven K+. The membrane potential occurs when the K+ entropy balances the charge repulsion. Neurons generate the highest such potential.

    To get to the Na+ inside; for firing, we need to make the membrane more permeable for the larger Na+ plus water. The Na+ sees a charge or membrane potential; enthalpy, and its own concentration gradient; entropy, and is trying to push itself in. It needs a little more room in the membrane.

    One other aspect of the dynamics is connected water and osmosis. Water that is separated by a semi-permeable membrane will migrate in the direction of higher concentration of dissolved materials. Osmosis is a colligative property meaning it does not matter what the ion or the material is. What matters is only the number of units on the other side of the membrane; moles. Relative to the higher level of Na+ and K+ on the outside, both are counted as units. The water will want to migrate outward in the direction of more units. The water is increasing its entropy as it migrates from inside to outside. The outside of the membrane increases entropy; looser. What we have is a hair trigger that only needs a small release of neurotransmitter to start a Na+ stampede.

    Because neurons have the highest membrane potential, lessor cells will not generate the same levels of hair trigger free energy potential for the Na+, so they don't fire per se. Cells only needed to evolve high enough membrane potential to begin to self fire. My guess is since cell cycles allows Na+ to pass easier, this would be a good place for the change to be tested way back when. Picture a mother cell acting like a firing neuron. We can tweak the DNA. Neurons do not replicate after a certain point maybe due to one or other as the final default in evolution.
     
    Last edited: Feb 1, 2015
  12. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,198
    I hate to ask for more as you have not yet replied to my post 625 question - request for link supporting what seems to me to be false assertions; but:
    How is: politics spinning the truth of evolution and preventing it from being "real science?" What motive is driving the "spinners?" I know and often see that faith in some creator etc. is spinning many of the posts here, but am not aware of and "pro-evolution" spinning, especially as there is "negative reward" for that in the faith-based attacks it will earn. Even Darwin was afraid to publish his ideas for many years, and only did so when word that Wallace had same idea and was about to publish it reached him.
     
  13. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,198
    I asked for a link supporting your statement that I think is false, not more of you mainly groundless theories.
     
  14. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,087
    Please explain how this is so. What do you mean by 'the modern theory of evolution', and by 'natural history', and by 'hard science'.

    Your use of 'disciples' is a little telling: without definition of your terms above, however, the social sciences remain just social sciences and biology and evolution hard sciences.

    Ahh - I see your angle. Wellwisher, experiments in the nature of genetic variance, heritability and gene detection are done reproducibly, in real time. I know this because I, myself, have conducted quite a number of such experiments. It may be that you are ignorant of this facet - inarguably the vast enormity of evolutionary research being done today, in real time, everywhere - of evolutionary science. I would recommend that you educate yourself on that element itself, if nothing else.

    Well, since you set the bar in such a way: the data of any given collection of fossils is normally available to the entirety of paleontology, of which I must admit I am not an actual 'disciple'. (I don't wear a lab coat much any more either.) But since you have now re-categorized all evolutionary science - including mine - as paleontology alone, the first point bears mentioning again: the data of the many millions of years past are available to any researcher. Such results can be reproduced with different meanings in any lab - and are. But I think your problem goes deeper, to the level of correlation itself. Is it the existence of statistical procedure that you object to, or the fact of the correlation itself? What does it infer to your premise when multiple labs concur on process, as they do?

    Normally I am the first to denigrate social 'scientists', simply because, as you say, I perceive their interpretations as subjective. And they often are. But I am distally certain that some verification is employed in their process - predictions of one stage of a culture, verified in another - although such verification might be argued to be subjective also. I leave that to the experts. Perhaps I do the social sciences an injustice myself.

    And you are attempting to do so by highlighting the bipolar tendencies of water.

    I look forward to the fruits of your surely altruistic endeavour. Nay - we all do.
     
  15. wellwisher Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,160
    Some theories in history present the most known facts a logical and reasonable way. In terms of natural history, evolution does a good job. The problem is, the experts don't seem to understand that history is not the same as science. At some level, many people sense that there is something wrong, but can't put their finger on it. This creates a tendency to throw of the baby with the baby water due to a vague hunch of something not right. This is not good either.

    With history, one will gather scientific data, with data appearing to suggest a plausible scenario. One could set up a scenario about the assassination of Kennedy that involves another shooter, and run it as a simulation on a computer. One can use an analogy of fossil evidence for trace evidence. This scenario may use a lot of science from ballistics to computers, to run, but the top layer is not science, even if it is sitting on good science practices.

    Science and magic evolved together and still depend on each other. This is why the scientific method of verifiable proof was instituted. This breaks the connection. To levitate my pretty assistance in the magic show, I will need to depend on a solid science foundation to set up the stage for the correct optics, levers, pulleys, motors and psychology. So much science we be needed to get my audience to see what I want them to see; levitation.

    In the ancient days, an alchemist may know that certain natural salts turn the flame of the camp fire different colors. He may use this science to create the magic of conjuring spirits, using the colors as signs the answers to the guidance. He will use science to do his magic. The conjuring layer, sitting on top of the science of electron transitions, will not work in an independent lab. The base will still work. But the top layer would fail the scientific method even though it has a very sound science foundation.

    The way you get rid of the history and magic connection is to be able to predict the future. The future is not yet part of history, and therefore it allows departure. This needs a logical predictive approach which can't be provided by the existing top layer of evolutionary history.
     
  16. wellwisher Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,160
    The things that you do are valid science. Like I said, history is based on a foundation of valid science. But a foundation of good science does not mean the top layer of the pyramid is also science. In my last post, magic and science go hand and hand with magic needing solid science support. Once you go political, then optic are being created to position the audience to see the trick better. History benefits by politics but science tends to suffer.

    I come back to water as the potential of evolution, since life does not occur without water. This is not levitation since any student or scientist, even with limited expertise, can prove this to themselves. Since water can define information via the binary, it can mimic the organics and make sure evolution always finds new equilibria.
     
  17. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,087
    Water is as much the potential of evolution as carbon is. They are essential elements. But I have no reason to conclude that water holds information.
     
  18. Fraggle Rocker Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,690
    It's pretty difficult to encode information in a liquid!
     
  19. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,087
    A little bit, isn't it?

    Look - I like to keep an open mind. Extreme ideas, extreme evidence. The area I'm working in in evolution, some would certainly call extreme. So I keep an open mind. If WW had something to work with, I'd look at it. But the utterly and absolutely transient nature of covalent water molecule bonding should freaking dictate that no information could be stored in it. Maybe you could make a very funky ice chunk but even there there's still molecular vibration. How could information be retrieved from such a source, let alone stored in it? Or if the randomness of water is itself an expression of entropy or randomisation ah I give up.

    WW, evidence or not.
     
  20. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,635
    I think what's important to understand about Wellwisher is that he is an ideologue, and thus only uses science to achieve his political ends. He goes about science somewhat backwards; he decides what sort of science opinions will support his political/religious beliefs, then pushes them regardless of the facts. Thus his dismissal of many of the facts of evolution because evolution is still a bit of a problem for conservatives, and he defines himself as a conservative. Same thing for climate change, differences between the sexes and the scientific method in general.

    Thus it can be a mistake to read his posts and wonder "what is the evidence for his statement?" His posts are much more comprehensible if you ask the question "what conservative political position do his opinions support?" and work backwards from there. His opinions will invariably allow him to support his worldview that liberals are fools, women are inferior, climate change is not occurring (or is not due to man, or is due to man but is a good thing) and evolution is not well-understood.
     
  21. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,270
    I think we have come full circle when we have reached the point where someone is arguing that evolution is magic.
     
  22. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    What are the viable alternative theories? Can you name one?
     
  23. Enoc Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    57
    Evolution is a dying scientific theory. I think we need a new theory which better matches experiences from our day to day life and that better explains life.
     

Share This Page