This is fine; I respect everyone's opinions, even if I disagree.
That said...nothing I've posted is really all that 'extraordinary,' though.
Denial of Evolution VI.
- Thread starter garbonzo
- Start date
- Status
This is fine; I respect everyone's opinions, even if I disagree.
That said...nothing I've posted is really all that 'extraordinary,' though.
Yep. You started denying several basic aspects of evolution based on an editorial covering a conference from 1980. Thus the thread was renamed to more accurately depict what it was about.
(You seem to think it is very important to deny these aspects, after all, you said "WE HAVE APPARENTLY BEEN LIED TO!" In all caps even. Shouldn't people be able to easily find the thread in which you are denying those theories that were "lied" about?)
maybe what rpenner is referring to is "matter is a derivative of consciousness".
matter exists whether we are conscious of it or not.
i posted excerpts from the article and asked questions about the article.
anyone that reads the article would most likely have the same questions i did.
furthermore the article and the terminology used hasn't been fully explained.
do you know where i can get a transcript?
You did more than that. You said "WE HAVE APPARENTLY BEEN LIED TO!" That's not a question. Hence the denial of aspects of evolution that you believed Gould et al also denied.
Several people here read the article courtesy of Rav. They did not have the same questions.
(BTW nothing wrong with asking questions. The definitive statements that we've been lied to, Gould disagrees with evolution etc are the reason the thread was renamed.)
dig up the post where i said gould denied evolution.
this is nothing short of a lie by you billvon.
You didn't. You said that he disagreed with the concept of macroevolution.
yes, could be.
yes, i know.
I'm not a fan of the huffington post, but i thought this article was really well done.
i hope you all choose to read it; it's interesting.
read the WHOLE thing, too...don't skim, pls.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/deepa...-qualia-the-mystery-of-reality_b_2118820.html
where? what post?
Post #367.
"gould mentioned it as "jerkiness".
he mentions the same thing in his paper on spandrels.
. . .
no, the scientists were right in their conclusions, there are gaps in the record (possibly explained), and the process of microevolution cannot be extrapolated to macroevolution."
how you come to your conclusions are a mystery.
post reported.
maybe not as much as you believe.
a lot of things gets discussed years before it ever comes out of the room.
global warming for example was debated in the 1970s.
it was stated THEN the now current situation.
one conclusion drawn from these debates was that CFCs was one primary source of global warming.
has that changed?
there are many other such examples.
you are correct though, keeping on top of things just makes good sense.
yes, could be.
yes, i know.
I'm not a fan of the huffington post, but i thought this article was really well done.
i hope you all choose to read it; it's interesting.
read the WHOLE thing, too...don't skim, pls.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/deepa...-qualia-the-mystery-of-reality_b_2118820.html
Come on, wegs. Don't skim, pls.
Deepak Chopra
The real reason for brains
The Secret You
Steven Pinker on Human Evolution
This is a cute attempt.
The hypothesis of global warming is far older than that, it dates back to the end of the 19th century.
The scientific debate was virtually all over and done with by the 1970s. What did happen in the 1970's, however, was the politicization of the issue and it being bought into the public eye.
None of this changes the apperance of you having missed much relevant to the current discussion.
Water is an important and critical part of life and plays a continuing role in evolution. The reason many scientists insist others solvents can support life, but never show an example, is to hep perpetuate the current models of life. These models slant the analysis to the organic side and then use statistics to fill in the blind spots due to ignoring water. But if we assume water is singular, in terms of life, we would need to rework the current theory to better strike a balance between the water and the organics.
My contention is not to attack the process of change we call evolution, but rather to challenge the current one sided organic mechanism of evolution that does not give the proper weight to the universal solvent; water. Theoretically, the inclusion of water should eliminate most of the random assumptions needed because we ignore water.
One main consideration about liquid water, is water self bonds via hydrogen bonding, forming a viscous network. Water can form four hydrogen bonds with other water molecules, sort of analogous to the way carbon which can form four bonds with other carbon. The hydrogen bonding network within water is why water has such a high boiling and melting point compared to other same weight molecules.
If we compare the boiling points of methane (-164 C) , ammonia (-33 C) and water (100 C ), which all weigh the same, the boiling point of water is so high because of the internal hydrogen bonding network. Water contains less entropy/disorder at ambient conditions. This higher level of order make it most suitable for helping to induce order so life can function.
Hydrogen bonding, which is the basis for unique properties of water, has two distinct energy states separated by only a small energy barrier. Hydrogen bonds can be either van der Waals or covalent in nature and can shift between these two states.
When ice expands when it freezes, which is unique to only water and antimony, the hydrogen bonds form the covalent state. The wave functions have to separate the oxygen and hydrogen to optimize the overlap, causing water to expand. In the liquid state, there is more van der Waals, which being polar, benefits by the water getting closer ; water contracts as it melts. This transition between high and low density, also occurs in the liquid state, at the nano-scale. Liquid water contains reversible domains of high and low density.
Anything moving or changing shape in water has to deal with the self adhesion of water. Sequenced transitions between high and low density in water provides a way speed up diffusion and displacement, with materials moving and flexing to the rhythm in the water. Protein trains ,where the product of one reaction becomes the reactant of the next, requires sequential proteins flex. The matrix of water will contact where the protein needs room and expand when the protein needs to be pushed back. Since this is based on the hydrogen bonding binary, information is also transmitted in the matrix of water for other signally processes.
The DNA double helix is held together with hydrogen bonding. Since this hydrogen bonding evolved in water, then the hydrogen bonding between base pairs should parallel water. That means each hydrogen bond can be high and low density with the binary state of the local hydrogen bonds containing information about various binary sequences. We not only have two base pairs, but within each base pair there is the potential for high and low density.
My contention is not to attack the process of change we call evolution, but rather to challenge the current one sided organic mechanism of evolution that does not give the proper weight to the universal solvent; water. Theoretically, the inclusion of water should eliminate most of the random assumptions needed because we ignore water.
One main consideration about liquid water, is water self bonds via hydrogen bonding, forming a viscous network. Water can form four hydrogen bonds with other water molecules, sort of analogous to the way carbon which can form four bonds with other carbon. The hydrogen bonding network within water is why water has such a high boiling and melting point compared to other same weight molecules.
If we compare the boiling points of methane (-164 C) , ammonia (-33 C) and water (100 C ), which all weigh the same, the boiling point of water is so high because of the internal hydrogen bonding network. Water contains less entropy/disorder at ambient conditions. This higher level of order make it most suitable for helping to induce order so life can function.
Hydrogen bonding, which is the basis for unique properties of water, has two distinct energy states separated by only a small energy barrier. Hydrogen bonds can be either van der Waals or covalent in nature and can shift between these two states.
When ice expands when it freezes, which is unique to only water and antimony, the hydrogen bonds form the covalent state. The wave functions have to separate the oxygen and hydrogen to optimize the overlap, causing water to expand. In the liquid state, there is more van der Waals, which being polar, benefits by the water getting closer ; water contracts as it melts. This transition between high and low density, also occurs in the liquid state, at the nano-scale. Liquid water contains reversible domains of high and low density.
Anything moving or changing shape in water has to deal with the self adhesion of water. Sequenced transitions between high and low density in water provides a way speed up diffusion and displacement, with materials moving and flexing to the rhythm in the water. Protein trains ,where the product of one reaction becomes the reactant of the next, requires sequential proteins flex. The matrix of water will contact where the protein needs room and expand when the protein needs to be pushed back. Since this is based on the hydrogen bonding binary, information is also transmitted in the matrix of water for other signally processes.
The DNA double helix is held together with hydrogen bonding. Since this hydrogen bonding evolved in water, then the hydrogen bonding between base pairs should parallel water. That means each hydrogen bond can be high and low density with the binary state of the local hydrogen bonds containing information about various binary sequences. We not only have two base pairs, but within each base pair there is the potential for high and low density.
yes, i remember you telling me that.
i posted my source and started asking questions about the article in question.
a few pages later the thread was renamed to a denial thread.
that's the events, call it what you will trippy.
You do understand that I have far more interesting things to do than stalking you, right?
The real denial is denying the significant active role water played/plays in shaping the direction of evolution. If we include water, much of the randomness goes away and life assumes a sense of direction based on a version of natural selection, which best takes advantage of the inherent properties of water.
The high and low density water domaines are connected to the dual nature of hydrogen bonding. Polar hydrogen bonding between H+ and O- benefit by closing distance and tend to make the water denser. While covalent hydrogen bonding between hydrogen and oxygen need to overlap covalent bonding orbitals, which is optimized if the atoms spread out, forming less dense water domaines. The energy different is small and the water can flip back and forth without ever breaking the hydrogen bond; changes color.
In liquid water, this effect occurs within water clusters composed of 280 water molecules which can pucker or expand. Besides the physical volume changes within the aqueous continuum, since the covalent bonding requires overlap of wave functions, this version lowers the water entropy compared to the polar hydrogen bonding which has more freedom of position for polar attraction.
The changes within water shape, from high and low density, not only push and pull but can increase and decrease the local free energy. This additional binary feature of water is a prelude to the entropic force, since physical pressure changes created by osmosis (osmotic pressure) can be used to tweak the volume of the expanded/contracted domains, adjusting the local entropy and free energy.
With reverse osmosis, we apply pressure to purify water back to lower entropy; away from ionic association. This means anything in the water will see this lowered water entropy and will need to adjust its own entropy to be more in line. The water represents about 9 out of every 10 molecules in the cell, and carries the weight to enforce the osmotic pressure/volume/free energy.
As a basic application, as cells prepare for cell cycles, the membrane unsaturated. The unsaturation makes the membrane more fluid. This loosening of the membrane makes it easier for sodium cations to diffuse back into cell. The net result is the entropic force is less enforced by the cell; less ionic gradient to drive osmotic pressure. This simple global change in the water, would be expected to increase cellular entropy since water entropy goes up. This is reflected by rapid synthesis followed by the disruption of many cell structures such as the eventual loss of the nuclear membrane and Golgi apparatus caused by the entropy boost in the water.
The high and low density water domaines are connected to the dual nature of hydrogen bonding. Polar hydrogen bonding between H+ and O- benefit by closing distance and tend to make the water denser. While covalent hydrogen bonding between hydrogen and oxygen need to overlap covalent bonding orbitals, which is optimized if the atoms spread out, forming less dense water domaines. The energy different is small and the water can flip back and forth without ever breaking the hydrogen bond; changes color.
In liquid water, this effect occurs within water clusters composed of 280 water molecules which can pucker or expand. Besides the physical volume changes within the aqueous continuum, since the covalent bonding requires overlap of wave functions, this version lowers the water entropy compared to the polar hydrogen bonding which has more freedom of position for polar attraction.
The changes within water shape, from high and low density, not only push and pull but can increase and decrease the local free energy. This additional binary feature of water is a prelude to the entropic force, since physical pressure changes created by osmosis (osmotic pressure) can be used to tweak the volume of the expanded/contracted domains, adjusting the local entropy and free energy.
With reverse osmosis, we apply pressure to purify water back to lower entropy; away from ionic association. This means anything in the water will see this lowered water entropy and will need to adjust its own entropy to be more in line. The water represents about 9 out of every 10 molecules in the cell, and carries the weight to enforce the osmotic pressure/volume/free energy.
As a basic application, as cells prepare for cell cycles, the membrane unsaturated. The unsaturation makes the membrane more fluid. This loosening of the membrane makes it easier for sodium cations to diffuse back into cell. The net result is the entropic force is less enforced by the cell; less ionic gradient to drive osmotic pressure. This simple global change in the water, would be expected to increase cellular entropy since water entropy goes up. This is reflected by rapid synthesis followed by the disruption of many cell structures such as the eventual loss of the nuclear membrane and Golgi apparatus caused by the entropy boost in the water.
Rats. I was happy to see you fixating on water, back a while, because I somehow thought, or hoped, that your new enthusiasm would replace "entropy" in your posts.wellwisher said:
As long as you are going to insist on combining, rather than replacing, these hobby terms, I do have a tip: when confronted with the need for declaring that the entropy of something has become higher or lower, flip a coin. That way, you have a decent chance of being correct half the time.
What you set out to argue, clearly and explicitly, was that "microevolution" and "macroevolution" (as you called the process) did not account for the emergence of different "kinds" of organism. You claimed support for that assertion from the many scientists at this one conference.leopold said:
That's called denial of evolution, for short, around here.
- Status