The Perpetual Motion of Evolution:

Discussion in 'Biology & Genetics' started by paddoboy, Nov 8, 2016.

  1. Michael 345 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,079
    As Pauline Hanson would say "Please explain"

    And do you intend to live for millions of years?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,629
    Just presenting some perspectives to the conversation.

    If we are going to cherry-pick, we can begin by saying the OP Title is a meaningless statement.
    Motion?

    I believe a better statement would be; "the perpetual *function* of Evolution", And then I hope my posts are probative of those functions, not of motions, which clouds the underlying principle that evolution is a fundamental universal *function*.
     
    Last edited: Jan 26, 2017
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,544
    Nothing about "cherry-picking" here. You made a specific statement. I challenged it and asked you to justify it. And you can't. You were talking, not for the first time, out of your arse.

    That's it.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,629
    Is this the statement you are referring to?

    This proposition may be poorly constructed, but where does it fail in current scientific knowledge?
     
  8. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,544
    Unless you can:

    (a) state what "fractal function" you are referring to,
    (b) explain what variables and constants in its algebra relate to elements of an evolutionary process, and
    (c) provide evidence that this fractal function does actually model some aspect of the evolutionary process,

    you are talking out of your arse.
     
  9. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,629
    I think the following is relevant to start with.
    The study of *fractal systems*
    See Causal Dynamical Triangulation (CDT).
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractal
     
  10. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,544
    Irrelevant to my (a), (b) or (c).
     
  11. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,321
    While it is true that organisms do employ fractal geometry in their construction (the venerable fern leaf being a common example), I don't really see how it informs the topic of evolution itself, any more than pointing out that many organisms use sunlight and photosynthesis, or methanogenesis.
     
  12. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,629
    Ok, once again,
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causal_dynamical_triangulation
    See the illustrations.
    Two different things.[/QUOTE] Correct, growth is an important part of the evolutionary process, but it does not define fractality. See above.
    The variable aspect is introduced by Hazen, such as the wrong (but compatible) chemical being introduced into the replication, which alters its properties, and often degenerates the growth process, but occasionally enhances the growing structure. Evolution.

    If you read back, I believe Hazen addressed such "variables" in his lecture, such as mutations which can be either detrimental or instrumental to the evolution of an organism.
     
    Last edited: Jan 28, 2017
  13. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,629
    These terms have been defined in many different ways and examples..

    The problem most people struggle with is not HOW it works, but WHY it works that way.
    There's the rub.
     
  14. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,321
    Science does not struggle with the "whys" of the world - only the hows. Biology and Genetics is one of the hard science fora, the question of "why" is out-of-scope.

    They'll have to rub somehere else.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    Last edited: Jan 28, 2017
  15. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,629
    We know that Evolution is true from the studies of "how" evolution works, in order to arrive at the answer, "Why does it work at all?"

    Max Tegmark explains *how* the universe functions mathematically. His conclusion is that a mathematical function is *why* the universe is able to function as it does.

    Renate Loll (CDT) proposes that this mathematical function at every scale displays a fractal structure.
    The Why.
    I agree with the concept that the fractal function is the mathematical function which allows for evolution of the universe and everything in it and can be found in ALL forms of change or growth. The Fibonacci sequence is but one fractal form and can be observed throughout the universe and our world.

    IOW, the universe functions mathematically in general, and fractal mathematics play a major role in the evolution of all things.
     
    Last edited: Jan 28, 2017
  16. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,544
    Bloody Shapiro again! I might have known.
     
  17. rpenner Fully Wired Staff Member

    Messages:
    4,827
    Who? What?
     
  18. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,544
  19. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,629
    While you're at ridiculing Tegmark (Shapiro), you might also add this autobiography of Renate Loll, (CDT), another scientist who has a hypothesis, based on out of the box thinking.
    http://www.hef.ru.nl/~rloll/Web/title/title.html, another dreamer

    And lest we forget Hazen's work, you haven't dismissed yet.;
    https://carnegiescience.edu/scientist/robert-hazen

    Oh, the charlatans we can find lately.! Is there anyone left who can contribute something of value?

    One thing I find encouraging, is that neither Tegmark's, nor Loll's hypotheses are in conflict with GR or QM, which, to my understanding is an important aspect of all theoretical science, especially in the area of cosmology and universal mathematical functions.

    I find a certain comfort in that and to call their work nonsense is
    at the very least premature.
     
    Last edited: Jan 29, 2017
  20. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,629
    Thanks for the confirmation.
    My thinking is based on the following.
    If millions of years of natural selection seeking maximum benefits from photosynthesis eventually ends up with a fractal structure, I would call that proof of the efficiency of fractal functions. They exist in reality and are part of the evolutionary process.

    BTW, your cell phone uses a fractal antenna. Fractal technology is not some fantasy,

    p.s. Thanks for the CTR+. I tried it, but my eye problem is not so much a matter of size as it is a matter of contrast. Bold works for me best. Fortunately it does not make any real sounds..

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  21. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,629
  22. Yazata Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,405
    I don't think that the constant elaboration of new species is all that mysterious. (What is a species? A 'natural kind'? Defining the word 'species' is still an outstanding problem in the philosophy of biology, the so-called 'species problem'.) If change is occurring for molecular biological reasons in the heritable molecular genetic material (the DNA code), then changes are going to accumulate over time into lineages, which will branch into sublineages, and on and on.

    When we look at the phylogenetic 'tree of life', it appears to be a relentless expansion into an abstract possibility-space. Natural selection basically trims down that luxuriant tree, restricting it to viable forms and shaping it to the environment.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tree_of_life_(biology)

    I don't think that it's in any way unreasonable to compare the tree of life to a fractal. Many people have made that association, it's nothing new. It does look the same on different scales. Anyone who has looked at the Mendlebrot set or Julia sets will recognize this -

    http://www.onezoom.org/

    And no, it needn't have anything to do with Mark Tegmark's mathematical metaphysics or with the totally irrelevant harping on the fact that Tegmark chose to use his mother's last name (maybe there was an unpleasant divorce, it's none of my business). I think that Write4U is correct about the tree of life's fractal geometry. Noting that certainly isn't an occasion for insults or put-downs. It's entirely relevant to this thread.
     
    Last edited: Jan 29, 2017
    Write4U likes this.
  23. Michael 345 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,079
    I'm not up on fractal geometry

    I have seen a Mendlebrot set

    Don't think tree of life fits with a Mendlebrot set

    To many dead ends as unviables die while successful forms florist sending out extensive branches

    No symmetry
     

Share This Page