foodchain

If the moth was pollinating the plant then that would produce a niche that mutations could come to be fit in, basically that is, I don't of course know the details. Pollination of plants by insects is not something rare, so with that I would make the assumption that such behavior basically allowed for some mutations to be beneficial in a temporary sense that are not without the moth or something in its place, which then makes them disadvantageous to the organism again without such. My best guess to research this question would to be looking at mutually beneficial relationships between other organisms, like with people and microorganisms.

I think gravity is just conservation of energy really. I mean without conservation of energy what would the universe look like, or what would the universe look like without gravity, would you have any ability to make classifications like space or time? It would seem to me that a particle or body could just arbitrarily gain or lose energy without causality really, or that something could just be here or there or anywhere. I think another nifty aspect of this would be during the big bang, I mean if all the stuff in the universe was undergoing some form of symmetry transformation in such an intense gravitational field, could that be why atoms exist, as it was the universe in such an environment of time and space? Plus it seems that work has to work against gravity, or energy has to be spent to defeat it else it just stays put. So what about it, could conservation of energy be related to gravity or explain gravity? With the dark stuff or dark matter/energy currently its being proposed that the only interaction or way to measure or observe it is via gravity, so with that said would that possibly mean that certain fundamental forces of nature, like the strong or weak only be products of stuff in some form, and that dark stuff or what not obeys something else, but if that conjecture were possibly true why would gravity still be able to interfere with it unless gravity is something truly fundamental which brings me around to the point in which it seems conservation of energy seems constant and that the universe really is not a void but made up of a fabric in which it seems gravity also impacts in terms of form and or development. Giving other theoretical concepts like quantum decoherence which states measurement is an interaction that produces an appearance of wave function collapse, could gravity in sense in closing simply be why we have conservation of energy for any system of subsystem plus environment? Why we have causality, or anything simply because the universe in terms of energy is conserved and gravity is simply just that occurring, the conservation of stuff down to a quantum level?

Yes, but practicing science requires beliefs to be tested, and they can be refuted by an experiment for instance. So the data would in a belief system I guess would be more empirical, as it was conducted outside of just a particular brain organ thinking. With belief I think you get stuck with just having nothing but theoretical stuff to be nice. What would physics look like if the work was never tested against reality in say a predictive manner?

Yes but its all in math. Some of the discoveries behind string theory hail themselves as breakthroughs and or discoveries purely in the realm of math, not so much reality as modeled by it. Just to me is how much does that say about modern physics, what would be the difference if all of that had been worked out in different mathematics. To the topic though as much as brane theory is whatever it is, like our universe being the product of a collision with them or something, how much of that is just math? There is already physical phenomena observed that cannot be explained yet with the standard model, and relativity cant quite explain the universe, so in reality why does anything have to be what it currently is in math.

Who knows what the limit will be on molecular or biochemical control of an organisms biology. We could possible make a plant that grows shoes or something, to spaceships that are multicultural organisms. Heck it would be a good sci-fi story even, some planet infested right to the core with some giant living machine that makes energy crystals for the federation. My point is simply just that what will be the limit to genetic engineering?

If social behavior is intrinsic to human existence or, is genetically facilitated for or possible by, then would understanding that in a scientific perspective help combat environmental issues? Lets say for instance that bands, or any form of social organization is hallmark to being human, as in our nature for instance, if that is so, could many modern day aspects of human civilizations such as variance with different cultures have a biological basis. I think if such was a reality that understanding that could be pivotal in aspects of environmental education. I am looking at the question from a perspective of evolution I think, with thinking that social behavior is a predetermined reality, does it have any rules, and if so what are they? Environmental issues are going to be a global phenomena, and while technology can always improve, what about human relations or even the ability to have change socially before environmental ruin does indeed become dire. Many experts today can already talk about and show the realities of human behavior regarding the environment, from extinctions to global warming, to governmental denial. With that I would think education on the issue is paramount, not only at a local level as within a particular geographic region like the U.S, but the world over. If social order of some kind, or social behavior is inevitable and possibly purely biologically determined to occur, to me it would seem important to understand that as it would only aid in spreading environmental awareness. To add some clarity to the question, how do you keep environmental issues from becoming mired in other international issues, how do you spread that kind of information giving any group of people, etc… I would think many different disciplines would have to be used at first, like someone who could work with it from a sociological level, then someone on the economics side, linguistics, then ecology, to such a large range of fields really. So that is why I ask, giving the complexity of environmental issues I think education in bulk with the world populous is really key to saving the planet. Instead of just small bands of people trying to work against each other or majority groups, environmental science should be regular in education the world over, and made accessible to any person if at all possible to some extent. I think such education needs to be regular K-12 and into higher education, and likewise in any other regular educational setting. To give the question some weight, without the ability to communicate successfully on a topic that is forefront to saving the environment, how do you remedy that problem. What if no one cares to understand, or the local social behavior is purely based in family structure of some kind mixed with shamanistic magic or heavy religion? Again with environmental issues being global in scale, these barriers I think are going to be huge really. More so that with my latest gathering of info on the net about the subject environmental education does not appear to important to public education nationally in the U.S yet and only a very small percent of the population I think is actively engaged with sustainability.

I think it depends a lot on selection I guess. For instance I notice you can get a lot more behavior out of a "jumping" or "crab" spider, or wandering type of spiders then just web builders. Its just conjecture, but for instance being a social specie will have impacts like being a solitary specie I think.

Well with RNA you can have ribozymes, and what about ribosomes, which I think a eukaryotic nucleus produces just ungodly amounts of those constantly, within the nucleolus right? With a prokaryote don’t you have an unnucleated nucleoid surrounded by a bunch of free floating ribosomes? My personal view is that you had parts of the earth during periods of differentiation that supported such, something like underground caves, and in that you had protobionts with all kinds of chemical mixtures going in them. Then of course equilibrium being what it is made some of these things like consumers, but when the “food” started to dry out this basically strained out all but what could find ways to keep a metabolism. This is why I find RNA handy, not only because it performs so many roles in cells, its highly similar to DNA chemically, and is found to exist still in roles occupied by enzymes. Maybe some sort of ribosome-ribozyme structures occurring within protobionts. I think the production of protein by ribosomes for instance could maybe be tied back to chemical equilibrium, and free energy of course in a system trying to obtain some level of stability, not to be to wordy. Overall I just think chemical equilibrium over geological differentiation is key in the process in regards to understanding abiogeneisis.

Can you relate observation in a QM sense between physical entities as some quantity that can be related to gravity, such as strength of observation or measurement any physical entity is causing on another in relation to gravity?

Not to say the universe is some giant ice cube always trying to melt away, but what all is matter. Basic definition has it as anything that occupies space and has mass, so does that exclude photons then? See I am trying to make some hypothetical assumptions about things, like if you can view physical processes as transformations involving stuff in the categories of matter and energy. Basic definitions of energy has that it’s the ability of a system to do work, or work done by a system in short, but the photon is just work then? I know it’s the confusion of dealing with words, but it’s the physics definition of matter that excludes photons from being in that category I think. So is a photon matter, and by what definition is or isn’t it?

Thats a flu shot right?

I think you have all kinds of conceptual problems with this idea. I mean what are the speeds of the unknown chemical processes that were occurring in the pre-biotic world? Taking into account life evolved on earth, and not on every planet must have something to do with all of that. I mean some of the speeds could have been hundreds of years, humanity cannot conduct such experiments to reflect natural processes like that yet, so sorry. I mean we also could be thinking of experiments that need thousands of years or whatever to actually occur. So beyond that I think another issue you have to deal with is evolution, being biochemistry is highly similar, such as with DNA, amino acids, so on, why are we not all just exactly the same organism. In short life can evolve, if an RNA first life form existed in the past, it does not mean such could not have been evolved from, with simple example just being the role RNA plays currently, DNA, or evolution to chromosomes for instance only requires to produce more fitness right? So in short all of that could have been “eroded” by evolution to a certain extent. Just that fact we can’t do it yet meant the earth was flat at some point. Evolution, or biological evolution has support from broad field terms like the biosciences, not just biology, the evidence is simply to empirically staggering. Beyond that how can abiogenesis be anything but the most simple if not scientifically plausible process for life on earth to occur.

Can I use that on a t-shirt?

Its not that you are right on wrong about gravity as understood currently being right or wrong, just that you don’t even use the word theory properly in the first place.

I think a major obstacle to spreading environmental awareness is with formal education. I think such education should be made mandatory at the K-12 level into higher education. I am wondering what formats work best though at imparting environmental awareness to people(students) in terms of life cycles and generations really. So what I would like to know is as follows. Did you receive any environmental education formally? What levels and was such education periodic? What worked and did not work for you and why? What types of educational formats were used, was it just lecture, or lab, or fields trips, or combinations of such? Any replies will be appreciated and thank you for your time.

Well enzymes are what allow any cell basically to survive, and in that enzymes operate as to lower activation energies to make reactions possible that would not be without such. I also think that all of that goes back to a thermodynamic description on why it works. I am just thinking along the lines of entropy, if in the process of going from A to B, what exists in the middle of all that, or how does any natural process get there? If by chance einselection can for instance help describe how thermodynamics functions on a quantum scale, then maybe such can be used to gain insight on the chemical evolution of life is all from a thermodynamic perspective.

Sorry, have an idea eating away at my head and have to post it. So if thermodynamics, or energy flows from states of high to low or what not, does this count down on the quantum scale? I know I have posted this question here before but I am still not in an academic position to work on such yet. So with that in hand bear with me. Ok, so energy or what not flows from high to low, and in-between for it to exist, or satisfy conservation laws, would that not in its own right give probability for some kind of order and time? This is where einselection and decoherence bugger me so much, more so in regards to chemical systems. For instance the earth is in a process of geological differentiation constantly, its because of energy right, or free energy and the earth trying to like a chemical system find some stable equilibrium I would think. So could stable pointer states simply be quantum systems upholding conservation laws? I don't want to take a consistent histories outlook on anything here, but if A goes to B, the next einselecting event would be from B to whatever right, yet in that would not the prior existence of a pointer state have something to do with any outcome of physical measurement or observation? Like with energy equals mass stuff from Einstein, or the fact that an electron can be broken down into photons, which have no mass, yet in this the one property that does not go away is energy, its somehow conserved in all of this mess. I think this conservation helps give rise to thermodynamics and motion right? Yet then I wonder what is the arrow of time. So basically in short, could an evolving series of pointer states leading into one another over decoherence time really explain anything, or do pointer states have to always stay orthogonal from each other, which would to me make chemical reactions seem to be impossible. To me I think it would help explain periodic behavior, as such in the giving environment that was the stable route of pointer states that could exist, satisfying conservation laws. I just wonder because if this is true, the movement from high to low having to take form, more so in a discontinuous or aggregated amount of pointer states I think easily could give rise to most any form of complexity in some probability of things over decoherence time. In that life for instance, in a trophic sense could have come about as nothing more then another angle for energy to lower itself or find equilibrium, as with metabolic activity, its that lowering of energy that allows for buildup in another way, or catabolism/anabolism.

Could religion persist. I just cant think of anything that supports why people would be religious anymore, and for what its worth I am basically just asking why are people religious. Not so much in places that lack any form of education, like caves in afghanistan, just so much in parts of the world were people can come to understand the earth is not flat nor made by any particular supernatural whatever. How can religions persist, do people actually need to hold onto a fantasy in order to exist, how can you say anything bad about people that escape problems via drug use? As a matter of fact I think it would be easy to point out religion kills more then drugs, or more then most anything. Nothing makes any sense if you think about it. I am sorry I just cant understand how anyone with a moderate education could be religious anymore this day and age.

If an athiest jumped off a bridge I would not follow, but thanks for the attribution error. What it has to do with the thread is rather simple, people take up a cause supposedly for life, but in reality its for an agenda pertaining to some myth really. Thanks though, and I am not a democrat, but thanks for that also.

We just have to get solar power, its free past being able to harness and transport it which in reality could be embeded into construction practices. Again most all the suns energy that comes into the earth simply is not harnessed and it is more then enough to support us dialy with stuff left over. Again I would just like to point out that it could be almost free, and it wont destroy the planet producing landfill to keep people from getting bored. The next greening process will simply be that of not overpopulation.

Beyond that let us think that global corporations are ripping off everyone at behest of nations like us while killing more then nazi germany and burying the planet in pollution, but don't worry there will be some missionary there to give them a bible or what not. Also, let us think of all the poor even in our own country which are dying and what not because they choose to live like that. I guess I would respect the issue more if it was not simply the product of someone carrying out what a book tells them.

If its not established scientific fact or something being seriously studied typically all one has is speculation on the subject, be it how many angels fit on a pin head or if decoherence can lead to the genesis of life, its not proven or even seriously studied outside some word of mouth conjecture by some, so therefore its nothing more then speculation. I have no problem accepting such as at one point most anything was little more then speculation. I think the more major issue is people taken offense with having whatever speculation they do hold being posted in such threads. I mean sure its easy to link chemical evolution to the formation of life on earth, but how this actually happened currently is still not figured out, and such also has many different hypothesis surrounding how such worked. So with that if you have some idea, go ahead and post it, try to support it with science and just be happy this forum has a place where you can put your ideas that aliens put life here on earth to make a galactic television show.

Not to try and take the lead on the subject but I think it depends on what interpretation you use. For instance with the human mind I think many reject the notion of the quantum having anything to do with consciousness because of something having to do with the lack of superposition being able to exist. yet with that something like decoherence time I am sure is not heavily studied when it comes to masses of cells making up that particular organ communicating with each other via things like calcium ions and electrons. Personally I think a lot of it has to do with the same idea behind the concept of culture bound perceptions of reality. Physics has its standard model and standard ideas just like any of the other natrual sciences do, and for what its worth at some point in human history people had to make the wheel.

What about the Planck Scale??

I can agree to an extent. For instance with genetics, the position that has in regards to biology is enormously important, more so in conjunction with evolution, to its possible role of course in medicine to who knows what. Yet on that level you as yourself state deal with atoms, or molecular systems of some kind of course. I just think going along with molecular biology and biochemistry, such is just another scale or dimension if you want to study life on, like being a microbiologist for instance compared to say studying bats. QM would have its role there automatically by trying to determine I think for instance protein structure, to what makes up an enzyme, to how the enzyme works which is I think is held possibly to work via quantum tunneling type effects. I am not sure if thats anything more then speculation though of course. Yet to also with genetics, you cannot for instance just have biological education be genetics. There are more scales, or dimensions again of course to studying life. I just think when you get down to dealing with say the chemistry of life, you also have to take into account the chemistry then, which would by definition extend to quantum mechanics via physical chemistry. I mean biochemists, or professional ones I am sure know how to use spectroscopy right? What about NMR? I think quantum mechanics is used in the periodic table even with the electronic configuration of atoms, which I think connects with say ions, or bonding behavior. Either way, I think the application of such to biological evolution via studying biochemistry for instance will be awesome. To understand life from a molecular scale I would think could only enhance our understanding in so many other areas, like chemistry or physics.