Jump to content

lucaspa

Senior Members
  • Posts

    1588
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by lucaspa

  1. I think he must have been using the term "purpose" metaphorically, which of course is teleological. Perhaps the word "function" would have been a better coice.

     

    I was not. The problem is that "purpose" has been mistakenly linked with action by an intelligent agent. Like "design" has been mistakenly linked with action by an intelligent agent. The point here is that natural selection is an unintelligent method to get design.

     

    Aristotle listed 4 types of causes. His example was a chameleon changing color bright green on a leaf to dull-gray on a twig.

    1. Formal cause: Generalization of the conditions under which the change takes place. In this case the formal cause would be the chameleon moving from the leaf to the twig.

    2. Material cause: the substance in skin that changes color. This gets us to the biochemistry of the skin cells and chemicals in them that are responsible for the color change.

    3. Efficient cause. This is the transition of leaf to twig and the associated change in reflected light of the leaf vs the twig.

    4. Final cause or teleological cause. This is that the chameleon is escaping

    detection by predators. But notice that this is not conscious. The chameleon does not know it is escapting detection by predators. Nor did the chameleon "plan" to do this. But natural selection did "plan" it this way.

     

    Natural selection is, in the Aristotlean view, a teleological cause event tho it is not intelligent. And that is the whole point of natural selection. It is the teleological cause instead of an intelligent agent who had to "design" and manufacture the chameleon so that it avoided predators.


    Merged post follows:

    Consecutive posts merged

     

    But is that a correct implication? I submit "NO!" We have inserted a hidden prepositional phrase: designed by an intelligent entity. This is a holdover from the days when we did not know of any other way to get design. But now we do have another process that gives design: Darwinian (natural) selection. I strongly recommend you read Daniel Dennett's Darwin's Dangerous Idea

     

    there is none in evolution. NS is not an entity' date=' and cannot have a purpose.[/quote']

     

    NS is an "entity" in the broad definition of the term. We know what it is. When certain conditions are met, natural selection exists. Those conditions include:

    1. Populations, or groups, of entities

    2. Variation among individuals in the populations

    3. Hereditary similarity of individuals from generation to generation.

    4. More individuals born or generated than can be supported by the environment. (from D. Futuyma Evolutionary Biology, 1988, pg 4)

     

    When you say " In the absence of variation in the population, NS does not do any "fitting",", what you have done is remove one of the necessary conditions for the entity natural selection to exist. You do not have natural selection in this case. It is like saying "in the absence of oxygen, cytochrome c does not do oxidative phosphorylation". That is true, but ox phos depends on the existence of oxygen.

     

    It does not design organisms to their environment: it does not care (and in fact, there is no "it" to do the caring).

     

    But it does. If natural selection does not do the designing, then what does?

     

    Natural selection is a two step process:

    1. Variation

    2. Selection

     

    When you say "natural selection does not cause variation" that is true, but irrelevant. In order for the entity "natural selection" to exist, there must be variation. The source of that variation is immaterial. It can be sexual recombination, mutation, changes in syntax in computer code (in the case of genetic algorithms) etc. Natural selection will still happen.

     

    "Natural selection" is only a label for encapsulating a mathematical fact: the fact that organisms that reproduce more successfully than competing organisms will eventually dominate.

     

    That is the reductionist definition of "changes in allele frequency through time". But that is NOT the essence of natural selection. After all, genetic drift will have some organisms reproducing more successfully and will dominate.

     

    Look at Darwin (why is it that so many "evolutionists" have never read Origin of Species?): " But if variations useful to any organic being do occur, assuredly individuals thus characterized will have the best chance of being preserved in the struggle for life;" It's not about just "reproduce more successfully", but why they reproduce more successfully: the variations are a better design ("useful to any organic being") than the other variations.

     

    There is no purpose in NS, it just happens.

     

    Again, there is no "long term" purpose. But there is a short term purpose. "Diversity" is not the criteria for a changing environment. As you noted, the overall parameters of the population change. Unless that is "random", then that change must be to some purpose. What's the purpose? That the individuals survive in that environment.

     

    Look above to my discussion of the types of causes. The "purpose" of a chameleon changing color is to avoid predators. The purpose of your eyes is to detect light. The purpose of your ears is to detect sound. The purpose of cytochrome c is to transfer electrons to oxygen and, in the process, make ATP. Biological organisms are full of purpose. How did it get there? Natural selection.

     

    Do NOT run away from "design" or "purpose". Embrace them. Natural selection provides the explanation for how those designs for particular purposes arose. Discard that and say there are no designs or purposes in biological organisms and you deny reality.

  2. Hey, they suffocate humanely :P

     

    Actually, no. :P Remember, this is a loss of air pressure -- being put in a vacuum. The animals go thru the torture of decompression, with bursting blood vessels, bulging eyes, etc. All very painful.

     

    Humane suffocation is carbon dioxide inhalation. Put an animal (usually a rat or mouse) in a chamber and then flood it with CO2. The animal peacefully goes to sleep and then stops breathing. And this is one of the approved methods of euthanasia for animal research.


    Merged post follows:

    Consecutive posts merged
    I think Animal testing is dreadfull! and WELL WRONG! when it comes to testing things for humans!

     

    WHY should they have to suffer? half the tests done aren`t acurate anyway as their physiology is different!

     

    we have a load of a$$holes on death row that have been proven guilty and yet they get to die with no data gained, it`s a total complete and utter waste of potential, I say we use these rapists and child molesters and murderers/terrorists etc... and exploit their physiology, ok, maybe they`re a little less humane than animals with the behaviour that got them there, but the results should be alot more compatible, and who cares if they die??? they`re gunna get fried anyway!? :)

     

    NO! to animal testing!

     

    Remember the experiments the Nazis did on Jews that were "gunna get fried anyway"? That's where this logic ultimately leads. It also leads to the result Larry Niven discussed in several of his short stories: if medical benefits come from prisoners condemned for death, there won't be enough of these and it becomes very easy to extend the death penalty to more and more crimes to make sure there are enough prisoners for testing. Remember, right now rapists and child molesters cannot get the death penalty. So you are already advocating extending the death penalty to these crimes.

     

    We all have heard, especially in rape cases, where DNA evidence has overturned the conviction of several "rapists". You would have those individuals executed when, in fact, they were innocent. Do you really want that on your conscience?

     

    I think we are all agreed that using animals for painful tests -- such as the Draize test -- for cosmetics is wrong. But medical testing is different. Even if you are using prisoners, most prisoners do not have melanoma, or tuberculosis, or cardiac arrythmias, etc. Would you inject prisoners with melanoma cells? Deliberately infect them with tuberculosis bacteria? If that is the case, how are you different from the Nazis?


    Merged post follows:

    Consecutive posts merged
    When it comes to pigs and primates, to use the example, I think the similarities sufficient that any experiment which would be considered unethical to perform on humans should be equally considered unethical to carry out on them

     

    Basically, that is the rule applied to all animal research, with a few minor exceptions. If you would give a human a pain reliever, then you must do the same for an animal. If you would perform sterile surgery with anesthesia on a human, then you must perform essentially the same surgery and anesthesia on the animal.

     

    The exceptions come when such pain relief would compromise the data. Remember, the ultimate purpose of the animal research is to obtain data that will ultimately lead to a better understanding of disease or physiology in humans. So, altho we might feel constrained to give a human pain relief (never mind the data), if such pain relief would make it impossible to get the data from the animal, we are using animal as a route to get data we can't get from humans.

     

    One example is neurological data from the brains of rats. The normal methods of euthanasia are either 1) carbon dioxide inhalation or 2) pentobarbital injection. Both are painless but both take a long time and result in the destruction of short term neurotransmitters in the brain. So if you are studying models of Parkinson's or other brain disorders in rats, you are allowed to guillotine the rat. That death is so quick that it preserves the neurotransmitters you need to study.

  3. I found informative and a bit surprising:" In both mamals and people, the frontal cortex reduces responses to stimuli that elicit fears, but it increases suffering from pain. Fear operates in a low more primitive brain system than pain. The prefrontal cortex wich is the most highly evolved brain region helps an animal to control it`s reactions to fear provoking stimuli, but heightens pain perception. It has the opposite reaction on fear and pain. "

     

    Notice that there were no citations to back this claim. There were other quotes you should also have looked at. For instance:

     

    "It has long been known that an intact cortex is required for the full extent of suffering. In his studies on the neurology of noiception, Woolf (1983) removed the cortex of rats to “obviate” the problem of suffering from pain. Even now, it is not well-understood how higher association areas in the brain interpret subcorticol input. "

    I do wish to add that it is Professor Temple Grandin PHD whose list of accomplishments and awards are truly impressive.

     

    You are trying to make an Argument from Authority here. What matters is the data and, reading the presentation carefully, the data does not back the claims with the certainty the authors are claiming.


    Merged post follows:

    Consecutive posts merged
    Even fish and chickens have evolved the capacity to feel pain, fear and terror.

     

    That isn't what the presentation states. The presentation says that these species have the anatomical areas associated with pain, fear, and terror in humans. BUT, the data from the papers cited are not able to tell whether the animal feels fear or terror! I found this interesting from the presentation:

     

    "The present consensus is that the PFC mediates executive functions which include advanced higher mental processes, such as directing attention, accessing various memory systems, coordinating sensory and motor information, and modulating emotional states (Krasnegor, et al 1997). In humans, the prefrontal cortex must be intact in order to experience the emotional sensation associated with pain (Freeman and Watts, 1950). However, neurobiologists long believed that the PFC is a recent evolutionary acquisition and is unusually large in the human brain. Recent advances in the study of prefrontal cortex find no justification for these beliefs. Jerison (1997) conducted a formal analysis of similarities and differences between species and provides evidence that the PFC is an ancient part of the mammalian brain, is put together in all mammals pretty much the same way, and it’s functions are basically similar. The percentages of frontal cortex in relation to the rest of the brain are 29% in humans, 17% in chimps, 7% in the dog, and 3% in the cat (Broadman, 1912, Fuster, 1980). Although cats have less PFC compared to dogs, we would argue against any suggestion that cats suffer less from pain than dogs, or that rats suffer less than cats. It is likely that the cat has sufficient frontal cortex circuitry to have the minimum required amount to fully suffer. "

     

    It does appear that the PFC is unusually large in humans. Notice that there is no data on comparison of pain between cats and dogs. Instead, the authors make the unwarranted inference that cats have sufficient PFC to "fully suffer". They need data to back that claim.

     

    And when we consider cattle and pigs wich have highly evolved brains able to experience pain,dread,terror much the same as humans do,

     

    There is no such things as "highly evolved". Amoebas are just as 'highly evolved' as humans. The question is whether the brains of cattle and pigs can experience "dread, terror" as humans do. No data. And the paper does not provide any.

     

    there seems not much of a point to be made by saying plants are capable of responding to stimuli as if that was the equivilent of what a cow or pig suffers when it is killed for slaughter. Some animals have highly evolved brains and nervous systems including pigs and cows. Plants do not. ...Dr.Syntax

     

    Again, the question would be: are nervous systems the ONLY way that an organism can feel pain? You assume the answer is "yes". But it's an assumption, not one based on data.

     

    What you are doing is projecting human emotions on cows and pigs when you say "suffers when it is killed for slaughter". I would argue from an evolutionary standpoint that this is not the case. Both cows and pigs are prey in nature. Individuals are "slaughtered" all the time by predators. Would an ability to "suffer" aid or hinder survival under these circumstances. I would argue that the ability to feel "terror" or "suffer" would be deleterious. What happens to humans experiencing "terror"? They tend to freeze and be unable to act. Such behavior would make an individual prey easier to catch. Therefore the ability to anticipate "suffering" or feeling "terror" would be eliminated by evolution.

     

    Hominids might have evolved such feelings only after extensive tool use when humans became predators instead of prey.

  4. I'm not sure if I'm following right here, but the only way to turn the pain off is to stop feeling it any more, and you do that only when you have no electric impulse going through your nerves!

     

    That is not quite correct. Pain is a complex neurological reaction, with both impulses of the sensory nerves and interpretation of impulses in the brain.

     

    As you noted below, if you are concentrating on something else. you don't "feel" pain. Enough adrenaline in a human will block "feeling" pain.

     

    Humans, as noted, get used to "chronic" pain and don't "feel" it anymore. Or at least don't feel it at the intensity of someone encountering that sensory input for the first time.

     

    Also, humans feel pain when there are no nerves being stimulated. This is a common phenomenon following traumatic amputation of a limb -- called phantom limb pain. Interestingly, phantom limb pain is not present when the amputation is a voluntary decision in reaction to chronic pain.

     

    It is very difficult to tell when animals are in pain. I haved performed many surgeries on rats and witnessed many procedures on rats that humans would regard as painful, yet the rats exhibit no pain-related behaviors. Do they "feel" the pain? I can't tell. Are the nerves stimulated? Maybe. Does their brain process the stimulation as pain? I don't know. We mostly know pain in humans due to speech -- we tell each other we are in pain. In some cases of severe pain, there are behaviors: screaming, writhing, etc. But some people don't display those behaviors with injuries where other people do.


    Merged post follows:

    Consecutive posts merged
    Knowing this, it is very difficult to just accept that a reaction to noxious stimuli is evidence of pain, unless you also accept that plants can also feel pain.

     

    Those are the 2 possibilities, aren't they?

    1. Behavior to noxious stimuli is not evidence of pain.

    2. Plants do not feel pain.

     

    You can argue in favor of #2 by saying that plants do not have nerves. However, are nerves the only way "pain" can be transmitted? So #2 isn't as solid a conclusion as you seem to believe.

     

    Humans have behavior to noxious stimuli that, by means of speech, we know is pain. How can you conclude that similar behavior in other species is absolutely not evidence of pain?

     

    The uncertainty in the whole situation is why IACUC rules follow human standards: if a human reports pain from a similar procedure, then it is assumed the animal will feel similar pain and require analgesics. That may be on the conservative side, but IACUC has decided to err on the conservative side.

  5. im new here and this is my first reply and im think a compromise can be made between the right and wrong of animal testing. I belive only naughty animals should be tested on. Like the dogs that bite and instead of being put to sleepy byes for ever should be tested on to teach them a real lessonxx P.S guys im singlexxx

     

    You can define "naughty" only in regard to pets. And then only in regard to behavior that people define as objectionable. By its own standards, is a dog or a lab rat being "naughty" when it bites someone? No. Often it is only defending itself to a perceived threat or acting like a meat-eater -- which dogs are.

     

    So I appreciate the effort at compromise, but it won't work.

     

    As the regulations stand now, it is illegal to use dogs or cats obtained from a shelter for research. ALL research animals must be purchased from a licensed vendor. So unwanted dogs and cats cannot be used for research, but instead are put to death in a hypobaric chamber -- which means they suffocate to death.

  6. I think 100 is pretty much pushing the limit for solid phase synthesis ... This would get a rather smallish protein or long peptide (depending on perspective).

     

    100 amino acids ~ 10,000 MW. Insulin and other proteins are shorter than that. Also, many of the chains of dimeric, trimeric, etc. proteins are that length.

     

    In any case, in vivo as well as in vitro protein biosynthesis based on protein translation generally gives higher yield.

     

    I think what you meant was "longer chains" instead of "higher yield". The average weight of proteins obtained by dry heating amino acids is ~ 60,000 MW, which is also about the average weight of proteins by DNA directed protein synthesis.

  7. I have met Dr. Christian Drapeau and I have read his book. There are is over 10 years of testing and research and multiple studies published and the product is SCIENTIFICALLY proven to do exactly what it claims.

     

    Why aren't those published studies listed at the website? Why don't you list them for us? Studies in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, please.

     

    2 capsules of STEMEnhance release over 3 million stem cells into the blood stream, they have PROOF that this happens every time you take it, so if you take 4 a day, that's over 6 million daily. Also, adult stem cells are much more stable than embryonic stem cells, there is also research proving that.

     

    What is the "proof"? I've never seen any papers quantifying the number of stem cells released. Also remember that there are 6 million red blood cells per milliliter in adult blood. Adults have > 5 liters of blood, or over 5,000 milliliters. So the increase doesn't amount to the number of red blood cells in 1 milliliter.

     

    When I treated a 3 mm defect in rabbit cartilage with adult stem cells, I had more than 60 million adult stem cells at the site. That's 10 times more than you say is released and will be in the entire body.

     

    Most stem cells (>80%) injected into the blood are captured in the lungs. So even your 6 million, only 1.2 million circulate twice.

     

    Now, let me ask you this? WHICH stem cells are released? According to studies in the literature, there are at least FIVE distinct types of adult stem cells in marrow:

     

    1. Hematopoietic stem cells.

    2. Chondro-osteogenic stem cells.

    3. Mesenchymal stem cells.

    4. Multipotent Adult Progenitor Cells.

    5. Multipotent Adult Stem Cells.

    6. Orlic's stem cells (similar to hematopoietic stem cells but said to be different).

     

    Finally, do you have any idea what you mean by adult stem cells "are more stable than embryonic stem cells"? Stable how?

  8. Kids haven't suffered enough to deserve morphine.

     

    :confused: Kids can't be in enough pain to justify giving them morphine? You must be kidding. I can remember being in tremendous pain from appendicitis when I was 8 and 9 and hoping for morphine. How about kids who have had their legs blown off by landmines? No morphine? You are cruel.

  9. If someone posits the need for a designer because of complexity or first cause, then this question is relevant, because it reveals the tail chasing that they are engaged in.

     

    We don't know it is tail chasing. When Dawkins proposed this argument toward the end of The Blind Watchmaker, it was in response to a specific argument that "complexity cannot arise by chance, it must have an intelligent creator". That specific claim leads you into an infinite regress. BUT, there is no need to make that claim.

     

    NONE of the hypotheses for First Cause have a cause. ALL of them could be open to the argument you are using if that argument were valid. In fact, if we would use that argument -- you can't accept an answer for a cause unless you know the cause of the cause -- then all science immediately stops.

     

    IF it turns out that deity created the universe, THEN we look for a cause for deity. It is exactly the same as the situation for ekpyrotic: IF it turns out that there is a 5 D 'brane in which 4 D 'branes float, THEN it is time to ask "where did the 5 D 'brane come from?"

     

    The parameters could be arbitrary just as our earth might be arbitrary - then life adjusted to it, not the other way around.

     

    Yes, they could be arbitrary. It could be pure chance that the universe has these parameters. However, many of the parameters are such that life could not exist. For instance, if the strong nuclear force were different, only hydrogen would be possible. No one can imagine a scenario where you can have life with only 1 element.

     

    if no intelligent entity arises to ask the question, then it was fine tuned to be clean of this viral, messy life?

     

    That is essentially what I was saying: the strong AP is an error in logic. The universe is not required to have these parameters. If it did not, we simply would not be here to wonder about it. Basically, it is invalid to use the strong AP as "proof" of the existence of deity. However, that the universe has these parameters instead of some other parameters begs an explanation. The various multiverse theories are one attempt at an explanation: if there are an infinite number of universes, then one of them by chance will have the parameters of this one. We happen to be in this one.

     

    Another attempt at an explanation -- another hypothesis -- is that the universe is created and these parameters were chosen. NEITHER hypothesis has been disproven. Both are on the table.

  10. Just to be clear, I am saying that LIFE is not made of atoms. I am saying atoms are not alive.

     

    Individual atoms are not alive. By "atoms" we mean things like a single carbon atom or a single helium atom.

     

    You do know that atoms combine to form molecules, right? Hydrogen does not exist as a single atom in nature, but as a molecule of two hydrogen atoms.

     

    Life is chemistry. That's what the whole field of biochemistry is about: looking at the chemistry that makes up living organisms.

     

    My question is, what is life.

     

    Life is an entity that has all 4 of the following characteristics:

    1. Metabolism (anabolism and catabolism)

    2. Growth

    3. Response to stimuli

    4. Reproduction.

     

    Fire has all but anabolism, therefore it is not alive.

     

    Modern life is a group of many types of molecules: proteins, nucleic acids, sugars, lipids, porphyrins, etc. in many different combinations. For instance, many proteins are glycoproteins, which mean they have some molecules of sugar attached. Many of the molecules are polymers. That is, they are long strings of smaller molecules. Proteins are polymers of amino acids. Amino acids in turn are molecules composed of carbon, nitrogen, hydrogen, and oxygen. These atoms can be arranged in many different combinations. There are thousands of possible amino acids, but proteins in modern cells use 20 different amino acids.

     

    If life is made of a specific quantity of certain atoms in an exact quantity, then that would be covered by chemistry. So what is the chemistry of life, if it is 100% atoms?

     

    Biochemistry. There are entire huge textbooks on the subject. I suggest Lenninger's Biochemistry. It is more readable than many others. The subdiscipline of chemistry dealing with how life arises from non-living chemicals is called abiogenesis. Much of abiogenesis deals with a specific aspect of life: directed protein synthesis. This is how DNA/RNA codes for individual proteins arose.

     

    There are several ways that you can get life arising from non-life. Here is just one of them:

    http://www.theharbinger.org/articles/rel_sci/fox.html

    http://www.siu.edu/~protocell/

     

    Basically, you start with amino acids. These are formed by a number of chemical reactions from methane, carbon dioxide, nitrogen, cyanide, etc.

     

    If proteins are either dry heated or heated at underwater hydrothermal vents, they form proteins. If water is added to the dry heated proteins (like in a tidal pool) or the water in the hydrothermal vent cools (as it moves away from the volcanic vent), the proteins spontaneously form cells the size of bacteria. Each cell contains roughly 10^9 - 10^12 protein molecules. That's 1 billion to 1 trillion protein molecules. Remember, 1 mole of any compound contains 6.022 x 10^23 molecules. That's a huge number of molecules. So even a small cell is going to have a lot of protein molecules in it. (BTW, the number comes from calculations and estimates of the number of protein molecules in a liver cell: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/bv.fcgi?rid=mcb.section.199)

     

    Each of those proteins has A biological activity. It may be structural or it may be enzymatic, or both. Together, they have enough biological activity for the cell to be alive: it has both anabolism and catabolism, grows (by absorbing more proteins and making new ones), responds to stimuli (has an action potential like a nerve cell), and reproduces (by both budding and fission like bacteria). Thus, the cells are alive.

     

    Does that answer your question about number and type of molecules for life?

  11. The implication here is that methane can only result from biological sources. That is not true.

     

    The articles did not say that. Did you read them? In particular, look at this one:

    http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2009/01/15/mars-methane-life.html

     

    "Whatever the source [biological or geological], methane on Mars should stick around for about 300 years, all things being equal. Instead, Mumma and his team, who published their findings in this week's issue of Science, found that over parts of Mars the methane is disappearing in a span of time as short as one year.

     

    ""We really can't tell if it's biological or geochemical at this time," Mumma added. "On Earth, it can be produced by either mechanism."

     

    "The definitive way to determine the methane's origins is to analyze its isotopes. Methane produced from biological sources on Earth has distinctively different isotopic ratios than methane generated by geochemical processes."

     

    " A new effort is underway to search for other gases that, like methane, are tied to biological processes on Earth. Targeted compounds include ethane, propane and hydrocarbons. "

     

    Basically, this science news article has the required tentativeness. The continued influx of methane to Mar's atmosphere may indicate life. Right now, there are no observable geochemical processes -- like volcanoes -- that can account for the methane.

  12. Consider the "raisin bread" analogy. All raisins are moving apart, but there is an overall movement in one direction, away from the baking tray. The analogy is in fact, only half a universe, the other half is beneath the baking tray.

     

    If you were a raisin in the bread, some of the raisins would be moving toward you even tho the bread were expanding. That isn't the case with the universe. No matter which direction we look, galaxies beyond our local group are all moving away from us.

     

    There are two points away from which all could be moving. The first is the centre, in the event of an all expanding universe. The second is the point of maximum expansion from which all could be retreating. A moments thought and it will be seen that red-shift will be exhibited in both scenarios.

     

    The universe doesn't have a "centre" as you are using the term. And, if all were collapsing from a maximum expansion, those at the "edge" of the maximum expansion would look like they are moving towards us. They would be blue-shifted, not red-shifted.

     

    I suggest you read the Scientific American article "Misconceptions about the Big Bang".


    Merged post follows:

    Consecutive posts merged
    The question is as stated. Why was the fact that galaxies could be seen to be exhibiting red-shift in degrees that increased with distance, reported as evidence that the univere is expanding, when it could not possibly have been known which were moving away from us, and from which were we moving away?

     

    For expansion, it doesn't matter whether they are moving away from us or we moving away from them, or both. In any of these scenarios, the universe must be expanding.

     

    As it happens, every galaxy (beyond the local group) is moving away from every other galaxy. They would all see a red shift from every galaxy beyond their own local group.

     

    (Within our own local group of galaxies, there are a few that are moving towards our galaxy and show a blue shift.)


    Merged post follows:

    Consecutive posts merged
    Why then, and by whom, was it decided to go with the expanding option.

     

    Because only that option was consistent with the data.

     

    Could it have been more acceptable to have "Gods" work grow larger, and perhaps more magnificent, than for it to be seen as possibly collapsing?

     

    Since many of the physicists who accepted the expansion were either agnostics or atheists, they would not have been swayed by any appeal to deity. Remember that the preceding accepted theory was Steady State, where supposedly "God's work" just remained static. Theists were content with that.

     

    As several people pointed out, if the universe were collapsing we would be seeing blue shifts, not red shifts.

  13. physics is like religion you believe what believe and the road you take will determine the destination you seek!!!!!

     

    Let's test that. You are saying that physicists don't change "beliefs" or theories. But physics has changed theories lots of times!

    1. Physicists changed from Newtonian gravity to Einstein's General Relativity.

    2. Physicists changed from classical mechanics to quantum mechanics.

    3. Physicists changed from Steady State universe to Big Bang and an expanding universe.

    4. Several physicists and groups of physicists are looking at different theories of quantum gravity: string theory, loop quantum gravity, etc.

     

    All these are just major events in the 20th century. All falsify the claim.

  14. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/21/science/21stem.html?_r=1&em&ex=1195966800&en=09f92cd386d8ea6e&ei=5087%0A

     

    here is a link to the article i read that talked about how 2 teams of scientists were able to create stem cells from skin cells. it talks about how they use a retrovirus to insert 4 genes into the nucleas essentially blanking the slate of the skin cells and making them stem cells. it doesnt really go into the process much from what i read. does anyone know how this could work? why is this not big now? it was posted in 2007 so i dont know whats happened with this research since then, is there a roadblock or something? i also just thought that its very interesting.

     

    thanks.

     

    This is very big now. The cells are called "induced pluripotent stem cells" or IPS for short. There are a huge number of laboratories doing this now and investigating the use of IPS cells for regenerative medicine. Do a PubMed search on "induced, pluripotent, stem, cells" and you will get a lot of articles.

     

    If you want the original methods paper on how to do this, I have the PDF file and can attach it.

     

    There is a hitch, however. At least one of the genes transduced into the skin cells to turn them into embryonic stem cells is an oncogene -- a gene associated with cancers. So there is concern that the IPS cells might become cancerous if implanted into a human.


    Merged post follows:

    Consecutive posts merged
    ok, thanks.

     

    how does the mitochondrian replicate at the same time as the cell in mitosis? does it?

     

    what are the advantages of adult stem cells?

     

    thanks for your answers.

     

    The mitochondria replicates separately from the cell. During mitosis the cytoplasm simply splits up the mitochondria that are in it.

     

    Embryonic stem cells have 3 major problems:

    1. If implanted en masse in a body, they form a type of tumor called a "teratoma".

    2. Because they do not come from the individual being treated, the ES cells can cause an immune rejection response.

    3. They differentiate willy-nilly into all the phenotypes. That's why they make a teratoma in vivo.

     

    Adult stem cells have several advantages:

    1. They can come from your own body, thus no immune rejection.

    2. They seem to modulate the immune response and it looks like we can use adult stem cells from another person to treat you.

    3. They do not form teratomas when implanted en masse, so you can use them for large defects in tissue, like defects in cartilage in osteoarthritis.

    4. They remain undifferentiated until they receive a specific signal to differentiate. Thus, once we find specific differentiation signals, we can differentiate the cells outside the body to form a tissue (such as a bone) and then implant the completed tissue.

    5. There are no ethical concerns about adult stem cells.

  15. I will like any protègè, 2 ellucidate on synthesis of protein by artificial means.Is it posible?

     

    There are machines that can now synthesize quite large proteins by adding one amino acid at a time to a growing chain. Older machines were limited to smaller peptides, but the newer ones can get more than 100 amino acid proteins.

     

    Of course, if you dry heat amino acids they will polymerize and make proteins -- many of them exceeding 100,000 MW. This has been done in a number of labs.

  16. Why should we risk the animal's lives for the benefit of us humans?

     

    Because every animal species kills other species for their benefit.

     

    Why are we more valuable than animals?

     

    Why aren't we?

    We test on

     

    Rodents 84% of the time

    Fish, amphibians, reptiles 12% of the time

    Large mammals 2.1% of the time

    Small mammals 1.4% of the time

    Dogs and cats 0.3% of the time

    Primates 0.1% of the time

     

    Have you considered why the proportions are like this? We use rodents the most because 1) they are mammals and 2) they are relatively inexpensive.

     

    I think you have overrepresented the fish, amphibians, and reptiles. I notice there are no insects listed, but they are also animals. In fact, this list is only vertebrate animals. So it seems like you care only about vertebrates, not all animals.

     

    As we get to dogs, cats, rabbits (small mammals), large mammals, and primates, the cost to use those animals (purchase and housing costs) increases a lot. Notice that, if we really did this based only on closeness to us, we would use primates 99% of the time.

     

    Why should we waste a living creature's life to test out makeup

    or shampoo products!

     

    Because, until recently, we had no other way to determine if those products were safe for humans. Now, however, cultured human fibroblasts are used.

     

    Sometimes it is medicines to help humans, but it isn't doing ANYTHING for the animals, now is it!? It is totally not fair.

     

    Irrelevant. However, I do call your attention to the drugs and surgical prodecures used by vets. Those animals did benefit from animal research, didn't they?

     

    Research reveals that only 5 to 25% of the animal tests and human

    results are agreeable! Most of the drugs passed by animal tests are

    now discarded as useless to humans – then why test in the first place?

     

    To eliminate all the possible drugs that are harmful to humans. You forget that a lot of the animal testing is for safety. If the drug is harmful to a rat, then it is probably harmful to a person, also.

     

    Think about it. Living creatures are now our supplies for an experiment, basically saying they are as useless as a piece of pipecleaner, or glitter

     

    That's a bad non-sequitor. Also apples and oranges. Yes, living creatures are part of the "supplies" for an experiment, but are far more useful than a pipecleaner or glitter. Rather, they are as useful as a pipet, pipet aid, cell culture media, cell culture plates, electrophoresis plates, etc. You've got to compare animals with the other supplies used in experiments, not with things that are not used in experiments.

     

    There are actually more than 400 different ways that people can

    effectively replace animal experiments.

     

    Please document them. In particular, please document the way I can replace animal experiments in looking at new treatments for non-union fractures or degenerative disc disease. That is my current research, and I'm required to list any possible alternatives to animals in the IACUC forms. If you have such an alternative and really want to stop animal research, then you need to tell me which of those "400 ways" will replace animal experiments in my area.

     

    There is no doubt that medical progress can be achieved without abusing animals.

     

    Now you raised another point -- abuse. If you mean that any use of animals = abuse, then history shows that medical progress cannot be achieved without using animals. If abuse = inflicting pain without without the appropriate pain medication, then yes, most medical progress (except neurobiology) can be achieved without abuse.

     

    I think I have proved my point.

     

    Think again.


    Merged post follows:

    Consecutive posts merged

    My lab technician brought up an interesting point (he was commenting on my doing IACUC forms):

     

    People will allow the most inhumane killing of mice and rats in their homes, but want lots of restrictions on how to treat them in research.

     

    I wonder if any of the people advocating "animal rights" allows mice and rats to live in and freely roam in their houses or whether they set out traps and poisons to kill them. If animals have "rights" in regard to research and can't be killed in the course of research, then how can animal rights advocates allow the killing of mice and rats that set up housekeeping in the homes of people?

  17. I know that at the university I'll be attending in the fall, there is none going on.

     

    How is abiogenesis viewed by the scientific community? Is there much abiogenesis research going on in universities?

     

    Which university are you attending?

     

    Abiogenesis is viewed as being almost certain. There is, however, quite a wide range of theories on how abiogensis can happen. There is the Protein First theory, Fox's protocells, RNA World, and the Hypercycle theory.

     

    There is little funding and few funding sources for abiogenesis research. NIH does not fund it (concentrating mostly on research related to understanding life that already exists). That rules out the major funding of biological research in the USA. NASA used to fund abiogenesis research, but NASA's research budget has been severely cut over the last decade or so. There is some funding thru

     

    I see Gerald Joyce had an article in a recent issue of Science showing a system of 2 RNA molecules that catalyzed each other's synthesis. But if you go to PubMed and enter "RNA, world" as your search term, you are going to get over 20 articles published just this year on that abiogenesis theory.


    Merged post follows:

    Consecutive posts merged
    wherein the digital information of genes just spontaneously occurred somehow—“Poof!”—amongst the chemical analogues.

     

    Scrappy, once again you are confusing "directed protein synthesis" with abiogenesis. Directed protein synthesis is where you have genes that code for specific proteins.

     

    No one is saying you get that by "poof". You need to abandon that strawman. We've given you one paper that outlines a route from the RNA world of RNA acting as enzymes to build proteins to directed protein synthesis. In doing a PubMed search for Seraph on RNA world I just came across two recent papers proposing a different route to directed protein synthesis:

     

    http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pubmed&pubmedid=17540026 Look at this one carefully. It discusses how the "digital code" arose. Not "poof", but very slowly.

     

    Here's the second one:

     

    "1: Orig Life Evol Biosph. 2009 May 26. [Epub ahead of print]

     

    A Specific Scenario for the Origin of Life and the Genetic Code Based on

    Peptide/Oligonucleotide Interdependence.

     

    Griffith RW.

     

    Department of Biology, University of Massachusetts Dartmouth, North Dartmouth,

    Massachusetts, 02747, USA, rgriffith@umassd.edu.

     

    Among various scenarios that attempt to explain how life arose, the RNA world is currently the most widely accepted scientific hypothesis among biologists. However, the RNA world is logistically implausible and doesn't explain how translation arose and DNA became incorporated into living systems. Here I propose an alternative hypothesis for life's origin based on cooperation between simple nucleic acids, peptides and lipids. Organic matter that accumulated on the prebiotic Earth segregated into phases in the ocean based on density and solubility. Synthesis of complex organic monomers and polymerization reactions occurred within a surface hydrophilic layer and at its aqueous and atmospheric interfaces. Replication of nucleic acids and ranslation of peptides began at the emulsified interface between hydrophobic and aqueous layers. At the core of the protobiont was a family of short nucleic acids bearing arginine's codon and anticodon that added this amino acid to pre-formed peptides. In turn, the survival and replication of nucleic acid was aided by the peptides. The arginine-enriched peptides served to sequester and transfer phosphate bond energy and acted as cohesive agents, aggregating nucleic acids and keeping them at the interface."

  18. Well, thank you? But I am thinking alternatives to mainstream here. I am familiar with what you say about the mass of the photon from the mainstream perspective.

     

    This has nothing to do with "the mainstream perspective"! This is DATA. Observation. That observation is independent of the theory it is testing. Photons don't have mass whether General Relativity is true or not. You seem to be under the impression that data changes when we change theories. NO! Objects accelerate under the force of gravity on earth at 32 ft/sec^2 under Newton's theory of gravity and Einstein's. They must accelerate at that rate under your theory, too.

     

    I would like to restate that the mainstream answers to the cause of mass and gravity are not connected, and they deal with theories that aren’t compatible.

     

    First, please explain what you think are the "mainstream answers to the cause of mass and gravity". Then explain how they are not "compatible".

     

    The source of mass in our universe according to Higgs theory is a very massive particle that decays into fundamental particles that we recognize (over simplified but I am not teaching you about HT, just acknowledging it).

     

    This isn't "Higgs theory" but instead is the Standard Model of particles. What you are talking about is how particles get mass in guage theory! First you need to understand and be correct about the current theories before you can even start on alternatives. Otherwise your "alternatives" are nothing more than strawmen.

     

    If we can’t find the Higgs mechanism, then does that make us rethink the source of mass?

     

    The LHC is trying to find the "Higgs particle". And yes, if they can't find it it will cause a rethink. But your "anticipation" can already be tested against known data, and it fails that test.

     

    Do you even consider it possible that there is a realm where physical phenomena occur that affect the lowest level that we can detect?

     

    ROFL! That has been the history of physics! Atoms that we can't detect that cause the behavior of gasses that we can. Electrons we can't detect that cause the behavior of electricity. Quarks that cause the behavior of protons and electrons, and now strings and 'branes.

     

    Listen carefully: It's not that I am rejecting your idea because it is new, but because data we already have falsifies it! IOW, I am treating it just like any other scientific theory, including my own. I regularly falsify my own theories about stem cells and tissue regeneration. I've just falsified my theory that bone regeneration by adult stem cells in a bone defect will be by endochondral ossification. At the one week time point, where I should have seen cartilage (if my theory was correct), I didn't find any. Theory falsified.

     

    And if there was such a level do you consider that it would negate much of what we think we know.

     

    It won't negate the data we have. It can't.

    I understand why we are not able to communicate, and I don’t like it any more than you do.

     

    I understand why. You don't want your "theory" to be wrong. You have become emotionally involved with it. You can't do that if you really want to do science. As you said, "science is tentative", including your theory. You don't consider your own theory to be tentative, just other people's. So instead of admitting it's falsified, or even working at it to the point where you can test it yourself against known data, you make up these excuses. I'm truly sorry for that, but it's your problem and you'll have to deal with it.

     

    Let me ask you if you think that the physical picture that I have described (we are both wasting each other’s time if you have no clue what I mean by the physical picture) can be quantified, since that is what you are asking for? What do you think the amount of an energy quantum is in the realm that I am trying to discuss?

     

    Of course it can be quantified. It must to be of any use. As I told you, we already know what an energy quantum must be. But for you, you can at least get a series of possible values by calculating what the quantum has to be for 1) a mass to have an acceleration of 32 ft/sec^2 on earth, 2) the electron to orbit the proton in a hydrogen atom, 3) a photon to deviate around the sun to displace the stars behind it to the observed positions. If your theory won't account for those effects we observe, it's worthless, no matter how much you think it unites mass and gravity.

     

    If you deal with me by giving me mainstream answers, you are happy, you are satisfied because you have given me the chance of say, “OMG, I didn’t know what the mainstream says about mass and gravity, forget all my ideas”.

     

    You mistake "mainstream ideas" for data! You must deal with the observations that people have already made. For instance, Planck quantized energy. If you are going to quantize it further (and 10-34 joules is very small, then multiples of that new quanta are going to have to equal Planck's figures. Because that is the observation.

     

    We cannot yet detect any such level of order so either I drop it in the face of your flat rejection from a mainstream perspective that I am already well aware of, or you deal with ideas that suggest a flawed mainstream.

     

    Or we realize you are making ad hoc hypotheses to avoid falsification. Remember, you said photons must have mass. Well, how much mass do they have to have to deflect around the sun the way Einstein saw? Is that mass within the detectable limits of experiments to detect mass in a photon? I'm saying "yes" because those detectable limits are so very low that we can detect masses well below that of a neutrino.

     

    But you won't even do the math to find out, just make character attacks that I will only accept the "mainstream". Frack no! I'm testing your theory just like the "mainstream" was tested. It's just that your theory doesn't survive testing.

     

    If you go your way, you have to find the Higgs or go fish, and you have to ignore the shortcomings of GR and spacetime.

     

    No, I don't. Nor do I. It's not a question of accept GR or take your theory. I can find shortcomings in both.

     

    I am probably going to look for ideas of how it is possible to couple mass and gravity instead of accepting that a mathematical construct can affect the physical universe.

     

    Unless your idea can be put into mathematics so that we can see if it yields the observations we already have (and makes predictions of observations we should only see if your idea is correct), then your "possible" is worthless. There are literally millions of ways we can imagine to "couple mass and gravity". What matters is testing those to see if they are correct or not. You don't care about that part. You only want to imagine something and then declare it correct and avoid testing.

     

    The scientific method has to start with ideas. If the ideas are pertinent to a completely different set of circumstances, the known data from the wrong environment doesn’t apply.

     

    The second sentence is where you are off the rails. The known data always applies. The data isn't what it is because of the theory we think is correct. Data doesn't change when we change theories.

     

    "Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome." SJ Gould, Science and Creationism, ed. by Ashley Montagu, 1984.

     

    The data showing photons have no mass doesn't change. The fact of the displacement of light by the sun doesn't change whether we have your theory or Einstein's.

     

    What you are doing is a major crime in science: rejecting data because it doesn't match with your theory.

     

    Now wait. I don’t think you are telling me that the measures of the Planck regime are measures of a quantum increment of energy. They are measures of various aspects of the smallest realm that can be addressed in science, and that are helpful to use to do the math.

     

    No, they are quantum increments of energy. It is actually a physical quantum. That's why they are "constants". All levels of energy we observe are multiples of the Planck constant.

     

    Now, you perhaps think there is a level below that and that the Planck constant is a multiple of it, but you can't deny that the Planck constant is a quantum.

     

    As was discussed a couple of posts back, no one is disputing equivalence. But if you think that E = mc^2 is explicit enough to addresses a precise unit of energy of which all mass is composed, then again, I missed that in the mainstream science.

     

    You disputed equivalence. However, consider the Planck constant. That gives you a precise unit of energy that you can plug into the equation for E and then solve for m. The precies unit of energy of which all mass is composes would be Planck constant divided by the speed of light squared.

     

    Here is a case of you wanting to rush away from what I am trying to talk about by not pointing out where I was being contradictory.

     

    I don't have unlimited time. I skipped that to get to the falsification.

     

    Did you really say, “give me a precise number”? So you think by now, if I have been looking at the ideas for awhile, I should be able to have postulates, hypotheses, valid tests, test results and quantification? I am dragging my feet then.

     

    Yes, you are. What is the mass of a photon necessary to give the displacement of seen? What is the mass of a photon necessary to account for changes in motion of an electron when it drops a level inthe atom as it emits that photon. C'mon, you have change in position, the mass of the electron, so you should be able to calculate the mass of the photon in your theory.

     

    You have not solved the problems of what causes mass, gravity and the initial expansion of the universe.

     

    I don't have to. We are testing this theory to see if it is correct or not. To say this theory is incorrect does not require that I have a correct theory. Why would it?

  19. Medicine: Much to learn, long hours during training (college, med school, residency), salary $100,000 + when done. Could be long hours depending on sub-specialty.

     

    Environmental science: not quite so long in training and hours will be less. Salary much less, probably not above $70,000 with Ph.D.

     

    Not familiar enough with the other 2 to comment.

  20. having some plants grow faster will help the world better than just cutting co2 down

    also bigger birds so photosynthesis will not be a problem if the birds eat less

     

    Cetus, many birds are insectivores and we want them to eat a lot of insects! Some eat fruit and spread the seeds as they go thru their digestive tract, so we don't want them to eat less because that would result in fewer trees. Ecosystems are complicated balances and disrupting them by having birds eat less is going to have a lot of negative consequences that far outweigh any reduction in CO2 that might result.

     

    Also, getting a few plants to grow faster isn't going to eliminate enough CO2 to matter. The bit extra isn't going to compensate for all the plants killed as the Amazonian rainforest is cut down.

     

    So no, cutting CO2 down is going to help the world a lot more.

  21. Actually it depends on the phase. After S (as I mentioned earlier) a single chromsome consists of two DNA (identical) molecules. So double the amount for that time.

     

    Sigh. Sometimes you guys get a bit too nitpicky. :) The OP was clearly referring to G1 phase. paul clearly was confused about the relationship between chromosome and DNA molecules. If he knows that one chromosome = one DNA molecule, then paul (when he comes to learning S phase) will clearly realize that copying the chromosome will mean that there are 2 DNA molecules at that point. And, in the mitchondria, one chromosome = 1 DNA molecule there, too. So when paul gets to mitochondrial DNA, he will be able to work it out.

     

    Please, try to understand what the question is asking and then answer it in the simplest terms that are still sufficient. That will be a lot more help than going into unnecessary details. Try to focus on the needs of the questioner and not either showing off how much you know or scoring "points" off me when I don't give every possible permutation.

  22. Are we just talking now or are you expecting equations and quantification?

     

    I thought I was crystal clear: I am talking equations and quantification. That's what Einstein had. Supposely you "have been building my ideas over several years on various forums" but you don't have the equations and quantification for known data? Boy, have you wasted not only your time but everyone else's! No offence, but you have.

     

    I don’t have equations for this but I believe that the idea could be put into mathematical terms but not by me. I even asked for help doing that on one thread in another forum but no luck.

     

    It must be done by you. Learn the math!

     

    You have referred to my posts as theory and as you may note I have never called it theory, only ideas, and I tell each person who reads it as theory that it is not.

     

    It's a theory. Hypotheses/theories are statements about the physical universe. You are making statements about the physical universe: photons have mass; space is not curved, etc. There is no hierarchy of certainty as you go from idea to hypothesis to theory. Each of those can be 1) untested, 2) falsified, or 3) supported.

     

    What Klaynos and I are doing is testing your theory against known data. That data, so far, is falsifying the theory.

     

    My way of learning is to test my ideas in the cauldron of the forums,

     

    Not the way to test your ideas. What you want to do is deduce consequences from your ideas and then test those consequences against known data in an attempt to show your idea to be wrong. You need to be your harshest critic. Try your best to show that your theory is wrong. That's how theories/ideas are tested in science.

     

    If I had it crafted into a theory I would have to either do a better job of predicting gravitational effects, or it would have to better explain the connection between gravity and mass.

     

    As an idea it still has to do this. After all, that is how we are testing the idea: to see how well it predicts (accounts for) the known data of gravitation effects. Until your theory can do this, it's nothing.

     

    The idea I am using is that mass is composed of energy in quantum increments. Those quantum increments are all equal in the amount of energy they contain, i.e. they are quantum, but the quantity of energy in a quantum cannot be determined with our current technology.

     

    Sorry, but energy has already been quantized. Have you ever heard of Planck's Constant? Energy is quantized at 6.63 * 10E-34 Js. However, this has not allowed anyone to quantize gravity.

     

    Quantization of energy in these unknown increments is part of the ideas because it allows mass and energy to be equivalent,

     

    Been done. Ever hear of E = mc^2?

     

    Now, I'm going to skip over your contradictory discussion about the rocket. Remember when I said you test your theory against existing data in an attempt to falsify it?

     

    To answer your question about how I account for the deflection in my ideas if I don’t attribute it to curved spacetime, my idea is that photons have a tiny amount of mass.

     

    What mass do photons have? And give me a precise number! After all, if you have been working on your theory for several years, you should at least have gotten that far. However, as Klaynos has noted, all the experimental evidence says photons are massless. There is no way that we would not have detected mass in them. Your theory has a false consequence: therefore your theory is falsified. Sorry, but get used to it. We're done.

  23. An object can have a color because it emits light, rather than reflecting it. What color is a neon light?

     

    Nice nitpicking. "An object that does not emit light of its own has a color due to the wavelengths of light it reflects."


    Merged post follows:

    Consecutive posts merged
    Maybe it's invisible to us because it has the power to hypnotically convince us it isn't there. Or it's very, very small. Or it's protected by an SEP field. Or "pink" was meant metaphorically, to mean it's homosexual or something. Or it's power is such that it needs to conform to mutual exclusivity of contrary properties (unicorns are, after all, magic, and I'm not so arrogant as to assume I know how everything works). I'm far from ready to throw in the towel on this one, thanks.

     

    Welcome to ad hoc hypotheses! Ad hoc hypotheses are formulated to save hypotheses from falsification, which is what you are doing here, isn't it?

     

    The key to whether an ad hoc hypothesis is valid is whether it can be tested independently of the hypothesis it is designed to save. Can any of your hypotheses be tested independently? Well, we could use a microscope to see a very small IPU. But notice that unicorns are horse-sized creatures.

     

    Basically, Sisyphus, any scientific theory can be made unfalsifiable by the use of ad hoc hypotheses. So you have to be very careful about using them to avoid "throwing in the towel". Better to throw in the towel.


    Merged post follows:

    Consecutive posts merged
    Reasoning away the colour of the Invisible Pink Unicorn does nothing to disprove the existence of the Unicorn itself as an entity.

     

    In this case, yes. "invisible" and "pink" are depicted as essential parts of the entity. If it was not essential, then why specify pink? So, if you disprove the essential parts, then you've disproven that particular entity.

     

    What you are doing is proposing a different entity: a Unicorn.

     

    The only reason I chose the Invisible Pink Unicorn over the Flying Spaghetti Monster was because of the leapfrog pun, but my point still stands; we can't disprove the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, so by your logic, it "remains on the table as a possibility".

     

    Now you have an example of "a rose by any other name ..." If I say "glupforg has one proton and one electron" but you say "no, hydrogen has one proton and one electron", are we really saying different things? Have I really made a point by saying "glupforg" instead of "hydrogen"? You have "flying sphagetti monster" and "unicorn" have the same properties as "intelligent designer" or "deity". It's still an intelligent entity with the power to create a universe with the parameters we see.

     

    By whatever name you call it -- "intelligent entity", "deity", "flying sphagetti monster", "Yahweh", etc.,-- yes, it remains on the table as a possibility.


    Merged post follows:

    Consecutive posts merged
    If someone posits the need for a designer because of complexity or first cause, then this question is relevant, because it reveals the tail chasing that they are engaged in.

     

    First, I'm not using "designer" here for complexity. If you've read a number of my posts, complexity arises from the processes of physics, chemistry, and evolution. As I said, deity cannot be used as a hypothesis for direct action except for these two questions.

     

    Second, first cause is a legitimate scientific question. What is the initial Cause that started the chain of cause and effect we see in the universe? The idea that our universe has always existed has been falsified. You need a cause for it.

     

    The parameters could be arbitrary just as our earth might be arbitrary - then life adjusted to it, not the other way around.

     

    This isn't the same as the earth. As Swansout and others have pointed out, the overwhelming majority of values for the parameters give a homogenous universe where life cannot exist i.e. the universe is only hydrogen or only photons.

     

    Per Stenger, adjusting several constants, instead of just one at a time - can produce universes that might have life.

     

    Reference, please?

     

    Also, why is life special? Because we think it is? Every possible universe would be fine tuned - if no intelligent entity arises to ask the question, then it was fine tuned to be clean of this viral, messy life?

     

    Sigh. This is the argument I already gave! "The universe is not required to have the constants it does. If it had different constants, we simply would not be here to observe it." This is why SAP is bad logic and cannot be used as proof of deity or an intelligent designer. Read carefully, that the constants are what they are allows the hypothesis of an intelligent entity (let's not use "designer" because that confuses this with Intelligent Design theory, and we aren't talking about that) making the universe. Until we can falsify that hypothesis, it stays on the table like all the other hypotheses we can't falsify, i.e. multiple universes.


    Merged post follows:

    Consecutive posts merged
    I was meaning that the "SAP" was altered in the way I described. The "AP" as you called it is not even considered an anthopic principle at all in physics. It is just confroting data with theory.

     

    I have found reference in physics papers to the AP as stated. You didn't describe how the SAP I stated was altered.

     

    The classic example is the baryon asymmetry of the universe. The Standard Model doesn't have enough CP violation in it to explain why there is more matter than antimatter. If matter and antimatter were created in equal amount in the big bang, and asymmetry since has to be caused by this CP violation (and the other Sakharov conditions).

     

    But one could argue, maybe there has always been more matter than antimatter and we don't need CP violation at all (in other words, maybe the big bang model is wrong).

     

    Alternatively, a trivial extension of the SM would include neutrino masses, and a sterile right-handed neutrino in order to give the neutrinos a small mass via the see-saw mechanism. If so, then there could be CP violation in the neutrino sector which could provide enough CP violation to solve the problem.

     

    First, I don't see how the AP is being used here to contradict the SM. Instead, we have an observation that the universe exists of matter. That's different than the fine-tuned constants.

     

    Second, what you have here is 1) falsification of the SM and 2) ad hoc hypotheses to try to save the SM. The observation is CP violation in SM doesn't produce enough asymmetry to have a universe of matter: http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/print/61

     

    So, how do we "save" the SM? You give 2 ad hoc hypotheses to do so:

    1. The universe started with more matter and the standard hot BB theory is wrong.

    2. Extend the SM so that neutrinos have mass.

     

    Both should be independently testable.

     

    However, there's a third ad hoc hypothesis: matter/antimatter didn't all annihilate each other and there are pockets of anti-matter out there: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16780-antimatter-mysteries-1-where-is-all-the-antimatter.html

  24. If you say so. But I'm talking about biological life, the kind that with hereditary tools. Your kind of life could include crystals and sea form.

     

    No, the definition of life does NOT include crystals and sea foam. Remember, all four characteristics have to be present. Crystals grow, but they don't respond to stimuli or have metabolism. Sea foam reproduces and responds to stimuli, but doesn't have metabolism. Fire grows, reproduces, responds to stimuli, and has catabolism. But it doesn't have metabolism. Only biological life, so far, has all four.

     

    What you have done is attach an unnecessary characteristic to "life" -- hereditary tools. In particular, you demand that life " carries digital information forward from generation to generation." That isn't necessary to be alive. The protocells have heredity and carry information from generation to generation. You have never countered the arguments and data concerning this.

     

    Please show me a form of biological life that doesn't require genetics.

     

    LOL! You are still hung up on what I said you were: modern life. Thanks for proving my point. Also showing that you aren't really listening to what people are saying. All modern life has directed protein synthesis. But that doesn't mean that all life must. And I just did show you a form of life that doesn't require genetics! The protocells.

     

     

    American Scientist is a completely different publication than Scientific American! No wonder I couldn't find it looking at Scientific American, you got the magazine wrong.

     

    It's your cup of tea. Interesting that the authors stay clear of any mention of how chemical analogues get transformed into digital information.

     

    What are "chemical analogues" to you? But actually, the article did mention it:

    "Shelley Copley at the University of Colorado at Boulder has been sorting out the intermediate chemistry leading to the current nucleic acid–protein system of genetic coding, with an eye toward resolving the chicken-and-egg problem. These experiments represent a major paradigm shift from the top-down control envisioned in RNA World scenarios. Rather than supposing that a few large RNA molecules control the adaptation of a passive small-molecule reaction network, Copley supposes that whole networks of intermediate molecules support each other on the path toward complexity. In this experimental setting, networks of small and randomly synthesized amino acids and single RNA units aid each others’ formation, assembly into strings and evolution of catalytic capacity. Both types of molecules grow long together. Complexity, adaptation and control are distributed in such networks, rather than concentrated in one molecular species or reaction type. Distributed control is likely to be a central paradigm in the development of Metabolism First as a viable theory. We eagerly anticipate more experimental efforts like these to explore the many facets of small-molecule system organization."

     

    Notice the bold. What you call "digital information" is directed protein synthesis. Instead of having this "poof" into existence, Copley is looking at proteins and RNA formed by chemical reactions. The formation of proteins is exactly what the protocells is all about. Proteins are formed from single amino acids by heating. You don't get "small proteins", but large ones. The proteins then make RNA. The RNA in turn then helps to make proteins.

     

    This is fine...for the chemical analogues. How about the digital information?

     

    The protocells are living cells, not "chemical analogues". For one thing, the protocells are composed of chemicals, not "analogues".

     

     

    It is a "Poof!" theory—Poof! And there you are with a digital genetic alphabet.

     

    No, far from "poof". First you have the protocells making RNA. Now you have the RNA for the RNA World Hypothesis. Second, you have the observation that proteins with preponderance of particular amino acids associate with RNA/DNA with a preponderance of particular bases. That's the start of the type of association you need for directed protein synthesis. Then you have the observation that ribosomes with just RNA can make proteins. From that you move to particular RNAs covalently binding particular amino acids. That's transfer RNA. NOW you have a "digital genetic alphabet". Many, many steps in between.

     

    luscapa, one of our posters, GDG, was kind enough to seed me a PDF of the Poole et al. article.

     

    I wish he'd sent me one. But I found it on my own.

     

    Their consideration even includes a route from prebiotic conditions (late RNA-world phase) to eukaryotic organisms before degenerating (my term) into prokaryotes (I’ve never thought of that).

     

    Other people have. There is an extensive literature proposing the eukaryotes came first and that prokaryotes were derived from them as the introns were excised.

     

    I am not so easily led down that hopeful path to the garden where “metabolic networks…spring up full-grown from a primordial soup.”

     

    That's exactly what happens with the protocells. Because each protocell is formed from quintillions of proteins, each has at least some proteins with all the catalytic properties of a metabolic network. Or several metabolic networks. Those networks would not be efficient as those in modern cells (product of 3.8 billion years of evolution), but the evidence is that the metabolic networks necessary for life do exist within the protocells. After all, there is the metabolic network to make proteins and another to make nucleic acids.

     

    This is just one of the cool things about the protocells: they provide, ready-made in just two steps, the metabolism and metabolic networks of life.

     

    What you really mean by "digital information" is that a particular RNA molecule with a particular anti-codon (3 bases), always binds to a particular amino acid. This RNA molecule with the amino acid attached (tRNA) then binds to the 3 complementary bases on a messenger RNA molecule. Let's discuss the Poole et. al. article because it gives a pathway for this to happen.

  25. Who designed the designer ?

     

    Irrelevant right now. We don't know if there is an intelligent agent as designer. If and when we find that there is one, then is the time to ask that question.

     

    Think of it this way: when scientists were trying to determine if the entity called Big Bang actually existed/happened, asking "what caused the Big Bang?' was irrelevant. We didn't know (and still don't) but that has no effect on whether Big Bang exists or not.


    Merged post follows:

    Consecutive posts merged
    That is not quite the definition used in my field (though it may be in yours - I don't know).

     

    Which is not the definition? The SAP or the AP? And what definition is used "in your field"? AP is, if anything, in the field of physics.

     

    though I stress that it is a rather weak constraint and is often ignored. (The Standard Model itself would fail this test.)

     

    I don't see how it could be ignored. The universe is data. If the proposed hypothesis does not produce the universe that exists, then it can't be right. Falsified by existing data.

     

    How exactly does the Standard Model fail the AP? From what I have read, the constants are arbitrary in the Standard Model. IOW, there is nothing in the Standard Model to dictate what the constants are.

     

    Your "SAP" is almost the anthropic principle as used in String Theory, but instead they would say "those constants must be fine tuned in any universe we exist in". This gets around your logical error,

     

    This is an alternatively logically correct way to phrase the AP. Notice that the SAP says the universe itself MUST have the constants. That is, there is no other choice but that the universe has the constants. This version is correct in that, for us to exist, the constants must be what they are. This changes the "must" from the universe itself to our existence, which is correct.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.