Systems biology, is it pseudoscience?

[metatron]

metatron' date=' I've been interested in what may be systems science for a while, so I attemted to read the first link you gave. Most likely it was excerpts from other research, but if that's what you're going on I can see why you're so confused.

 

I could only get halfway through. Every researcher has aproached the topic from a different point of view. Every one has used different techniques, every one has used different vocabulary. Most of them don't relate to each other outside of a general philosophy[/i'].

QUOTE]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

I started this post as a control to gauge peoples understanding of chaos and how it applied to evolution.

 

Rather than using information about my own model I instead sighting others using the same systems science, so now i know its not me that’s confused.

 

It is just as you and Mokele have admitted, you don’t understand the basic science here, and that’s fine these forums are places to share view points. If your not interested in this field don’t post, what’s the point. If you are interested ask questions.

 

It takes time to see this world of dynamics, its taking me a lifetime of study! not because of external demands but an internal drive.

 

Just as I'm compelled to create sculptures from stone, I have been driven to understand nature on every level I can.

This confusion you reffer to, comes from differing veiw points nothing more. I understand this now, from this thread, because it was started not with information about my model but others using the same systems veiw.

 

 

First, some more philosophy so you may gauge the value of this field of study.

 

Systems science is a way for us to understand life as a system of cooperative networks. This is an extremely important field of study, and is being applied currently to many problems.

 

This way of seeing the world is very important to our future, and represents the key in understanding how all systems evolve, adapt, create, and develop cooperative cohesive networks.

 

The world we are entering demands we understand more about building cooperation than just survival of the fittest. These outdated paradigms are becoming destructive. We are beginning to understand what befalls one affects the whole, whether it be environmental, economics, geo-politics or medicine.

 

What my discovery shows is how nature forms these cooperative relationships on the cellular level.

 

 

As I was discovering this process, I realized this spontaneous jump to a higher ordered state has been happening though all the stages of order from the big bang on. One system emerging from within another.

 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Emergence of a Science of Emergence

 

Prigogine's non-equilibrium Thermodynamics, Haken's synergetics, Von Bertalanffi's general systems theory and Kauffman's complex adaptive systems all point to the same scenario: the origin of life from inorganic matter is due to emergent processes of self-organization. The same processes account for phenomena at different levels in the organization of the universe, and, in particular, for cognition. Cognition appears to be a general property of systems, not an exclusive of the human mind.

 

A science of emergence, as an alternative to traditional, reductionism, science, could possibly explain all systems (living and not).

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

These fractually embedded systems forge new systems enternally by compressing information in a certain way.

 

This way is what can be observed in this artifact. At the time I was unaware of any need for additional theories concerning evolution. I had a good grasp of the Darwinian models and saw it as a cohesive whole.

This fossil changed all that, now I see that nature builds complexity over time in one layer and then collapses these systems at large into a point. These points representing a fractal of the larger one it is embedded in.

 

 

This "vesica attractor" shows that biological systems arose in the same fundamental way as the elemental and cosmological phases prior to the emergence of life.

 

This has been theorized in attractor models, and is currently being applied to the interacting genetic components in biological systems, reflecting changes in morphology over time, and has been theorized that these components could have been originally unified in a self-organizing process, but………. this is the first time an actual physical artifact represents how these process originated.

 

In other words, this could represent a rosetta stone of life.

 

 

This structure starts out simply enough as a mass of oolite spheres bound by cyanobacterial filaments and eukaryote cells, into a torus or bagel shaped mass.

 

This mass is rolled together by wave dynamics and comes to rest.

 

See image at; http://www.imagestation.com/album/?id=2128032952

 

Now here is were it gets complicated especially if your not familiar with chaos. the following is how this chaotic mass creates a higher ordered state. remember the spheres dissipate during this process leaving behind a geometrically connected structure of cells.

 

 

This is simply be understood as a process in which nature compresses information at large to a point.

 

Molecular and morphological mechanisms achieve a sudden self ordering in this dissipative structure, wherein environmental information is suddenly bound to a hierarchal internal system. From overall symmetry, to genetic level potentials.

 

This system forms all at once, from a fluid dissipative tours structure, though a geometric crystallization stage, to genomic algorithmic self-assembly stage. This process is powered by two connecting levels of flow, one of wave dynamics redirected into the structure by its shape, and one the chemical flow on the molecular level, [by the dissolving oolites in the microbial substrate.] These two flow patterns connect, and in doing so self-organize the physical components around this flow.[ see dissipative structure] [live rock, aragonite\ strontium]

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

This is a quote from Catastrophe Theory,

 

Semantic Models

In section 13.8 of Structural Stability and Morphogenesis, René Thom proposes the following definitions and their implications.

Every object, or physical form, can be represented as an attractor of a dynamical system on a space of internal variables.

Such an object is stable, and so can be recognized, only when the corresponding attractor is structurally stable.

All creation or destruction of forms, or morphogenesis, can be described by the disappearance of the attractors representing the initial forms, and their replacement (by capture) by the attractors representing the final forms. This process, called catastrophe, can be described on a space of external variables.

Every structurally stable morphological process is described by a structurally stable catastrophe, or a system of structurally stable catastrophes, on the space of external variables.

Every natural process decomposes into structurally stable islands, the chreods. The set of chreods and the multidimensional syntax controlling their positions constitute the semantic model.

 

When the chreod is considered as a word of this multidimensional language, the meaning (signification) of this word is precisely that of the global topology of the associated attractor (or attractors) and of the catastrophes that it (or they) undergo. In particular, the signification of a given attractor is defined by the geometry of its domain of existence on the space of external variables and the topology of the regulation catastrophes bounding that domain.

One result of this is that the signification of a form (chreod) manifests itself only by the catastrophes that create or destroy it. This gives the axiom dear to the formal linguists: that the meaning of a word is nothing more than the use of the word; this is also the axiom of the "bootstrap" physicists, according to whom a particle is completely defined by the set of interactions in which it participates.” quote

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Simply put, he is stating that nature creates these points of order [chreods] in the same fundamental way we create langage to compress information at large!

 

 

This is what I wrote prior to discovering this text and after I had extrapolated the information from the vesica attractor.

 

I think I may have an analogy that can better illustrate this model, and explain the phases { vesica attractor }

Here’s a little known fact……… one of the very first mediums that man developed to communicate with was light waves…… no kidding!

A hundred thousand years before fiber optic cable man developed whites in his eyes so they could signal to one another thoughts……. by the subtle nuances expressed by the shape and intensity in these flashes of light. The eyes became the windows to the soul.

Then as we all know we harnessed sound waves to communicate even more complex thoughts in language.

 

We then did something completely fundamental to evolution and at the same time astonishing, we developed a way to capture and contained these waves!

A simple clay tablet captured the sound and light of the universe into words.

This manifested space held a world between worlds. This is the essences of the vesica attractor.

 

A shared space for information to pass between two separate fields. An overlapping area of information focused into a central stable point.

This point than emanates its own wave function to any that can read it. Today right at this very moment you are looking deeply into a vesica attractor. This computer is the direct result of that clay tablet.

You are probably asking yourself that’s real interesting but what’s it got to do with your fossil find and your convoluted theory on evolution!

 

Everything, this is the same process that created life itself, but instead of people being connected, the universe was connecting itself to itself the separate fields were the elemental particles representing by myriads of tiny vesica attractors [cells] emerging from the elemental quantum soup. The other field is the macrocosm of stars planets black holes all emanating a spectrum of waves. I believe light waves probably initiated the formation of the first photosynthetic cells.

This is not what my manuscript deals with specifically, but I have been clear that life forms around a wave function.

 

What my paper deals with specifically is a complex assemblages of eukaryote cells that form around water waves and oolitic spheres. These waves are still pulsing at this very moment as you breath in, and breath out, as your heart beats to this rhythm of a primordial ocean. This is a contained wave trapped in a circuit captured by billions of tiny vesica attractor in the form of a cellular matrix that also crystallized and capture the universe of light sound and memory.

We not only capture and contain these waves, they are the fundamental forces that created us and sustains us.

We are emanating connecting points, between the universe within and the universe all around us........ We are the universes clay tablet.

[metatron]

 

I'll try and ask a question to see where on this spectrum you fit. Please describe the ETYMOLOGY of "oolitic sphere". Why did you come to use the word? If it's a placeholder for a mathematical form' date=' provide a few example equations. If it's a discription of a chemical structure, explain why a few common words wouldn't be properly discriptive. If it's an organizational catagory, decribe the organizational structure with some common examples. If it's a reused word, point me to the right dictionary.

 

The fact that you've used the word means that it is meaninfull. At this point I don't care WHAT it means, but please decribe WHY you use it. I thought it was one of those paleobiology words that I don't know about, but it seems to be unconventional after all. Why wasn't a conventional word good enough?[/quote']

 

 

Ok, firstly, The strata this origanated from develops layers of a microbial mats in fine silty mud, that is devoid of any particles, that would induce the growth of stromatalites, so instead you just find layers of caynobacteia. When fine particles our introduced, oolites are formed. These grain size spheres form layers that the cyanobacteria connect to forming a fabric that is then rolled by the same snowballing effect as the oolites.

Once this mass is formed it becomes a micro-environment for the single celled eukaryote that would act as a stem cell in this layered structure.This is a over simplification but the driving force is wave action.

 

Quote

"Waves of oscillation in open water, which is less than half their wavelength in depth, shape (by back and forth traction) the sediments on the floor into oscillation ripples. Under such conditions, in the marine environment in warm climatic zones, evaporation precipitates CaCO3 as aragonite on shifting particles. As these become coated, they grow, somewhat like rolling snowballs, into spheres called oolites. Once oolites have reached sand size, they can be easily redistributed by currents and so they travel as migrating submarine dunes or bars and come ultimately to rest, along with settling lime muds, in quieter water below the beveling level of the wave base."Quote

[mmalluck]

I think I get what you say about nature compressing information down into some other form. We see this in engineering often. There are so many formulas that are taken for granted, that take our unbounded world and simplify it. Compression of nature through math and science.

 

Let me see if I understand systems as you're describing them:

A level of order may arise from chaos, and from several of these ordered systems, a new organized larger system may arise. Does the larger system relate back to the smaller now sub-systems that make it up? Yes. Can a change in one of the subsystems effect the operation of the supersystem? Also yes.

 

It's just levels of abstraction. That's all. We use that in chip manufacture all the time. Do you really think people map out were each of the hundreds of millions of transistors in today's computer chips go? No! We plop down ALU units, memory units, buses, and registers. The individual transistors are no long important except in some situations.

 

How is this different from standard reductionism?

 

I propose that nature works through abstraction. It uses these levels of abstraction to move forward and no longer considers the smaller subunits except in certain cases.

 

 

I don't think I agree with the wave function stuff. You're making a very general point, because all energy, all force, and all matter, can be viewed as waves. We live in a analog world. Nothing we experience is anything but analog.

 

It's kinda like saying life arises from atoms, which is true, but not something unique. It just is.

[metatron]

It such a ubiquitous process we use in language, math and communication technology we forget nature invented this process first by creating cells .

 

I see this process as a collapse of information into a point, as the system at large reaches a threshold of complexity.

This point is then kept stable by its surrounding parent matrix.

 

 

 

Once these systems become self-replicating as in biological systems it can continue drawing additional information from these outer matrices.

This is the purpose of why living systems behave in this way. This instability enables the system to collect information in mathematical process {Algorithmic iteration} therefore the system builds more and more internal complexity , patterned after its surrounding matrices, or Environment.

 

Conciseness is merely another information gathering system that has been compressed from the biological system that surrounds it.

 

Communication technology is yet another compression point by our cognitive systems.

System emerge from within systems, and they all compress information from waves.

 

That’s what life is doing capturing information at large. Waves in the form of light and sound and compressing it into the quantum level.

[metatron]

Quote; How is this different from standard reductionism?

 

 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

These physics, biologists, and mathematicians deal in a systematic view of the world as patterns of relationships, rather than the traditional approach of reductionism. This type of ''systems view'' sees the world as patterns that contain information which can be utilized to see more patterns in a framework of connections that can be used as models. This type of science to me, represents an advanced perspective. A paradigm based not in the old hunter gatherer mentality, but on the predilection to see the universe as a network of cooperative functions, rather than unrelated parts to be collected and dispatched into categories.

 

Thank's for the feedback

[Ophiolite]

A paradigm based not in the old hunter gatherer mentality, but on the predilection to see the universe as a network of cooperative functions, rather than unrelated parts to be collected and dispatched into categories.

1) The hunter gatherers almost certainly saw their world as an integrated, mutually referential, patchwork.

2)Just because we classify things does not mean we are ignoring, or relegating, the heirarchy of inter-relationships that exist between the classified entities.

[Skye]

I may have missed it, but have you posted a mathematical model for your idea metatron?

[metatron]

1) The hunter gatherers almost certainly saw their world as an integrated' date=' mutually referential, patchwork.

2)Just because we classify things does not mean we are ignoring, or relegating, the heirarchy of inter-relationships that exist between the classified entities.[/quote']

 

 

 

Of course, it’s just that we are entering a time were the world is becoming more and more connected.

 

Science needs to make a shift in perspective, one that considers the whole system rather than just one part at a time.

 

Just as a child goes though stages of development from the id to ego to super ego . Society is leaning that there are repercussions to our actions.

 

Science needs to build cross disciplinary fields of study that allow for a wider perspective.

 

Global warming, economic instabilities and imbalances, genetic engineering, environmental destruction, are just a few of the, “parts over the whole” type of mentality. This short sightedness can no longer be sustained.

 

We are not recognizing these inherent connections to our outer support matrix, and how they operate.

Science needs to put more into teaching real philosophy how to question and to investigate any domain using these universal governing dynamics.

 

We need professionals in the academic, political and corporate world that can understand and evaluate how decision effect whole systems.

 

The only way to do this is though the educational system. The problem is these systems are not keeping up with how fast the world is changing.

[metatron]

I may have missed it, but have you posted a mathematical model for your idea metatron?

 

No, this is something I need much more work on. Forumulas are not my strong suit.

[Halucigenia]

Fossil Records Show Biodiversity Comes and Goes

Well, Dur, what a non headline there, anyone faintly acquainted with geological history should know that already.

 

There are many cycles known to Earth scientists, this 62 million year cycle is just another one that has not yet had a definite cause attributed to it. Other examples of known cycles are the eccentricity of the Earth's orbit, with main periods of 100,000 and 413,000 years, and in the tilt (obliquity) and precession of the Earth's axis with main periods of 41,000, and 21,000 years, respectively. These show up as sedimentary cycles and paleoclimate change such as the ice ages.

 

As your own post shows, Metatron, these cycles also show up as changes in biodiversity which is to say extinctions and originations. These changes in biodiversity would be due to environmental change driving natural selection, so are perfectly in tune with current accepted mechanisms of evolution. No further explanation is required such as "pulses of genetic information" (by the way what exactly do you mean by this term, do I need to read up on systems theory, or did you just make it up?)

Punctuated equilibrium may be associated with these cycles but not only to these cycles, I am sure that evidence of PE has been found that does not correspond to any cyclic events, in these cases it would just be due to random local environmental change. Which I guess is what Mokele meant by "There is no cyclical regularity to PE, only correlation with environmental change" i.e. that environmental change may have cyclical regularity and not every example of PE is related to cyclical environmental change.

[Halucigenia]

WOW, what a lot I missed while thinking about post #20

[Mokele]

It's metatron talking, you didn't miss anything important, just more of his psuedoscientific, uninformed babbling.

 

Mokele

[Skye]

No, this is something I need much more work on. Forumulas are not my strong suit.

This is probably why people find what you are posting to be pseudoscience, or speculation. As you probably know, a scientific hypothesis needs to be predicative, you need to be able to say if we have these conditions we'll end up with this result. I don't think that the verbal idea you have put forward does that yet. There's nothing wrong with that as such, alot of hypotheses are going to start out as a vague idea, but you'll have to turn it into something predicative for it to become scientific.

[metatron]

Well' date=' Dur, what a non headline there, anyone faintly acquainted with geological history should know that already.

 

There are many cycles known to Earth scientists, this 62 million year cycle is just another one that has not yet had a definite cause attributed to it. Other examples of known cycles are the eccentricity of the Earth's orbit, with main periods of 100,000 and 413,000 years, and in the tilt (obliquity) and precession of the Earth's axis with main periods of 41,000, and 21,000 years, respectively. These show up as sedimentary cycles and paleoclimate change such as the ice ages.

 

As your own post shows, Metatron, these cycles also show up as changes in biodiversity which is to say extinctions and originations. These changes in biodiversity would be due to environmental change driving natural selection, so are perfectly in tune with current accepted mechanisms of evolution. No further explanation is required such as "pulses of genetic information" (by the way what exactly do you mean by this term, do I need to read up on systems theory, or did you just make it up?)

Punctuated equilibrium may be associated with these cycles but not only to these cycles, I am sure that evidence of PE has been found that does not correspond to any cyclic events, in these cases it would just be due to random local environmental change. Which I guess is what Mokele meant by "There is no cyclical regularity to PE, only correlation with environmental change" i.e. that environmental change may have cyclical regularity and not every example of PE is related to cyclical environmental change.[/quote']

 

 

 

Fossil Records Show Biodiversity Comes and Goes

Contact: Lynn Yarris (510) 486-5375, lcyarris@lbl.gov

 

BERKELEY, CA – A detailed and extensive new analysis of the fossil records of marine animals over the past 542 million years has yielded a stunning surprise. Biodiversity appears to rise and fall in mysterious cycles of 62 million years for which science has no satisfactory explanation. The analysis, performed by researchers with the U.S. Department of Energy's Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab) and the University of California at Berkeley, has withstood thorough testing so that confidence in the results is above 99-percent.

 

 

 

“What we’re seeing is a real and very strong signal that the history of life on our planet has been shaped by a 62 million year cycle, but nothing in present evolutionary theory accounts for it,” said Richard Muller, a physicist who holds joint appointments with Berkeley Lab’s Physics Division, and UC Berkeley’s Physics Department. “While this signal has a huge presence in biodiversity, it can also be seen in both extinctions and originations.”

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

These scientist seemed to be qualified to say that they I don’t know. Its a mystery, we are going to have to think on this one. The answer my lie outside our the present Knowledge, ect.

 

 

 

 

This represents good basic science. The ability to say “I don’t know” There may be something to learn here.

 

To tell you the truth, I don’t know either but that's not going to stop me from thinking about it some more.

The main point is I was ask to back up my Theory by presenting evidence. so that’s what I did.

 

 

 

quote;” pulses of genetic information" (by the way what exactly do you mean by this term, do I need to read up on systems theory, or did you just make it up?)[/B]Quote

 

Part of how we create new information is by taking present knowledge and new information, along with new ways of seeing the world, and combining them into a cohesive models that can enlarge our scope of understanding.

 

Its not an either or proposition of parroting present text, or making something up.

 

This is what I am sure of though, This new model is showing clearly, major creative changes can only happen by a consideration of the whole system, What I am proposing is that there exist in the system a yet undiscribed original central life form {an archetype} that can acquire information and then release it in pulses like a wave pattern.

This fossil is showing that just prior to the Cambrian explosion complex life forms emerged, or more precisely where catalyzed directly from the environment at large.

These components of wave dynamics ,cellular metabolic systems, tensional geometry, combined with a silicon-carbon based matrix.

Keep in mind the fossilized embryonic form emerged directly from the environment. This enabled it to form a “super-structure” made up of elements that make it extremely stable, I will talk more on this later if am I not shifted to the pseudoscience’s. Just keep an open mind, this has never been postulated before and it does follow an informational pattern.

 

As a sculptor I can tell you this the only way to create morphology, is by considering the compositional whole as it relates to the individual components.

 

I am also aware of all the factors that go into accumulating information from Natural selection\ random mutation. These are the probability patterns. These probabilities need to be placed in a framework where they can be coordinated into composition to bring about change. And at the same time keep systems stabilized.

 

These systems models must adhere to an even more rigorous standard of informational context than the present reductionism models, by fitting into an even larger framework that takes into consideration all the non-living stages of organization that occurred precededing the emergance life, and It is does!

One Example;

When a galaxy forms the first event is the formation of a black hole, as a result of this implosion of information, a signal is released in the form of a gravity wave. This wave pattern creates stars, these stars form around the central ‘archetype’ the black hole, in an evolving disk of dynamical information.

 

While at the same time the central black hole remains stable, connecting all points of information to one central point.

Now if you examine this disc you see that vortices form around second generation black holes, stabilizing a domain within a domain. And further still the more temporal aspect of solar systems embedded in the more eternal domain of the central black hole. This duality of the central archetype anchoring an internal evolving system, is how the universe is constructed.

[metatron]

This is probably why people find what you are posting to be pseudoscience, or speculation. As you probably know, a scientific hypothesis needs to be predicative,[/b'] you need to be able to say if we have these conditions we'll end up with this result. I don't think that the verbal idea you have put forward does that yet. There's nothing wrong with that as such, alot of hypotheses are going to start out as a vague idea, but you'll have to turn it into something predicative for it to become scientific.

 

 

The Second Ring of Life; The Vesica Attractor

by Christopher Humphrey

posted 18. February 2005 02:56

http://www.iscid.org/boards/ubb-get_topic-f-26-t-000007.html

 

 

"March 11, 2005 news releases | receive our news releases by email | science beat

 

 

Fossil Records Show Biodiversity Comes and Goes

Contact: Lynn Yarris (510) 486-5375, lcyarris@lbl.gov

 

BERKELEY, CA – A detailed and extensive new analysis of the fossil records of marine animals over the past 542 million years has yielded a stunning surprise. Biodiversity appears to rise and fall in mysterious cycles of 62 million years for which science has no satisfactory explanation. The analysis, performed by researchers with the U.S. Department of Energy's Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab) and the University of California at Berkeley, has withstood thorough testing so that confidence in the results is above 99-percent.

 

 

 

“What we’re seeing is a real and very strong signal that the history of life on our planet has been shaped by a 62 million year cycle, but nothing in present evolutionary theory accounts for it,” said Richard Muller, a physicist who holds joint appointments with Berkeley Lab’s Physics Division, and UC Berkeley’s Physics Department. “While this signal has a huge presence in biodiversity, it can also be seen in both extinctions and originations.”

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Thank's for pointing that out, feburary does come before march.

Good feedback.

I Know you are making a broader point than this, but I just realized the dates.

So thank's for mentioning prediction.

 

Yes indeed, I have some learning to do about how to communicate this information in a mathematical formula. Right now all I can say is the process is a algorithmic itineration initiated by a wave function-phi. among spheres in a contained matrix, acting as a fluid multidirectional cellular automaton That is catalyzing information at large into a point as the structure dissipates. Actually all the math may have been done by others all I need to do is combine them.

[Sayonara]

I have on several occasions attempted to introduce systems theory into the discussion on evolutionary process, but have been told that this view point is pseudoscience, so I am seeking some feedback on what is considered systems science and what is considered pseudoscience on this forum.

Unfortunately I don't have time to read the whole thread right now, but based on past experience of your approach to science I suspect that "systems biology" was not actually called pseudoscientific, but the way you used it was.

[metatron]

Unfortunately I don't have time to read the whole thread right now, but based on past experience of your approach to science I suspect that "systems biology" was not actually called pseudoscientific, but the way you used[/u'] it was.

 

I hope you can explain to me were I went awry, because I plan on pouring a lot more time and effort into this so you could save me from wasting my time.

[Hellbender]

The point about biological systems being irreducible complex is that in cannot be built bit by bit.

Now its obvious that Mokele is right; you really haven't studied evolution enough. Evolution works by modifying existing traits, keeping them working and beneficial to the organism in each stage of development. Irreducable complexity can only carry weight if one is completely ignorant of this fact. (I'm sure Michael Behe isn't, being a biochemist, but his books are selling pretty well, so what does he care)

[metatron]

Now its obvious that Mokele is right; you really haven't studied evolution enough. Evolution works by modifying existing traits, keeping them working and beneficial to the organism in each stage of development. Irreducable complexity can only carry weight if one is completely ignorant of this fact. (I'm sure Michael Behe isn't, being a biochemist, but his books are selling pretty well, so what does he care)

 

 

This thread is about systems biology, If you want to debate the IDst go to the arn board

[Mokele]

Indicating the obvious and blantant holes in your understanding of evolution are cogent to the thread, since it shows you are not qualified to start formulating theories about it.

 

Not that we couldn't tell that from the start.

 

Mokele

[Skye]

I hope you can explain to me were I went awry, because I plan on pouring a lot more time and effort into this so you could save me from wasting my time[/b'].

The problem is that you are trying to apply a mathematic discipline to an area of biology without first understanding the mathematics in any depth. This means that you don't actually have a specific model yet, only ideas of how it may work. This makes it impossible for anyone, even someone with a good knowledge of systems theory, to evaluate your idea. What you need to do is to get an understanding of the mathematics and put together the model so that people can evaluate your idea.

[metatron]

The problem is that you are trying to apply a mathematic discipline to an area of biology without first understanding the mathematics in any depth. This means that you don't actually have a specific model yet, only ideas of how it may work. This makes it impossible for anyone, even someone with a good knowledge of systems theory, to evaluate your idea. What you need to do is to get an understanding of the mathematics and put together the model so that people can evaluate your idea.

 

 

Yes, your right this all needs to be boiled down to the math........But,

Most people that understand system theory are not mathematicians. They read books written by people like Fritjof Capra.

 

He is to systems theory what Carl Sagan was to cosmology.

He's brought this science out of the scientific community, and made these concepts understandable to us in the general public. This is very important point. You do not have to have a Phd in order to understand what is going on in the science today. All you need is the ability to Think and study.

 

So its not impossible, after all....... I understand it.

 

Good feed back, Thanks

[metatron]

Indicating the obvious and blantant holes in your understanding of evolution are cogent to the thread' date=' since it shows you are not qualified to start formulating theories about it.

 

Not that [i']we[/i] couldn't tell that from the start.

 

Mokele

 

 

Keep working at building those alliances Mokele, and I’ll keep studying and communicating the science.

[Sayonara]

If it weren't for that deliberate and unnecessary provokation, I would have indulged you by allowing this to continue.