Darwin is tricky

[path_of_one]

Originally Posted by Bishadi

Never asked anyone once.

No, you just get upset and start with the personal attacks and swearing when your opinion is challenged.

That indicates that you aren't discussing with me, you are talking at me. You want followers, not discussion.

When someone wants discussion, they enjoy challenge. They enjoy synthesis and input. They value others rather than only themselves. They wish to learn as well as teach.

have you once asked about them?

Yes, but you have, so far, failed to flesh them out.

[Bishadi]

And that I want everyone in ignorant faith. LOL Pardon me, but it is a display of arrogance on your part to assume things about me.

seems I pushed the same button you did talking about how little I read

no more assumptions; equal ?

[Bishadi]

Originally Posted by path_of_one

Yes, but you have, so far, failed to flesh them out.

what? Do you understand the math? NO.

Do you understand that Darwin was correct and can see how it literally is shared thoughtout nature?

As you apparently realized there is no math in today's sciences to share how evolution actually performs.

as for me, if i wanted anything for my own, I would just publish, take the dozen or so nobels and go buy an island in the carribean or south pacific

there is no me, unless someone like you tries to suggest I am not qualified to comprehend what is being suggested

is like poking a lion... as again, this i never asked for a following, to be believed, to be accepted, or for anything..... I want nothing for me

already have ...................bliss

[path_of_one]

Originally Posted by Bishadi

me tinks that is a fib

you "tinks" wrong.

You are so sure of your own biases and assumptions, you fail to see a person who genuinely is eclectic and syncretic, and will read new references, if they are provided.

as all you did here was use words to disguise your intent

So now you're a mind-reader too, eh? You don't know my intent. I speak plainly. My intent is to challenge what I perceive to be (so far) insubstantial evidence for a poorly defined theory.

I'm asking for references because if it is substantiated and well-defined, then I'd like to read about it, as it sounds like it could be interesting.

have you don't any homework to see how the concept of entropy and planck are foolish

I only can sort of understand this sentence as it's garbled. What I'm asking you for is references for your ideas. As in- authors and titles. What built you toward your current ideas, and what you have written about your current ideas. It doesn't have to be published. Some longer discussion would be fine, with references to the background of your ideas. Some sort of research paper or something?

With nothing to read, and nothing to refer to, then how can I possibly evaluate, probe, discuss, respond?

did you see the embryo's and count the tail bones? Did not take a moment and realize you were observing evolution in a hurry?

I've observed evolution in many ways, but what is the point?

so basically you are not trying to do something of quality or trying to understand knowledge and how it will all combine.

Or, I do this differently from you, from a different perspective and field. You seem to imply only your ways are valid, only your ideas are true.

That is a surefire way to halt the progress of science. Science requires openness to change, to being wrong, to learning. This is the beauty of it.

you've been looking for flaws trying to make yourself feel good and make sense that you are doing it as anyone would........

And now we're back to the mind-reading. Lovely. I guess you can tell me all about myself, because you have that privileged knowledge, despite not knowing me at all.

I'm looking for flaws because this is the science section and a post on scientific topics. Scientists look for flaws and weaknesses in all arguments, and in so doing, they strengthen each other and the progress of theory. If Darwin did not look for flaws in his contemporaries' thinking, we would not have his theory. If others did not look for flaws in his theories, evolutionary theory would have stagnated.

If you cannot see the value scientifically of looking for flaws, of challenging everything, I cannot state it more clearly.

You attach emotions to me that do not exist and you presuppose my motives are personal rather than in any interest in actual science and learning. That only shows that you externalize your perceived negative expectations about others, as you do not know me, so you cannot know my intentions or my emotions.

If you have a question about my intent or emotions, try asking me. I am not hiding. I'm not the one getting upset and swearing and making personal attacks.

Debate is not the same as attack.

[path_of_one]

Originally Posted by Bishadi

As you define?

No, as is standard in cultural anthropology, the field that specializes in studying culture (and my field).

but fail to realize religions created the majority of the cultures ever to exists and it is only within the last 4-500 years that a separation of church and state even exhisted.

Religions did not create cultures. That is not historically or archaeologically factual. Cultures arise and religion may or may not be part of them. Generally, it is.

Does separation of church and state really exist now? Not much.

and that 99% of the religious texts in use were authored before 'culture and religion' separated.........

I never said that religion was not used for political power. To the contrary, if you read some of my posts.

Additionally, you have to distinguish between religions with texts (few in human history) and those without (many). Shamanic religions are quite different in their interaction with culture and tie to sociopolitical organization than Olympian and Monotheistic ones.

you make little sense; most every household and family on earth will teach their children the definitions of God before the kid even leaves the house....

Really? Mine didn't. And I have a lot of atheist friends whose parents didn't either.

I am sorry but your observances are of nothing to do with the thread....

How about you define what is appropriate in your responses and I will do the same for me. I can post what I wish.

Darwin's process of evolution is about as true as needing oxygen to breath...

Never said it wasn't. Though of course the details have become more illumined as people work on evolutionary theory.

and to first comprehend that EVERY WORD ON EARTH IS/WAS CREATED by MANKIND........ then be certain them books of faith are a little short of the truth...

Never said they weren't. The books, I think, point one toward humanity's understanding of the truth. Their historical practices and thoughts about the Divine.

[path_of_one]

Originally Posted by Bishadi

your credibility is already gone as well science is not your pursuit; but faithful observance is

Thanks for defining my pursuits for me. Because you know me soooo well.

you are not debating; you keep suggesting how flawed my knowledge base is.

Have you been in debate before? When people debate with me, they show me my weaknesses in my knowledge and my reason. Which is valuable, because it causes me to GROW, to strengthen.

you made it personal, not me....

I did not swear at you. I did not call you a "nut." I did not name-call at all.

So what exactly was personal about my posts?

it was like a person going to a auto dealership just to test drive the car with no intent of buying...... need anyone put a word to that type?

I test drive all cars in an attempt to build a better car in my garage. I'm that type. I'm not easily sold on anything. I generally take LOTS of test drives. Most of the time, it just shows me things I might want to add to my own car at home.

[path_of_one]

Originally Posted by Bishadi

you mean; the fathers are literally alive and in the flesh; in us?

Not entirely, but certainly sort of, if you think about it. Isn't that the point of genetics? But that is not what I was referring to.

share.... what other things in all of existence our predecessors left for our generations that assist in understanding a little more than their previous generations?

Art.

And trash. (Including, leftover buildings and junk)

What is art and what is trash is a matter of perspective.

And impact to the landscape.

And dead people.

I would say the goal is not to assist us in unhderstanding a little more. But rather, by understanding the past, we might make better decisions for the future. We might see the limitations we must recognize in order to overcome them. We can see the bars on our cage so we can escape.

only thing left would be MATH

That would be one thing. Not the only thing.

[path_of_one]

Originally Posted by Bishadi

seems I pushed the same button you did talking about how little I read

no more assumptions; equal ?

Look at the post. I never said you didn't read. I said it seemed there were key areas in which more reading would impact your theory. I was suggesting that there are areas that, if explore in more depth, would provide you with more nuanced knowledge and thus allow you to flesh out your ideas in a more comprehensible and accurate manner.

I said "it seems" because it does.

I did not make any accusations about whether or not you actually read.

Read my actual words, not what you project into them. I am generally pretty careful about my word choice.

[path_of_one]

Originally Posted by Bishadi

what? Do you understand the math? NO.

If you put out the math, then I can discuss it with mathematicians I know so they could explain it to me.

If you refuse to put it out there, then I can't understand it because you have posted nothing to understand.

I have to have something to comprehend it.

Do you understand that Darwin was correct and can see how it literally is shared thoughtout nature?

Yes, any evolutionist could.

As you apparently realized there is no math in today's sciences to share how evolution actually performs.

I'm not entirely sure at what level you are speaking. We do have math to help us understand and predict how evolution works in populations. There are mathematically based simulations, for example agent-based modeling, that allows us to modela and predict the evolution and spread of say, a bacteria, across a population. These are being refined in a variety of ways and it is a work in progress. This isn't what I do, but I'm aware of it and talked with folks who do it- very interesting stuff. There is work on how to model the spread and change of culture as well- basically, how ideas and behaviors are distributed, respond to external stimuli, and spread or not- how they impact human population dynamics and individual behavior.

Then I do think there is something in the Mandelbrot sets that speaks to evolution; we have a good thread on chaos theory in this forum. Naturally, I don't know if people are working on that or where they're at in the process, but I think the M-set speaks to the reality of the cosmos and the evolution of beings.

as for me, if i wanted anything for my own, I would just publish, take the dozen or so nobels and go buy an island in the carribean or south pacific

OK. The purpose of publishing is to advance the field. If Darwin had only told a couple friends and family about his theory (and Wallace likewise), would evolutionary theory swept science?

And, um, the Nobel Prize and life of academics doesn't usually make one that rich.

there is no me, unless someone like you tries to suggest I am not qualified to comprehend what is being suggested

Look at my posts. I didn't say that. I said there were areas of literature that seem to be lacking in informing your idea. I said nothing of your capacity or qualificaton for comprehension.

already have ...................bliss

If you want nothing, then why get upset? When I have bliss, I am unperturbed. I have peace.

[17th Angel]

....lolz

[Bishadi]

im sorry path of one....

i needed that

[Bishadi]

I'm asking for references because if it is substantiated and well-defined, then I'd like to read about it

This is old but important and the frame shares a real important concept which can be read as such; the software affect (can change) the hardware as the hardware affects the software. Keep that in mind as you review the publication. It shares how the structures have values with a range. In this the resonate wavelength as the cause in the literal energy sense. Meaning a rock (gene) can be hot or cold depending on its environment to change its position/usage in the genome construct.

So the publication offers a mathematical (algebraic) for to how genes evolve as well the literal application within a mass and energy frame can be associated to the same observed pattern of evolution.

SpringerLink - Journal Article

Robersy Sanchez and Ricardo Grau
Biotechnology Group, Research Institute of Tropical Roots, Tuber Crops and Banana (INIVIT), Santo Domingo, Villa Clara, Cuba


Received: 11 June 2004 Accepted: 17 December 2004
Abstract A Boolean structure of the genetic code where Boolean deductions have biological and physicochemical meanings was discussed in a previous paper. Now, from these Boolean deductions we propose to define the value of amino acid information in order to consider the genetic information system as a communication system and to introduce the semantic content of information ignored by the conventional information theory. In this proposal, the value of amino acid information is proportional to the molecular weight of amino acids with a proportional constant of about 1.96×1025 bits per kg. In addition to this, for the experimental estimations of the minimum energy dissipation in genetic logic operations, we present two postulates: (1) the energy E i (i = 1, 2, ..., 20) of amino acids in the messages conveyed by proteins is proportional to the value of information, and (2) amino acids are distributed according to their energy E i so the amino acid population in proteins follows a Boltzmann distribution. Specifically, in the genetic message carried by the DNA from the genomes of living organisms, we found that the minimum energy dissipation in genetic logic operations was close to kTLn(2) joules per bit.

[Bishadi]

Ooops here's the other one

[q-bio/0501036] A Novel Lie Algebra of the Genetic Code over the Galois Field of Four DNA Bases

A Novel Lie Algebra of the Genetic Code over the Galois Field of Four DNA Bases
Authors: Robersy Sanchez, Ricardo Grau

(Submitted on 27 Jan 2005 (v1), last revised 5 Oct 2005 (this version, v2))

Abstract: By starting from the four DNA bases order in the Boolean lattice, a novel Lie Algebra of the genetic code is proposed. Here, the principal partitions of the genetic code table were obtained as equivalent classes of quotient subspaces of the genetic code vector space over the Galois field of the four DNA bases. The new algebraic structure shows strong connections among algebraic relationships, codon assignment and physicochemical properties of amino acids. Moreover, a distance function defined between codons in the Lie algebra was demonstrated to have a linear behavior respect to physical variables such as the mean of amino acids energy in proteins. It was also noticed that the distance between wild type and mutant codons approach smaller values in mutational variants of four genes, i.e, human phenylalanine hydroxylase, human beta-globin, HIV-1 protease and HIV-1 reverse transcriptase. These results strongly suggest that deterministic rules in genetic code origin must be involved.

[Bishadi]

newer stuff

and remember this is in Cuba

http://xxx.lanl.gov/ftp/arxiv/papers/0805/0805.1128.pdf

arXiv.org Search

An algebraic hypothesis about the primeval genetic code

Robersy Sánchez

1, 2 and Ricardo Grau2
1 Research Institute of Tropical Roots, Tuber Crops and Bananas (INIVIT). Biotechnology Group. Santo Domingo. Villa Clara. Cuba.

2

Center of Studies on Informatics. Central University of Las Villas. Villa Clara. Cuba.

Classification

:
Applied Mathematics, Evolution.

[path_of_one]

Thank you, Bishadi. I really look forward to reading this stuff and busting out my search engines to help me understand it all.

I hope you understand, I was not being mean to you. I was pushing you because I think there may well be some great ideas in what you say, but as they are presented, it is nearly impossible to evaluate and comprehend them. I tried to be sensitive, but also honest and forthright about my thoughts on the matter, which is a tough combination to show over the internet.

It will take me probably about a week to read these articles and the doc you sent me, perhaps longer to understand it depending on who I can pester for further explanation. I will start a new thread or revive one once I get through the material.