Cells' Molecular Motor Diversity Confounds Evolution

[Keith&Co.]

Sure. The example is resistance to malaria conveyed by a mutation which also makes the person susceptible to sickle cell anemia. A mutation changes the genome is some manner - the issue is whether that mutation has enhanced or degraded the entire genome regardless what beneficial effects appear.

Okay, so anyway, rhutchin seems to NOW be saying that malarial resistance comes from a mutation (which is no longer a mutation, as long as it's something being passed down to succeeding generations, but we'll let that pass).

I would contend, here, that an organism with malarial resistance AND sickle cell anemia is MORE COMPLEX than the same organism without the resistance and without sickle cell. More by two DNA-based traits.
Even if one wants to try to claim that a susceptibility to malaria is a DNA trait, then it's still a positive result of complexity by the SCA.

Thus, mutation has been shown to increase complexity.

 

[Kharakov]

Feel free to provide a reference to scientific investigation that shows that the appearance of a resistance to antibiotics that would kill a population is an overall negative to that population.

As you might know, no one has looked at this yet.

Untrue.

Ok, along this line, certain resistances come at a cost.

So bacteria that produce a protein that doesn't allow binding of the toxin use more resources to produce the protein than the bacteria that do not produce the protein. In environments without the toxin, the bacteria that does not produce the toxin blocking protein can reproduce faster than the bacteria that uses resources to produces the toxin blocking protein, and they become prevalent.

The bacteria that produces the toxin blocking protein still exists, it just becomes an exponentially smaller portion of the total population of bacteria over time due to the quicker reproductive rate of the bacteria that doesn't produce the protein.

In addition, when there are periods of resource depletion, the bacteria that spend extra resources creating the toxin blocking protein might die off due to the greater amount of resources they consume to survive and/or reproduce.

So the 2 existing strains of bacteria have grown up next to one another, but the one is breeding like bunnies but vulnerable to certain toxins, and the other is breeding more slowly, a bit more sensitive to environmental resource fluctuations, but resistant to a class of toxins.

Not because there's no science for it, or because you can pinpoint errors in the science, but because the conclusion is that mutations can add traits to the gene pool's DNA. And that would mean that your god isn't necessary to explain...well, much of anything, really.

Except if God is literally applying evolutionary pressure upon us to form a more perfect race of beings, according to some idealized scenario that God has envisioned. And the tactic of explanation via natural laws, that are a specific form of that pressure, might miss the point entirely.

The position that God isn't involved is wrong. The position that evolution isn't occurring is wrong. Neither position encompasses the truth.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Except if God is literally applying evolutionary pressure upon us to form a more perfect race of beings, according to some idealized scenario that God has envisioned.

But if there's no evidence that that is what's going on, then rhutchin's objections are still not based on any science he's seen, or any failings of science to deal with evidence that doesn't exist.
the theory remains unmolested unless and until an observation can be made that requires a divine being to explain it.

And the tactic of explanation via natural laws, that are a specific form of that pressure, might miss the point entirely.

Or maybe there's no point to miss.
The theory of evolution, like all sciences, is neutral on the existence and actions of a deity. It just tries to describe what happened. Pressures worked on populations, mutations popped up, and were selected for, change happened.

If the actual historical truth of the matter is that "Pressures worked on populations, because gods, mutations popped up, because gods, and were selected for,because gods, change happened,because gods." Well, that really doesn't change anything in any textbooks. Science could never prove or falsify the actions of a skybeast, so it's something that may or may not be happening, but doesn't have weight in the discussion.

The position that God isn't involved is wrong.

Fine.
He's just invisible, then. That works, too.

 

[Kharakov]

But if there's no evidence that that is what's going on, then rhutchin's objections are still not based on any science he's seen, or any failings of science to deal with evidence that doesn't exist.
the theory remains unmolested unless and until an observation can be made that requires a divine being to explain it.

Yeah. It's not like there is something called "energy" that follows specific patterns of behaviors (like we do when we follow the axioms of mathematics), that sustains us, responds to us, etc.

And the tactic of explanation via natural laws, that are a specific form of that pressure, might miss the point entirely.

Or maybe there's no point to miss.
The theory of evolution, like all sciences, is neutral on the existence and actions of a deity. It just tries to describe what happened. Pressures worked on populations, mutations popped up, and were selected for, change happened.

Including the pressure to believe in a base cause. Even physics looks for a fundamental reality- positing a non-conscious base to reality will probably cause you to miss the truth entirely.

The only provable non conscious "forces" that we have knowledge of are the rules of mathematics, and other "rules" that we follow, which result in specific outcomes when followed, no matter what consciousness follows these rules. However, behind the following of these specific rules is a consciousness, even if the rules are followed non-consciously, with a focus on the outcome of the rules rather than following the rules themselves.

Science could never prove or falsify the actions of a skybeast, so it's something that may or may not be happening, but doesn't have weight in the discussion.

And once again the derogatory portrayal of a God as some being in the "sky" rather than some fundamental part of every being in the universe (something along the lines of energy, which you of course are comfortable perceiving as a non-conscious reactionary/causal force).

 

[bilby]

Yeah. It's not like there is something called "energy" that follows specific patterns of behaviors (like we do when we follow the axioms of mathematics), that sustains us, responds to us, etc.

And the tactic of explanation via natural laws, that are a specific form of that pressure, might miss the point entirely.

Or maybe there's no point to miss.
The theory of evolution, like all sciences, is neutral on the existence and actions of a deity. It just tries to describe what happened. Pressures worked on populations, mutations popped up, and were selected for, change happened.

Including the pressure to believe in a base cause. Even physics looks for a fundamental reality- positing a non-conscious base to reality will probably cause you to miss the truth entirely.

The only provable non conscious "forces" that we have knowledge of are the rules of mathematics, and other "rules" that we follow, which result in specific outcomes when followed, no matter what consciousness follows these rules. However, behind the following of these specific rules is a consciousness, even if the rules are followed non-consciously, with a focus on the outcome of the rules rather than following the rules themselves.

Science could never prove or falsify the actions of a skybeast, so it's something that may or may not be happening, but doesn't have weight in the discussion.

And once again the derogatory portrayal of a God as some being in the "sky" rather than some fundamental part of every being in the universe (something along the lines of energy, which you of course are comfortable perceiving as a non-conscious reactionary/causal force).

Energy IS non-conscious - it absolutely ALWAYS behaves in exactly predictable ways, which is pretty much the defining feature of non-conscious systems.

If there is no detectable difference between energy that is non-conscious, and energy that is conscious, then it is futile and silly speculation to suggest that energy is conscious (or indeed, that it has any other undetectable qualities).

If there IS a detectable difference - if you have an observation that is inexplicable other than by accepting that energy is conscious - then please provide it.

My hope is that you will actually demonstrate something that is useful and important. My prediction is that, rather than providing evidence, you will provide speculation, hand-waving and woo. I am used to disappointment; every one of the millions of people who have tried to demonstrate a universal consciousness have failed so far.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Yeah. It's not like there is something called "energy" that follows specific patterns of behaviors (like we do when we follow the axioms of mathematics), that sustains us, responds to us, etc.

Responds to us? A little fanciful. If we change the conditions, we can get some energies to behave in predictable ways.

Including the pressure to believe in a base cause. Even physics looks for a fundamental reality- positing a non-conscious base to reality will probably cause you to miss the truth entirely.

Not entirely.
We still have physical matter and energy and the rules by which they behave. If there's an additional reality beyond that, which doesn't help or hinder our understanding of the behavior, then we aren't really missing a truth. Just flavoring.

The only provable non conscious "forces" that we have knowledge of are the rules of mathematics, and other "rules" that we follow, which result in specific outcomes when followed, no matter what consciousness follows these rules. However, behind the following of these specific rules is a consciousness, even if the rules are followed non-consciously, with a focus on the outcome of the rules rather than following the rules themselves.

If you feel better believing that, more power to you.
Just don't pretend that preaching it resembles evidence for it.

And once again the derogatory portrayal of a God as some being in the "sky" rather than some fundamental part of every being in the universe (something along the lines of energy, which you of course are comfortable perceiving as a non-conscious reactionary/causal force).

Okay.
I respond predictably to invocations of woo. Unsupported attributions of unnecessary agency.

 

[Kharakov]

Responds to us? A little fanciful. If we change the conditions, we can get some energies to behave in predictable ways.

Wow. So you don't think the living energy of the universe responds to you? You think you control it, rather than interact with it?

Including the pressure to believe in a base cause. Even physics looks for a fundamental reality- positing a non-conscious base to reality will probably cause you to miss the truth entirely.

Not entirely.
We still have physical matter and energy and the rules by which they behave. If there's an additional reality beyond that, which doesn't help or hinder our understanding of the behavior, then we aren't really missing a truth. Just flavoring.

That's one way of looking at it However, if there is an additional reality beyond or behind the physical laws that bind you, and you don't know it, you are missing a truth.

The only provable non conscious "forces" that we have knowledge of are the rules of mathematics, and other "rules" that we follow, which result in specific outcomes when followed, no matter what consciousness follows these rules. However, behind the following of these specific rules is a consciousness, even if the rules are followed non-consciously, with a focus on the outcome of the rules rather than following the rules themselves.

If you feel better believing that, more power to you.
Just don't pretend that preaching it resembles evidence for it.

Umm, that the only provably non-conscious "forces" in the universe are rules? That's a universal truth. In fact, we might need to make a thread about that. Philosophy? Don't know exactly where to bring that up. Might be interesting. There is the possibility that I might only have about 3 more days here before I'm away indefinitely (not that you'll miss me).

Okay.
I respond predictably to invocations of woo. Unsupported attributions of unnecessary agency.

Well, lets call it "predictable to invocations of things contrary to your beliefs". It's unnecessary to attribute Blizzard North's employees with the creation of the rules and laws that bind the Diablo universe, you don't have to attribute anything to them in order to enjoy the game. But honestly, if you like the game, when you meet the developers, and you have an inkling of the effort that goes into designing a good piece of work, you might feel something.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Wow. So you don't think the living energy of the universe responds to you?

What the fuck is the 'living energy of the universe' supposed to be? I mean, as opposed to any other energy sources?

That's one way of looking at it However, if there is an additional reality beyond or behind the physical laws that bind you, and you don't know it, you are missing a truth.

Yeah. If.
When 'if' becomes a bit more likely, lemme know. The appeal to 'possibly' isn't terribly compelling.

 

[Kharakov]

What the fuck is the 'living energy of the universe' supposed to be? I mean, as opposed to any other energy sources?

Well... it's a slightly foofoo way of referring to energy, might be a little to soft a way to refer to energy in certain company. Anyway, energy is alive. And some people act like it isn't. Which is weird.

 

[Keith&Co.]

What the fuck is the 'living energy of the universe' supposed to be? I mean, as opposed to any other energy sources?

Well... it's a slightly foofoo way of referring to energy, might be a little to soft a way to refer to energy in certain company. Anyway, energy is alive. And some people act like it isn't. Which is weird.

I would have said that life is a certain way of using energy.

But still, the question remains: What is 'living energy of the universe?' Reiterating the phrase doesn't explain it.

 

[Kharakov]

What the fuck is the 'living energy of the universe' supposed to be? I mean, as opposed to any other energy sources?

Well... it's a slightly foofoo way of referring to energy, might be a little to soft a way to refer to energy in certain company. Anyway, energy is alive. And some people act like it isn't. Which is weird.

I would have said that life is a certain way of using energy.

But still, the question remains: What is 'living energy of the universe?' Reiterating the phrase doesn't explain it.

Energy is life. Getting down to a tautology it would seem. Energy is life- it changes, alters, forms, shapes, moves, lives, etc.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Energy is life.

Still repeating yourself.
Life requires energy. But not all energy is life.
Mighty few life forms in the heat of magma.
They always taught me that gamma radiation is inimical to life. Well, not inimical. Navy teaching was more along the lines of 'gamma bad!'

Getting down to a tautology it would seem.

'Tautology' does not mean 'i can't say it any other way.'
Maybe you're fixating.
Can you offer examples? I mean, i hate to define things by examples ,but maybe that would help us move towards identifying what you mean.
DO you really mean that ALL energy is a life form, or just certain energies are 'the living energy of the universe?'

Energy is life- it changes, alters, forms, shapes, moves, lives, etc.

Energy is life because energy lives?
Is that one of the primary characteristics in defining what 'life' is? That it lives?
That's useful. Did the psychic overlords tell you to say that?

I thought one of the key points of most definitions of 'life' is the ability to procreate.
But the laws of thermodynamics would preclude energy from being a life form, because we can only lose energy.

 

[Kharakov]

Life requires energy. But not all energy is life.
Mighty few life forms in the heat of magma.
They always taught me that gamma radiation is inimical to life. Well, not inimical. Navy teaching was more along the lines of 'gamma bad!'

Tarzan and Tonto don't mind it, Mr. Frankenstein. But I'm just a caveman, your world frightens and confuses me, sometimes the honking horns of your traffic make me want to get out of my BMW.....

You're making the assumption that there is no conscious perception of energy at other scales of existence. Why do you assume something, such as a black hole, or a Proton, does not experience life? We feel, but other forms of matter and energy do not? They react to one another, they build structures (such as us), structures that build other structures. It's all pretty awesome, but you can look at it as a dead universe, and be completely and utterly wrong.

"When matter and energy doesn't create my consciousness out of following specific rules, it is dead, yet when it follows these rules, that give me freedom to explore within the rules, I am alive, while it is still dead". I just don't see it that way- that view is very close minded, like you've some form of autism with respect to all the other forms of life in the universe. Only me! Only that which looks and behaves like me is alive! All the rest of the universe is dead. It's like you're missing out on something great, and it's right there in front of you all the time. Although, I too, am slightly autistic- I like the natural order, I like the steadyness of the universe, the tight slow dance of the stars. I like the repetitive structures, that can be built into greater structures. And I'm fine with them interacting and changing the structures I build. The ancestors are with us, and in us, and it is ignorance to deny their life, which we share with them.

Can you offer examples? I mean, i hate to define things by examples ,but maybe that would help us move towards identifying what you mean.

Well, energy is exchanged by all forms of matter. Ok. Have someone who keeps on talking to me despite me turning away to the computer. Pretty loud. So it's hard to think- which is a good example of the way that energy interacts. Life, in differing forms, can interfere with what other life is doing. Doesn't mean that both forms of energy (which is life) are not living.

I thought one of the key points of most definitions of 'life' is the ability to procreate.

That's a key definition of biological life, that revolves around certain complex interactions of energy (such as the interplay of our thoughts in our various conversations). In fact, it seems to me that energy has found good ways to interact with itself, although there is still a bit to be learned by certain forms of energy- the understanding that reckless overzealous action can result in interference with other forms.

But the laws of thermodynamics would preclude energy from being a life form, because we can only lose energy.

I don't get what you mean? Energy is life, this doesn't mean that it is a specific life form. The fact of the matter is this: energy could be blasting all over like in the BB, but there are also the cool structures that various life forms made of energy can make by more disciplined actions.

I wouldn't worry about energy running out... we're just forming different structures, and our minds need a little bit of pursuit to focus us in the right direction.

 

[Cobalt]

You're making the assumption that there is no conscious perception of energy at other scales of existence. Why do you assume something, such as a black hole, or a Proton, does not experience life? We feel, but other forms of matter and energy do not? They react to one another, they build structures (such as us), structures that build other structures. It's all pretty awesome, but you can look at it as a dead universe, and be completely and utterly wrong.

"When matter and energy doesn't create my consciousness out of following specific rules, it is dead, yet when it follows these rules, that give me freedom to explore within the rules, I am alive, while it is still dead". I just don't see it that way- that view is very close minded, like you've some form of autism with respect to all the other forms of life in the universe. Only me! Only that which looks and behaves like me is alive! All the rest of the universe is dead.

It sounds like you're advocating a version of the composition fallacy (or at least trying to take Keith to task for not committing said fallacy). What reason do you have to suggest that individual protons (or whatever else it is that you're trying to say) are alive or conscious?

Doesn't mean that both forms of energy (which is life) are not living.
...
I don't get what you mean? Energy is life, this doesn't mean that it is a specific life form. The fact of the matter is this: energy could be blasting all over like in the BB, but there are also the cool structures that various life forms made of energy can make by more disciplined action.

You are familiar with nested hierarchies, yes? Life is a particular sort of energy. Not all energy is life. If you do not assent to this nested hierarchy and think that all energy is life (and vice versa), why do you suppose we have different words for these concepts?

 

[Dutch_labrat]

Sounds like the old dualistic fallacy to me. Life is not a property of energy or matter, life is a process using both matter and energy but life *is* neither.

I use peanut butter sandwiches to keep alive, but I am not peanut butter sandwiches nor is the way I use them a property of peanut butter sandwiches.

Some energy is being used by life, most isn't. There is no such thing as living energy or living matter, just matter and energy that currently takes part in the life process.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Tarzan and Tonto don't mind it, Mr. Frankenstein. But I'm just a caveman, your world frightens and confuses me, sometimes the honking horns of your traffic make me want to get out of my BMW.....

I miss Phil...

You're making the assumption that there is no conscious perception of energy at other scales of existence.

No.
I'm thinking that no one's showed me a reason to think that energy itself is conscious at any scale of existence.
Is that what you mean by the 'living energy of the universe?'

Why do you assume something, such as a black hole, or a Proton, does not experience life?

Bass ackwards.
Why would i begin to assume that it experienced life?
And, sorry, what definition of 'life' would apply?

We feel, but other forms of matter and energy do not?

We're alive.
You've got to give some sort of usage of 'life' that would apply to 'other forms of matter and energy' in order to make 'black holes experience life' something other than a nonsense phrase out of fantasy or science fiction.

They react to one another, they build structures (such as us), structures that build other structures. It's all pretty awesome, but you can look at it as a dead universe, and be completely and utterly wrong.

I just really don't see a reason to even suspect that i'm wrong.

Look, people are unpredictable. The rotten little monkeys change their minds, lie, forget things, choose odd policies AND stand up to torture, share their last bite, cover for a friend, protect strangers and rape babies.
Energy behaves predictably. Not like something that's intelligent. So why pretend that it's experiencing life?

I just don't see it that way- that view is very close minded, like you've some form of autism with respect to all the other forms of life in the universe. Only me! Only that which looks and behaves like me is alive!

Yes, that's perfectly mirroring my stance. You show me bupkes for your side of the argument and claim it's not only my fault i disagree, i'm mentally crippled. That's compelling.
And kind of, you know... It's like you've got some form of autism with respect to demands for evidence of your claims....

Well, energy is exchanged by all forms of matter.

Not a definition of life.

So it's hard to think- which is a good example of the way that energy interacts.

I'm not asking for how energy interacts.
I'm asking for some example of why we'd consider a form of energy to be alive.

Life, in differing forms, can interfere with what other life is doing.

So does death. Bzzt. Fail to show that interfering is a sign of life.

I thought one of the key points of most definitions of 'life' is the ability to procreate.

That's a key definition of biological life, that revolves around certain complex interactions of energy

And you need, then, to provide a definition of non-biological life, or stop using the word 'life.'

I don't get what you mean?

I mean science says that 'life' is a quality that energy does not display. In fact, it says it can NOT display it.
You need another word.
How about WOO? That certainly fits.

I wouldn't worry about energy running out...

Worrying about entropy is about as useful as deciding what to wear to my investiture as the next Pope. It's not a worry, just a universal law.

 

[Keith&Co.]

So, all in all, Kharrie, you say that energy is alive.
Not in accordance with any definition of the word 'life,' just...it reacts and does cool things and it's so very shiny, and that's so super dreamy special to you, that it just demands the label in your mind. Because to you, only a brain-dead fool would think that this universe could be so terribly amazing and yet not be a living thing... for, you know, an unspecified form of actually 'living.'

And that's the only coherent reason you offer for why anyone else should accept that energy is alive: because YOU'RE convinced.

I gotta say, this sound a hell of a lot like the argument my Aunt Rhelia offers for why she's a Mormon. It's the only logical religion, for a given value of 'logical.'
And my uncle Dave's argument for why the Jaguars are the nation's best team. If you define 'best' completely apart from anything like a win-loss record.
And why my Dad feels that Valeria came back from the dead twice in Conan, the first movie, once dressed as a Valkyrie to save his life, and once as just a gleam in his eye just before he stabbed Thulsa Doom in the feckin' throat with the remains of his father's sword. There's no support for it, but damn, Dad's convinced. And he'd feel a lot better about me, if i'd just agree with him.

 

[Kharakov]

What reason do you have to suggest that individual protons (or whatever else it is that you're trying to say) are alive or conscious?

I'm taking the position of a conscious form of energy saying that there is no evidence, whatsoever, that another form of energy is non-conscious.

There is absolutely no evidence of non conscious energy.

Show

The other day, I talked to my one friend about this, and he said "well, every time I drop something, it follows the law of gravity". I told him: you're already quite set in your ways. You like to take a leak, have a beer and a cigarette every day when you get off work. Then you watch a certain program on Monday, another on Tuesday.... and you're 40 years old, and you still haven't completely settled into a favorite routine- you're just starting.

Protons and electrons have been around for over 13 billion years, and you say they are non-conscious because they are set in their ways? Maybe they weren't for the first 300k+ years of existence.

My thought on the matter is this: if you are over 1000 years old, and you haven't figured out a pattern of behavior that you like, you might be a redneck. Second thought: how many times in the past billion years, have the interconnected beings of the cosmos heard the exact same fucking thing about "well, they aren't conscious, because they behave in the same way all the time" or "they don't care about me, because when I complain about something and they don't immediately respond, they are assholes that don't care" or any other type of immature, childish shit that comes out of the minds of someone who is <1000 years old (or simply less mature).

Hey- maybe they finally got it right- they have learned over billions of years, ways to cause maturity at a quicker pace, without altering their basic comfortable routines.

Show

Make only minute adjustments to some very basic things, such as the path of an earth sized object that is going to travel through our solar system and disrupt the asteroid field and a few other things, causing the orbit of mars to slowly move inwards, which will eventually begin to pull the earth outwards, counterbalancing the suns increase in luminosity- yet leading to another crisis to overcome in the future, if we want to preserve our homeworld.

Of course, the death toll from the asteroids will be enough to protect those who have fear of conscious beings running the show (in other words, it will assure them that it is natural law that causes stuff, and not some very mean super scary conscious being that is slowly introducing them to eternal life).

You are familiar with nested hierarchies, yes?

Yes. Turning a statement into a question is sort of fun, no?

Life is a particular sort of energy. Not all energy is life. If you do not assent to this nested hierarchy and think that all energy is life (and vice versa), why do you suppose we have different words for these concepts?

Different words exist to describe energy (life) from different perspectives. The nested hierarchy may be a bit on the false side,

Show

although I've read a thread

Show

on string theory which described

Show

a great tapestry

Show

of interwoven yarns that formed

Show

a comfortably crafted "hi" story to introduce us to life. The judgement that we reach at maturity?

Show

We are Quilty.

When energy follows rules, such as the axioms of arithmetic, or engages in certain patterns of behavior described by natural laws, some here seem to think (or at least espouse the view) that this indicates it is not alive.

We find certain patterns of behavior that we enjoy as we mature. Yet, energy, which has been around for a scant 13 billion years longer than us (probably even a teensy bit more, you know, maybe 10^googol^googol^sideways 8 more time than us), is expected to not have found patterns of behavior that it likes to engage in?

Do those that precede us in the nesting hierarchy of beings have to completely and utterly change their actions to kowtow to our childish demands? Can you imagine a universe run by babies? Gurp gork! What do you mean they use the same word for 20 different things? How the hell are you supposed to communicate?

 

[Kharakov]

I use peanut butter sandwiches to keep alive, but I am not peanut butter sandwiches nor is the way I use them a property of peanut butter sandwiches.

Eww. I like the taste of PB, but it makes me sick when I eat it. ewww... At least it isn't apples (not that I have anything against apples, I just don't personally eat them).

 

[Kharakov]

And why my Dad feels that Valeria came back from the dead twice in Conan, the first movie, once dressed as a Valkyrie to save his life, and once as just a gleam in his eye just before he stabbed Thulsa Doom in the feckin' throat with the remains of his father's sword. There's no support for it, but damn, Dad's convinced. And he'd feel a lot better about me, if i'd just agree with him.

I find it absolutely shocking that your Dad will not change his position on this issue, no matter what you say. Shocking, I tell you.