Red Blood Cells

[Turtle]

Lamarck, computer analogies, and flouwen :)

 

Rade answered this question, convincingly IMHO, with the conclusion that the question is not useful, because it assumes inaccurate analogies about cells and DNA. I’ll add only that the heart of the analogy’s problem seems to me to be that DNA and cells aren’t people, so referring to them with “who”, and as having “needs”, is bound to be problematical.

 

 

I think this analogy hints at Lamarckism.

 

Intuitively, computer hard drives are useful not only because they contain data that “tell the computer hardware what to do”, but because they can “learn” by storing new data. Despite extensive searching for exceptions, however, somatic DNA can’t do this. More accurately, DNA is analogous to read-only-memory (ROM).

 

The idea that genes (which Lamarck didn’t, but we do know, are encoded in DNA molecules) “learn” from their organism’s experience, passing this information to their organisms children, is Lamarckism. It was a reasonable theory when introduced ca 1800, but subsequent understanding of the actual mechanics of DNA have shown it to simply be wrong – though a few hold hope that it may, in rare cases, occur, and the search for such rare occurrence continue on the fringe of biochemistry.

 

This thread has seen a vigorous discussion of genetics and physiology, but I sense that it’s drifted from HBond’s original “what if red blood cells could reproduce in the bloodstream” speculation. Even this, I suspect, is too specific – I think what’s at the heart of this speculation is the very fundamental biological question “why do all big organism have so much cell specialization?”

 

well, there is also the vigorous discussion that i introduced about what h-bond really means. i do beg to differ about your conclusion on the heart of his speculation. computer "harddrive" is a term h-bond uses a lot. his reasoning, if we are calling it that, is that god writes the original software & built the drive. he mis-abused the device in the Epigentics thread as i recall.

The DNA is the like hard drive of the cell. It contains all the data, programs and processes for the cell. But like a computer, once processes and programs are active, they can alter the contents of the hard drive, which is this case is done via epi-genetics.

 

If you were a soldier interacting in the field, one would have learned procedures for dealing with a wide range of anticipated situations. But you can't anticipate everything in that one book of procedures. Built into the DNA hard drive are the common procedures for that cell. Real time improvisation, is done with epi-genetics.

 

Sometimes the cell may need to alter the existing procedures to deal with the stress. Turning genes off via methylation, is one of the many options for adapting on the fly. This could be part of an energy saver mode. Finite resources need to be diverted, when trying to deal with an unknown stress on the fly.

 

We are being very careful to keep the two effects separate, genetic and epi-genetics, due to the philosophical wall. But I will take it one step further, can epi-genetics also be used to alter the hard drive procedures, in more than a random way? Life not only tries to adjusts to any stress in real time, but eventually adapts a routine, which we call selective advantage. Satisfying unknowns on the fly, will often lead to new things being written in the next book of procedures.

 

now bear with me as if i were writing speculative science fiction. :wink: a soldier implies a general. guess who? book of procedures? guess which one? philosophical wall? which wall would that be exactly? be careful? hide what? new things written in what book by who?

 

Though a fertile line of speculation in SF literature (the late Robert Forward’s flouwen are my favorite example of a big, intelligent animal made completely of non-specialized cells), the rule in real evolutionary biology appears to be increased cell specialization equals increased evolutionary success. Whether this must always be the case – that is, if Forward’s flouwen are pure SF fancy, or could, given the right environmental condition, actually exist – has long been a fascinating question for me.

 

at least we agree that this is not real evolutionary biology.

 

...From my read, HB would want the level of O2 in the blood in large vertebrates to serve to "tweak" the RBC nucleus in such a way that the DNA cannot replicate. If high levels of O2 in the cell environment can result in such epigenetic response in DNA, it is a hypothesis that could be tested experimentally. I will grant HB this type of "tweak", but he needs to use biological terms, not "tweak". I am not aware of any such epigenetic studies relating O2 and DNA. ...

 

i do appreciate & enjoy reading your posts as well as craig's; very informative & referenced. again, if i may get science-fictiony in the fashion of the day, the "tweak" implies a tweaker, and guess who that be? something pure is forward flouwen a'right.

 

it would on the face of it seem pretty simple for h-bond to clear up my understanding, but i'm not holding my breath...cause i'll run out of oxygen & turn blue don't ya know.

well, i hope i only stepped in the doors you fellas opened. you really ought to try a transporter. :angel:

[Turtle]

call me hot blooded, but...well...offer me a drink. :lol: anyway, i can't quite figure if you fellas just think i'm off my rock or if you think i'm spot on but would rather not discuss it.(i guess you could think i'm off my rock and not want to discuss it as well. :secret: :hihi:) :shrug: while it may be a tempest in a teapot, the cook has no clothes if i may mash some metaphors. well, maybe h-bond can best explain it.

 

An interesting application of language is lying and conning. This is where language is used to alter rational reality. Without language this is harder to do. The used car salesman who can't speak would have a very difficult time telling you about the lifetime warranty. Part of the trick is to use language to induce a positive internal feeling or intuition. It is not so much the words, but figuring out the correct words that can trigger the feelings which makes people want to believe what is not true. ...

 

 

i did not know that!!? :doh:

[HydrogenBond]

I am aware of the current thinking on life, as Rade so nicely summarized. However, the cell body of a red blood cell can survive without a nucleus. If we define life in terms of reproduction, does that mean that a sterile animal or human is not alive, simply because it does not follow the reproduction definition? Neurons don't replicate after a certain point, making them dead for most of our lives, according to the definition. Sometime evidence to the contrary requires redefining the traditions, even if that opens the doors of change. Neurons modify their hard drive, based on external input from the sensory environments, even while being dead according to the out dated definition. The underlying assumption of that definition is to put the DNA as an independent variable.

 

There is an assumption that life formed from simple replicators. This is a good theory, however, shouldn't we expect the nucleus of a RBC to demonstrate this after it is ejected? Rather than me depending on anecdotical evidence, to define the simple replicator past, I was using hard data to define the past in terms of the present.

 

From that simple data I would infer, even simple replicators needed some form of external support or they would be dead in the water. Whether the external support was the convection within hot water currents, or humans in the lab playing surrogate, the hard drive is dependent on external factors for its capability to be expressed. But an enzyme ca be a self contained entity.

 

The proper cause and effect is independent assisting the dependent. Random is not needed, quite as much, when a dependent effect has an underlying cause. Let me give an example. Say we had a simple replicator. If we make this dependent on external factors, we could create specific mutations simply by increasing the concentration of one of the monomers, beyond all the rest. In the ideal world it would like to form proper base pairs, but with too much of one monomer, predictable mistakes can occur. If we assume the DNA was independent, this looks far more random.

 

I am assuming DNA dependency, and therefore dependency on potentials internal and external to the cell body. I added replicating RBC, since based on that assumption, we have a significant external potential that will be seen by all the rest of the cells, which will cause their live cell bodies to adjust their dependent DNA.

 

If we assume the DNA is independent, and the cell body is dependent on the DNA, replicating RBC will have no impact. Rather the DNA will simply drift or spontaneously change in a random way that is unpredictable, with the unpredictability resulting in the modern arrangement due to selective advantage.

 

I am addressing the underlying assumption of the dependency of DNA vs cell body. This not creationism.

 

In previous posts, I talked about hydrogen bonding and the importance of water, which was a way to develop the logic for the cause and effect of DNA dependency. But since the unwritten assumption is based on genetic change and selective advantage; DNA independency, it all seems unnecessary and even made up.

[Rade]

Neurons don't replicate after a certain point, making them dead for most of our lives, according to the definition. Sometime evidence to the contrary requires redefining the traditions, even if that opens the doors of change

HB, I do not agree that you have provided a convincing argument that nuerons are dead, based on how the majority of biologists would define life. However you want to define it, anything alive must have two mutual potentials, (1) self-generated action that is (2) mediated (regulated) by nucleic acids. So, each neuron is very much alive because it has potential for elctro-chemical action to transmit impulse energy, plus the nucleus of the neuron (DNA, RNA) carries out protein synthesis to help with the first process. Also, there are rare cases where mitosis in neurons can be reactivated, a dead cell could not do this. So, to suggest that the way in which biologists define 'life' logically leads to a conclusion that neurons within your brain are dead, is incorrect.

 

Mature neurons are formed from stem calls during embryonic development, and during this development, some gene sections of the DNA that have potential for mitosis are repressed. This does not mean that the cells formed by these stem cells are dead. The genes for mitosis are still present, they are inactive. So, I hope you see how it is silly for you to conclude that the mature neuron is 'dead' because a small number of genes for a specific function (mitosis) are inactive.

 

There is an assumption that life formed from simple replicators. This is a good theory, however, shouldn't we expect the nucleus of a RBC to demonstrate this after it is ejected?

No we should not {edit} expect what you suggest. Your argument is based on a false premise. There is not an assumption that the first forms of cell life formed from simple replicators (that were themselves alive--your false assumption). You continue to base your thinking about origin of life on earth from either-or thinking. The most widely accepted assumption of biologists is that first cellular life formed from a mutual coexistence of what were previously two non-living entities (1) non-living entity with a bi-lipid semi permeable membrane to form an inside and outside environment (2) non-living nucleic acids (a simple type of RNA molecule). Merge the two, and the potential for life emerges in a new concept we call a "cell". LIFE IS AN EMERGENT PROPERTY OF THAT WHICH WAS PREVIOUSLY NOT LIVING. This does not mean that life arose from dead things, this would be nonsense because the concept of death must always be posterior to life. Death is absence of life. A mineral rock of quartz is not dead !

 

HB, I think what you are having a hard time understanding is that it is not required that some determined force (say a God) either (1) created the first two non living potentials (entity with membrane and simple nucleic acids), NOR is it required that (2) this determined force brought the two non living entities together in such a way that life could result as an emergent property. Both of these processes logically could occur by random chance, and there is absolutely no factual evidence to suggest that this is not exactly what happened in the past history of the earth. HB, I sense you really, really demand that this God force is required in your philosophy, which is fine, because it is philosophy.

 

From that simple data I would infer, even simple replicators needed some form of external support or they would be dead in the water.

I agree, the external support was provided by that membrane boundary of the entity into which the first nucleic acids entered believed in current theory to be RNA).

 

Whether the external support was the convection within hot water currents, or humans in the lab playing surrogate, the hard drive is dependent on external factors for its capability to be expressed.

No. The external support for the primitive RNA was not "hot water currents" in the original external environment of RNA (the ocean), but the new warm fuzzy protected external environment that the entity with a bi-lipid membrane provided.

 

The proper cause and effect is independent assisting the dependent. Random is not needed, quite as much, when a dependent effect has an underlying cause.

. Random was needed for the first membrane bound entities and RNA to meet, to allow the two to merge. The deterministic laws of physics of how molecules interact could only come into play after random movement allowed the first entities with membranes and RNA to interact. One variable is not an independent variable and the other dependent--both are independent. The interaction of two independent variables is very common in nature, this is the basic statistical probability of the origin of life.

 

Let me give an example. Say we had a simple replicator.

OK' date=' we can call this simple-RNA.

 

If we make this dependent on external factors, we could create specific mutations simply by increasing the concentration of one of the monomers, beyond all the rest.

OK, we make the simple-RNA dependent on the protective environment of the simple membrane entity. But, see, your argument makes no sense because we cannot "create" mutations by increasing the concentrations of the specific molecules that form RNA ! Your hypothesis indicates a near complete lack of {edit} understanding of how external factors could create mutations in RNA molecules. Thus, all else you state in your example is false, because your premise is false.

 

I am assuming DNA dependency' date=' and therefore dependency on potentials internal and external to the cell body.[/quote']OK, this is all well and good, but you reach this valid assumption by an invalid premise that the DNA should be able to replicate outside the internal environment of the cell body.

 

I am addressing the underlying assumption of the dependency of DNA vs cell body. This not creationism.

It is interesting that you conclude that you reject the creationist arguments for how the first forms of life came to be on earth' date=' since others (Turtle for instance) have made the argument that you have a creationist agenda. So, given that you are not a creationist HB, it can only mean you have incomplete understanding of modern genetics and evolutionary theory, which is very easy to understand because the two fields of study are very complex.

 

In previous posts, I talked about hydrogen bonding and the importance of water

Well, I know nothing about your previous posts on topic of water molecules, but you would be correct that water and hydrogen bonding are essential for life on earth. Perhaps not on other planets, but on earth, yes. What I hope you have not claimed in these other posts is that you have some new hypothesis of hydrogen bonding that differs from the quantum formalism of Linus Pauling for which he received a Nobel Prize. But PLEASE, do not reply to that topic on this biology thread about red blood cells. Begin a new thread under chemistry section of forum where you show how Pauling was incorrect concerning hydrogen bonding.

Edited January 8, 2011 by Rade

[CraigD]

More SF biology ;)

call me hot blooded, but...well...offer me a drink. :lol: anyway, i can't quite figure if you fellas just think i'm off my rock or if you think i'm spot on but would rather not discuss it.(i guess you could think i'm off my rock and not want to discuss it as well. :secret: :hihi:) :shrug: while it may be a tempest in a teapot, the cook has no clothes if i may mash some metaphors. well, maybe h-bond can best explain it.

I get your beef with Hbond, Turtle, but think you worry to much about his besmirching our scientific bonafides here at hypography. I think we can handle a bit of mysticism (IMHO, Hbond’s leaning are of a eclectic mystical, not some orthodox Christian fundamentalist, kind) in a scientific discussion, and even learn something from the experience.

 

I don’t mean you should let up your vigil and let unsupported claims slide by, just relax a bit when calling it out – be true and intense, but have fun. :)

 

... I think what’s at the heart of this speculation is the very fundamental biological question “why do all big organism have so much cell specialization?”

Not sure what you mean by "big" ?

By “big” I mean “big enough to see well without a microscope” – bugs, mice, mackerels, housecats, apes (including our own not-so-humble species), elephants, whales, etc. I should have written “animal” rather than “organism”, as there are some big, even gigantic organisms (eg: this giant Armillaria ostoyae fungus) with only moderate cell specialization in the other biological kingdoms, and I meant to refer only to organism with something recognizably like an animal circulatory system (being as this thread started on the subject of mammal RBCs).

 

The hydra has lots of cell specialization but I would not call it big.

True. It’s a one-way correlation – some very small animals have very specialized cells, but no large animals don’t have them.

 

Plainly stated, what I’m hinting at with my question, and my reference to a fictional counterexample of its premise, is that terrestrial evolution seems to have produced very versatile animals made of many kinds of specialized cells, rather than versatile animals made of a few kinds of very versatile cells. Other than “that’s just the way it’s happened” (which is no true explanation at all), I can’t begin to think of a convincing explanation for this. Why, given the many unique and fairly isolated environments on Earth, is there no animal even vaguely like Forward’s flouwen? An animal made of only a few, very versatile kinds of cells?

 

Though this is a biology, not a science fiction, thread, as I keep using them as an example, I need to provide some background on fouwen:

 

I think the flouwen of Forward would require a different type of physics, matter composed of non-specialized fundamental particles. So, no electrons and protons, up and down quarks, matter and antimatter, etc. One basic fundamental particle with potential for all force functions.

Like all of Forward’s fiction of which I’m aware, the Rocheworld series of novels, which feature the imaginary flouwen species, is hard SF set in the real universe. Though he’s explored some “extreme physics” environments – notably an ecology based on atom-less nuclear chemistry existing on the surface of a neutron star, in 1980’s Dragon’s Egg – conventional physics explanations are provided for all his imagined life forms.

 

The flouwen evolved in a roughly Earth-like environment – except for too much ammonia and too little oxygen in the air and water, humans could live there – the planet Eau. In the 2nd book of the series, Return to Rocheworld, humans and flouwen (the two species get along well) use the humans advanced tunneling array microscope to investigate flouwen microbiology. Hopefully I’m not pushing fair use too much in saving myself the effort or paraphrasing by simply quote these 3 paragraphs:

The flouwen had long known they were made of millions of small, nearly identical gel-like unit cells in the shape of a rounded dumbbell. Between the cells was a colored liquid "essence" that somehow contained their personality, since they could withdraw it during mating and form a new flouwen from the bare unit cells. The colored liquid also contained their memory, since they could pass on ideas to another flouwen by letting them have a "taste" of the liquid.

 

Using the tunneling array microscope, they were now able to see details of the molecules in the cells and the liquid. The liquid was found to consist of a thin film of interlocked carbohydrate ring molecules that were kept in sheet form by outer layers of liquid crystal material. There were twelve different types of ring molecules in the inner layer that repeated in semi-random patterns. The flouwen soon determined that there were fixed patterns in this layer that contained the genetic code. Whereas human DNA uses only four different molecules to write the genetic code, the flouwen genetic alphabet had twelve "letters" in it. The ring molecule layer also contained variable patterns that constituted the long term memory. The flouwen next determined that the liquid crystal layers, besides holding the ring molecules in sheets, and giving their bodies their distinctive bright colors, were conductive and acted as their "nerve" tissue.

 

The flouwen then used the tunnelling array microscope to determine that the outer surface of the dumbbell-shaped cellular units were found to have ring-shaped patterns impressed in them. These patterns matched the twelve basic ring-compound patterns in the liquid layer. The impressed patterns on the units acted as the template for the formation of the various enzymes needed for operation and maintenance of the interior of the unit cells and the whole flouwen body, and to make copies of the genetic code for the ring-molecule layer. During mating, the patterns on the cells are passed on to the offspring by the parents, providing the offspring with the desired multiple genetic heritage as well as a broad, but diffuse, "racial" memory.

Unearthlily weird speculative biology, to be sure, but not physically unreasonable.

[Turtle]

More SF biology ;)

 

I get your beef with Hbond, Turtle, but think you worry to much about his besmirching our scientific bonafides here at hypography. I think we can handle a bit of mysticism (IMHO, Hbond’s leaning are of a eclectic mystical, not some orthodox Christian fundamentalist, kind) in a scientific discussion, and even learn something from the experience.

 

I don’t mean you should let up your vigil and let unsupported claims slide by, just relax a bit when calling it out – be true and intense, but have fun. :)

 

quid, me anxius sum? :hihi: to be sure, i have tried to interject a little humor here but the whole of it has the same smell as the urantia business and it's just not funny. i am not saying h-bond is getting this all from urantia book, rather i am saying there is a hateful bigoted undertone that pervades his posts. breathe 2, 3, 4.... i'll leave the exact posts to a more appropriate venue should the need arise. and step 5,6,7,8.

 

 

am addressing the underlying assumption of the dependency of DNA vs cell body. This not creationism.

It is interesting that you conclude that you reject the creationist arguments for how the first forms of life came to be on earth, since others (Turtle for instance) have made the argument that you have a creationist agenda. So, given that you are not a creationist HB, it can only mean you have incomplete understanding of modern genetics and evolutionary theory, which is very easy to understand because the two fields of study are very complex.

...

Well, I know nothing about your previous posts on topic of water molecules...

 

good stuff all rade! :thumbs_up i only left quotes for where i think you have missed a bit that my vigilance has not. let me preface by saying that i have read virtually every one of h-bonds posts since he has come here, and that he is nothing special by that as i do the same for everyone here. part of the h-bonds shtick is to try force the presumption that you have read all he has wrote and it's not his fault if you haven't nor that you misunderstood it if you did. get that?

 

the other thing is that he did not say that he is not a creationist, he only said that the one or two last sentences on the cell body was not creationist. see the difference? this is what i elsewhere call a lie of ommission. in one of the creationists threads here h-bond made the statement, (paraphrase; i can of course get the exact words and context if you ask.) "when i was young i became an atheist...", but what was unsaid is that he is no longer young nor an atheist. get it? clever, eh? :doh:

 

ah yes, erhm uh...blood cells of the ancients then? well, what about the horshoe crab, which has remained virtually unchanged for 250 million years and does not have hemoglobin at all. :omg: truth is stranger than fiction.

 

Unlike humans, horseshoe crabs do not have hemoglobin in their blood, but instead use hemocyanin to carry oxygen. Because of the copper present in hemocyanin, their blood is blue. Their blood contains amebocytes, which play a role similar to white blood cells for vertebrates in defending the organism against pathogens.

[Rade]

Unearthlily weird speculative biology, to be sure, but not physically unreasonable.

Thank you. Perhaps this is what Forward had in mind as his basic cell structure for the flouwen, an intelligent tumor made of one basic cell type:

 

http://www.sciencephoto.com/images/download_lo_res.html?id=771320644

 

This is a cancer cell undergoing mitosis. Of interest is that such a structure could become fixed if there was a mutation that stopped mitosis at this stage, just before the cytoplasm divides. Cells in such a fixed state of arrested mitosis could in a SF world have the ability to unite (as a type of tumor) and as Forward described form specialized functions needed, yet themselves remain in a general state of pure dumbbell shapes.

 

So, perhaps this is the reason we do not see flouwen type life design on earth. Try to imagine a simple form of multicellular life with 64 such dumbbells united (due to a mutation in the process of mitosis), as opposed to another with 64 "normal" cells that completed mitosis. In the normal cell ball, specialization would result from the common genetic code within each cell, as we see with life on earth. However, in the state of 64 dumbbell type cell units, genes could migrate between the two round areas and randomly recombine within each of the 64 dumbbells, and no uniform genetic instructions for all 64 units would be possible. I suspect Forward consulted with a cancer researcher for his SF model of flouwen cell structure and function ? Also, I see no reason why the structure of the genetic material could not have 10 base units rather than the 4 found in DNA and RNA. One way of looking at it is to consider that we have 4 base units for DNA because that is all the informational variety needed to allow for mitosis to reach completion, produce needed amino acids, yet minimize energy needs. It is like asking, why only three quarks compose the proton and not 10 ?

[Rade]

the other thing is that he did not say that he is not a creationist, he only said that the one or two last sentences on the cell body was not creationist. see the difference?

Yes, I did, and it was the reason I decided to make the decision for him, so as to eliminate any confusion on his part. Thank you for your comments.

[HydrogenBond]

When cells undergo mitosis, the DNA is taken off-line. Without the cell body, the DNA would remain off-line. Since the DNA is off-line, during mitosis, is this an aspect of the cell cycle when the cell is dead, since the DNA is more of a passive variable dependent on other factors?

 

Forward poses the idea that the DNA, might be able to alter the cell body before it goes off-line. The cell body would then continue in its characteristic autonomous fashion, but having been modified, result in its own dumbbell shape, which could then allow the cell bodies to swap genes.

[Qfwfq]

Atheism isn't a requisite of being a scientist.

 

the other thing is that he did not say that he is not a creationist, he only said that the one or two last sentences on the cell body was not creationist. see the difference?

Darwin never said he wasn't a creationist. Well, he does mention "the creationists" as not including himself, but he really meant those who interpreted the fossil record as showing many instances of creation, for each new species. He was very balanced in making claims, back then with less evidence on hand, he did not presume to state that phyla had some common ancestry and even less there being no initial creation of the first living forms. He was so cautious to avoid conflict and concerned about impact that the notion of natural selection might have on ethics and society.

 

After the first edition of The Origin he paid greater attention to avoiding conflict and used the word creator which, of course, wasn't necessarily God; clever, eh? Here is the very last sentence, at the end of Recapitulation And Conclusion:

 

There is grandeur in this vision of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.

 

Today so many people assume he must have been burning down churches to remove the obstruction. As for ID, Darwin simply showed how Bishop Paley's argument (you can't have an eighth of an eye) is not conclusive; if the scientific method is taught properly, there's no need to go religion bashing to defend science.

[HydrogenBond]

I write in all the forum topics using a similar style. I my experience, biology gets the most defensive.

 

if the scientific method is taught properly, there's no need to go religion bashing to defend science.

 

When I was younger I was attracted to biology, since life was so interesting. What turned me off to biology was the amount of memory work. I got the impression, I was learning another language, more than learning how to understand the basic concepts of life, which would allow me to solve problems. In chemistry, I would learn the reactions of alcohols, ketones, etc. Exams would involve solving problems such as predicting the reactions of chemicals, I never saw before. I didn't need to go to the lab, but would use logic. In physics or engineering, solving problems is also taught. In biology, an exam was like a French exam, je m'appelle mitochondria.

 

My approach was to see if it is possible to make biology a problem solving science, like physics or engineering. Do more work in the head with less resources.

 

To do that my approach was to make use of the established cause and effect principles of other sciences, which already allow for problem solving capacity. For example, if i was to use the conservation of energy for a cell, this is not normal biology, but it uses a principle advanced enough to already have predictive value. Since this is not part of the standard memory block, I must be a witch. If biology was more about problem solving, this would be seen as just one of many possible ways to solve problems.

 

Evolution is a good way to catalog historical data to make it easier to memorize. But from the POV of problem solving, using evolutionary theory to predict future events, it is not at par with most science principles used by engineers and other applied scientists. It would need to be retrofitted to be made that useful. This is not creationism, but practical considerations. It is a hammer without a handle.

[Turtle]

Atheism isn't a requisite of being a scientist.

 

Darwin never said he wasn't a creationist. Well, he does mention "the creationists" as not including himself, but he really meant those who interpreted the fossil record as showing many instances of creation, for each new species. He was very balanced in making claims, back then with less evidence on hand, he did not presume to state that phyla had some common ancestry and even less there being no initial creation of the first living forms. He was so cautious to avoid conflict and concerned about impact that the notion of natural selection might have on ethics and society.

 

After the first edition of The Origin he paid greater attention to avoiding conflict and used the word creator which, of course, wasn't necessarily God; clever, eh? Here is the very last sentence, at the end of Recapitulation And Conclusion:

 

There is grandeur in this vision of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.

 

Today so many people assume he must have been burning down churches to remove the obstruction. As for ID, Darwin simply showed how Bishop Paley's argument (you can't have an eighth of an eye) is not conclusive; if the scientific method is taught properly, there's no need to go religion bashing to defend science.

 

i guess it might be religion bashing if i was going to religious sites and pulling the same stunts on them as h-bond does here, but i'm not doing that. i'm defending science from what has all the earmarks of a religious perspective & motive as well as defending our rules & integrity here. how many times have you had to caution h-bond for quoting too much from a source Q? if you all are content to let it go on, i'm content to go on calling it for what it is. :angel:

[CraigD]

When cells undergo mitosis, the DNA is taken off-line. Without the cell body, the DNA would remain off-line. Since the DNA is off-line, during mitosis, is this an aspect of the cell cycle when the cell is dead, since the DNA is more of a passive variable dependent on other factors?

What’s your source for this idea, HB? :QuestionM :Exclamati

 

During mitosis, nuclear DNA is never without a cell body. In all animal cells, the cell nucleus releases the DNA chromosomes into the cell interior, which are separated into two sister chromosomes, then enclosed in two form new nuclei on opposite sides of the dividing (cytokinetic) cell. In some plants, such as yeast, the DNA remains within the nucleus, which then splits along with the rest of the cell.

 

The cell and its DNA are not “off-line” or “dead”, in any sense meaningful to me, during mitosis or cytokinesis. Rather, if anything, I’d characterize mitosis as when the cell and its DNA are “most alive”, even though this phrase is biologically imprecise.

 

Forward poses the idea that the DNA, might be able to alter the cell body before it goes off-line. The cell body would then continue in its characteristic autonomous fashion, but having been modified, result in its own dumbbell shape, which could then allow the cell bodies to swap genes.

Though I hesitate to comment overmuch on fictional biology, since I brought it up, I’ll correct this inaccurate statement.

 

Flouwen genetic material, which consists not of the 4 DNA molecules, but of 12 carbohydrate ring molecules, is sheets between liquid crystal layers in the fluid between their dumbbell-shaped cells. These 12 molecules controls the cells by interacting with 12 “indentation” receptors on the cell surfaces, which result in the formation of various enzymes in the cells’ interiors.

 

This bizarre (and I must stress again, fictional) biochemistry is most analogous, I think, to the interaction of vertebrate lymphocytes with cell surface molecules, such as that of cytotoxic T cells, with MHC molecules of infected cells to signal the cell to “commit programmed suicide”, or of various hormones with cell surface molecules to signal activity within the cell. However, all flouwen cell activity is controlled from outside, whereas all terrestrial eukaryotic cells are controlled mainly from within, by the DNA in their cell nuclei.

[Qfwfq]

OK T but I'm still not sure it's religion you need to defend science from. I could agree more if this chap were preaching Biblical Creationism or even ID but I don't think that's the problem here.

 

My approach was to see if it is possible to make biology a problem solving science, like physics or engineering. Do more work in the head with less resources.

 

To do that my approach was to make use of the established cause and effect principles of other sciences, which already allow for problem solving capacity. For example, if i was to use the conservation of energy for a cell, this is not normal biology, but it uses a principle advanced enough to already have predictive value.

I am by no means a Biology expert but I know quite well that there are mainstream topics of this kind, which are not cast in a manner mystical nor that gets taken for religious. Perhaps taxonomy can be a PITA that makes biology less appetible to some (including me, but there's also an anecdote about types of differential equations) but you shouldn't identify the whole of biology with taxonomy. It is quite "normal" that biology makes use of chemistry and even physics. Of course biochemistry and physiology can be very comlicated, so perhaps they too meet your disfavour unless you make your own simplified (and somewhat arbritrary) version of them.

[Rade]

When I was younger I was attracted to biology, since life was so interesting. What turned me off to biology was the amount of memory work. I got the impression, I was learning another language, more than learning how to understand the basic concepts of life, which would allow me to solve problems.

HB, biology is no different from other sciences. A biologist makes a prediction (has some expectation of outcomes) each time they formulate a hypothesis. So, long ago, a biologist tested the hypothesis that the tails of mice when not used over many generations would gradually disappear from the species (it was the hot theory of the time). It was a rather simple problem to solve, they cut off the tails of mice born, generation after generation after many generations. You known the end of the story.

 

The history of the study of biology is in large part a history of observational data collected because some prediction (hypothesis) was made in response to solving a problem (attempting to understand what was previously unknown). It appears from your comment that you decided at some point in your life that the predictions being generated by biologists were not your philosophic cup of tea. Clearly it is not logical that you suggest that biologists have no interest in making predictions or testing them to see if they hold true.

 

My approach was to see if it is possible to make biology a problem solving science' date=' like physics or engineering. Do more work in the head with less resources.[/quote']This is fine, it was the approach to biology used by Aristotle. As you know, Aristotle had no modern concept of the experiment, all prediction and problem solving was from 'head work', thinking.

 

If biology was more about problem solving' date=' this would be seen as just one of many possible ways to solve problems.[/quote']But, your 'work with head' approach is accepted by biologists, it is just that they have moved on from Aristotle and understand the importance of experiment to problem solving. I think what you may not fully grasp is that some of the problems that biologists attempt to solve do not allow experiments in the test tube, in the laboratory like the chemistry you love. Sure, biologists do many such experiments, but they also must address problems where experiments are conducted in nature, or they allow nature itself to conduct the experiment. Since you like 'work in the head', try to formulate a biological experiment where the controls and experimental variables are selected by nature, not you, the biologist.

 

Evolution is a good way to catalog historical data to make it easier to memorize. But from the POV of problem solving' date=' using evolutionary theory to predict future events, it is not at par with most science principles used by engineers and other applied scientists.[/quote']This is a false statement, and indicates to me you have never read the journal Evolution http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1111/%28ISSN%291558-5646 Case in point, the entire evolutionary history of the horse and pig are now known. An evolutionary biologist working with these species can predict with near 100% certainty the future speciation events that resulted from the early forms of these present species. Not all prediction in biology begins with the present, although such prediction is widespread. For example, consider a healthy stream ecosystem. If the species that exist in the present are known, a biologist can make very accurate prediction how many will remain if you reduce oxygen levels to 5% of normal level.

 

It would need to be retrofitted to be made that useful. This is not creationism' date=' but practical considerations. It is a hammer without a handle.[/quote']Prediction that now occurs in medical genetics may someday save your life. Biological prediction does not need to be retrofitted by your approach. Practical consideration to problems in biology (having only the thinking head of the hammer) are greatly improved by attaching the handle (conduct experiment to test predictions).

[modest]

let me preface by saying that i have read virtually every one of h-bonds posts since he has come here, and that he is nothing special by that as i do the same for everyone here.

 

I've been going back and forth about whether or not 'creationism' (or 'intelligent design' or something else) is the right word. Not sure, I've looked at the post history and read a plethora of HB's posts on the topic. All I'm left thinking is that there is a problem, either religiously (or mystically) motivated or not, that has been abated very little, if at all, in five years of rational rebuttal.

 

A couple of examples:

 

 

I discussed this in another evolution and ID discussion; it has to do with the very first assumption of evolution, and why it is not possible. That first assumption has to do with the random appearance of first life...

 

...This interactive dynamics suggests the need for a logical potential that will keep trying, via natural law, until it gets over the hump to make life. Evolution is built upon a cornerstone of improbability.

 

Intelligent design in the literal religious sense goes beyond the state of the art in science. Based on what we know now, it can not be proven with existing science.

 

If we look at intelligent design in a more scientific sense as evolution having a logical predefined order, it makes more sense than random or stupid (opposite of intelligent) design...

 

If we had stupid design at work in the universe, there would be hundreds or millions of stable sub-atomic particles capable of infinite chemical pertubations which never seem to reach any sense of order. With stupid design it would be nearly impossible for life to form. With intelligent design the next step into life is a logical consequence of specific conditions and chemicals which are already predefined. If the conditions are correct it will happen.

 

The basic unit of life or the cell is an intelligent design template. It is not coincidental that all life is based on the same template. We do not have a hundred different versions of cell wanabee's. It is like water, the template is predefined, waiting for the correct conditions to appear. Once the cell does appear, variety is possible but all will be cells.

 

I believe in evolution, but not necessarily by the standard mechanisms that are currently in vogue. Here a simple observation. Red bloods cells are able to function without DNA. They are alive without needing DNA. But the DNA is not alive without the rest of the cell. Logically, the hierarchy is the alive part first and the dead part second. But most existing theories of evolution put the cart before the horse. If we put the cart before the horse we will need to add fudge factors to account for lack of logical direction. The dead part has to randomly mutate since it is dead. The default is the need for statistics to factor out all the variations in the road that can stir the cart. We need to have a way to account for the affect of potholes, the slope of the road, etc, when the cart is leading.

 

The ID approach is oversimplified, but they are intuitively putting some version of a horse before the cart. At some conceptual level, this approach is correct, although their choice of horse is not supported with science. That is the heart of the debate. Evolution currently has a conceptual problem that is hard to see since the cart before the horse is supported with science and a random fudge factor. It is fully functional even without needing logic because it is empirical. ID doesn't have this fundamental conceptual problem, but it lacks science support for the type of horse it tries to use.

 

 

It appears to me, HydrogenBond, that you show misconceptions about modern evolutionary theory. Reading over your past conversations, I see that Hypography members have made valiant attempts at correcting those misconceptions—yet, you continue to repeat them and predicate your arguments on them without addressing the criticisms or supporting your arguments.

 

I suppose it is possible that you continue to mischaracterize evolution and natural section because you continue to misunderstand it. It is also possible that Turtle is correct—that you misrepresent the theory to make a strawman of it so that you might attack it with intelligent design. It looks evident that you either have an agenda, or you are just unwilling to amend or support arguments when it comes to this topic. Either way, I think this is a problem which has certainly gone on for quite some time.

 

I don't have a solution. But, I (like Turtle), find the perpetual cycle disconcerting.

 

~modest

[HydrogenBond]

My knowledge of the correct terms and language of biology is limited. Sometimes I use the incorrect words, but this does not mean I don't understand. As an analogy, if you were talking to someone who uses a thick neighborhood jargon, just because you don't know all the terms, does not means you can't understand. Those who know the jargon may assume your lack of correct jargon means lack of understanding of basic relations.

 

Intelligent design has it own definition with a bible context. I could make up my own term, for what I mean, but I tried that before and it leads to confusion, So I defined intelligent design, in the literal sense of this compound phrase, as meaning a design for life that makes use of the intellect, in an intelligent way. It takes more intelligence to make something more efficient. However, I understand that this term is already a coined phrase, that has a biblical meaning for most. Since biology is more about observation and proper language, than practical efficiency, my version of the term will not be seen in the context of efficiency, but in the context of the bible. Applied sciences are not sticklers for language, but are more results orientated. The proof is in the pudding not the box the pudding come in.

 

An intelligent design (meaning using the intellect for higher efficiency), would include the conservation of energy. Random occurrences make use of entropy, which is a form of energy. But there are also other aspects of energy that are not based on entropy and random. An intelligent design (higher efficiency), will not exclude these in favor of only random, since this would violate energy conservation. From the point of view of energy conservation, I can see problems if evolution does not address all forms of energy.

 

The buzz term, intelligent design, in a language proper subject like biology, will be taken to mean the proper one-to-one correspondence (bible) like other biology terms. Even the conservation of energy, if attached to my term intelligent design (efficiency) is considered bible speculation. Maybe out of frustration with the language proper, I tend to treat others with an eye toward the inability for inference beyond language proper.

 

When I bring up water, I have energy conservation in mind. Yet this will be called biblical, since it is based on me using the term intelligent design at one time or another. My mind works differently in terms of priorities with results being more important than protocol. Maybe that is the line in the sand. Memory things leave my head faster than conceptual relationships, so I apologize. The book of proper biology terms is larger that most dictionaries, so I often can't find the word to convey the subtle meaning. Maybe I need a translator, so I do not offend those who prefer the proper terms.

 

I should ask the question, how is evolution, as defined (proper definition) consistent with energy conservation? Proper may not have to answer that, since the proper term evolution is not defined that way and therefore, since it is proper, it has to be correct no matter what. I get frustrated with proper perpetual motion.

 

The lipid bi-layer (hope that is the proper term), forms to minimize energy in water. Random energy is a small player compared to other forms of energy. In the case of highly conserved genes, entropy and random is a smaller player than other forms of energy. If I said RBC causing a potential, I am thinking energy conservation that goes beyond only entropy/random.